Mallaby: Do What's Expedient Not What's Right

The Wisdom Of Retreat
Three Lessons From Its Own Record Should Guide the U.S. on Lebanon

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A15

Even before the death toll spiked yesterday, the Bush administration's diplomacy on Lebanon looked like a long shot. The goal, as laid out by administration officials, is to secure a cease-fire that removes the threat that Hezbollah poses to Israel. But Hezbollah's central function is to threaten Israel; that is the purpose for which Iran and Syria sustain it. Hezbollah is unlikely to renounce its reason for existence in the course of a negotiation. And the promised international peacekeepers will be hard-pressed to contain a militia that has proved capable of resisting Israel.

If its diplomacy fails, the Bush administration will have to face the dilemma that it's now avoiding: whether to support an indefinite cease-fire that goes beyond the 48-hour suspension of airstrikes announced yesterday but does not neutralize Hezbollah. To support such an outcome would be to retreat publicly. It would boost the prestige of extremists in the Middle East and encourage Iran to defy the West over its nuclear program. Yet refusing to support an imperfect cease-fire would be a greater error, for it would involve disregarding three lessons that emerge from the administration's own record.

The first lesson is that allies do matter, and so does the global public opinion that creates, or fails to create, a political climate in which governments feel able to work with the United States. The Bush administration has at times skated past this truth, correctly believing that doing the right thing can matter more than doing the popular thing. But it has learned, slowly and painfully, that doing right gets to be impossible if your unpopularity becomes toxic. To address any major foreign policy challenge, from Iran to North Korea to Darfur, you need international backing.

In supporting the bombardment of Lebanon, the administration appears to be forgetting this lesson. It has embraced a military operation that puts pictures of bloodied civilians on the world's TV screens, harming the United States' image and disrupting vital U.S. policies. American allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, which fear Shiite militancy, have switched from criticizing Hezbollah to criticizing the U.S.-backed retaliation. American enemies are seizing the opportunity for a propaganda victory. Al-Qaeda has rushed out a new video, complete with a fresh, studio-quality backdrop. China has hinted that U.S. blocking of an anti-Israel resolution last week at the United Nations would justify Chinese resistance to U.N. action against Iran's nuclear program.

So Mr. Mallaby advocates for the spineless approach. By golly, we'll just show them our backsides and the Hizbollah problem will take care of itself. Unfortunately Mr. Mallaby, the world doesn't work that way. It is precisely because the Bush administration is shying away from attacking Damascus and Tehran that those two nations feel free to engage in "terrorist adventurism" the way they do.

If the people of Syria and Iran were forced to pay the price of their governments actions in supplying Hizbollah with anti-personnel rockets and missiles, then perhaps Basher al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would cease their unsocial behavior. It sure worked when Reagan did it to Muammar Gaddafi.

Bullies only respect strength. As far as I can tell, there has never been an exception to that truth. I have never heard of or seen a bully nation backdown as the result of their victim being really really nice to them. Never!

Perhaps it is time to play Gaddafi Duck with Bashar al-Assad. He has proven himself to be a coward at heart. It probably wouldn't take much to cow him. Mahmoud on the other hand is a psycho and therefore probably needs to be eliminated completely.

As to our so-called allies, as William Penn once said:

"Right is right, even if everyone even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."

Personally, I would rather do right though it might cost me dearly than wrong if it was free.

Why are Liberals such cowards?

You got my permission Mr. President.

Full Story: Doing What's Easy, Doing What's Wrong

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Perhaps This Kofi Needs "Creaming"

U.N. Voices 'Extreme Shock' Over Israeli Strike

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A09

NEW YORK, July 30 -- At an emergency session Sunday of the U.N. Security Council, Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to members to condemn Israel's killing of a score of adults, plus three dozen children, in the Lebanese village of Qana and to press for an immediate cease-fire.

Annan delivered some of his harshest criticism to date of Israel's 2 1/2 -week-long military offensive against Hezbollah. He blamed the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia for triggering the current round of violence, but he said that Israel's reaction has been excessive and that commanders on both sides may have committed war crimes.

"Excellencies, we must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms, and I appeal to you to do likewise," Annan told the 15-nation council. "No one disputes Israel's right to defend itself. But by its manner of doing so, it has caused, and is causing, death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale."

After hours of negotiations, the council on Sunday night issued a statement expressing "extreme shock and distress" at Israel's attack on a residential building in Qana. The statement "strongly deplores" the loss of innocent lives but stopped short of urging an immediate truce. Instead, it calls for "an end to violence" while pressing its members to "work without delay" to reach agreement on a resolution that would help bring about "a lasting settlement of the crisis."

Perhaps Mr. Annan, if you had condemned Hizbollah's self proclaimed goal of the elimination of Israel, if you had condemned in equal terms and with equal vigor the terrorist acts of the past several years, perhaps if you had acted when you ought to have rather than spent your days enriching yourself and your family at the expense of world order and peace, then your condemnations would not even have been necessary. I don't recall your having expressed "extreme shock and distress" over the rockets Hizbollah has been launching over the cities of Israel for 2 1/2 weeks.

How is it that Hizbollah managed to import 13,000 missiles and rockets under the noses of your 2,000 UN "peacekeepers" without your even having been aware? Were they too busy raping little girls to notice? Or maybe they were just too busy helping Hizbollah move the rockets to notify you. Perhaps they were just asleep and didn't hear the trucks rolling by.

Seems to me Mr. Annan you spend a lot of time attacking America, Israel, and our actions in the Middle East and very little time actually doing anything to resolve the problems. For instance, I seem to recall that you sent a UN mission into Iraq, but the first time they were attacked, you courageously pulled them out. If this is the kind of fierce courage we can expect from your UN "problem solvers" then it is just possible that they would be of more hindrance than help.

Frankly Mr. Annan, I'm glad you are in the UN because it makes the job we UN bashers have a whole lot easier. Personally, I would like to see the UN run out of the United States because you cost us taxpayers a lot of money and you accomplish very little but the besmirching of Americas image and reputation around the world, and the enriching of corrupt leaders such as yourself.

Full Story: UN Continues to be Useless

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Senator Allen Nails Opponent as Hollywood Liberal

Allen Uses an Island to Put Webb on the Spot
Republican Catches His Opponent by Surprise With a Debate Question on Hampton Roads Issue

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page B02

It's just 2,500 acres of one-time river muck.

But U.S. Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) hopes Portsmouth's Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area can help sink his Democratic opponent's chances of being elected to the Senate this year.

The man-made island, located between the James and Elizabeth rivers, consists of dredged material from Hampton Roads waterways.

Virginia and federal officials want to expand the island so they can build a new cargo terminal, which they hope will boost shipping traffic into the Port of Hampton Roads. The deep-water terminal could generate 54,000 jobs and pump an additional $1.7 billion into the state's economy, officials say.

At a debate Saturday in Hot Springs, Allen surprised challenger James Webb by asking what he thought of the island, never mentioning the planned terminal. Webb, who is making his first run at office, was forced to admit he didn't know what or where it was, causing Allen to get a chuckle out of the audience when he said, "It's in Virginia."

Hey James, you really shouldn't be running if you don't know all the issues. This is a pretty big "gotcha" considering the economic and environmental impact such a project will have in Virginia. I mean 54,000 jobs is a lot of impact in anyone's book, shouldn't have missed that one.

Perhaps Allen's people are correct, maybe you have been spending too much time with you Hollywood buddies and not enough time paying attention to Virginia politics.

Whoops there goes another Democrat, whoops there goes another Democrat, whoops there goes another Democrat plan...

Full Story: Ker-flop!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hillary's Socialist Paradise...Again

Democrats' Plan Focuses on Middle Class
Sen. Clinton Presents Domestic Agenda Featuring Tax Breaks and Tuition Help

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page A03

DENVER, July 24 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused Republicans under President Bush of economic mismanagement and favoring the rich here on Monday as she outlined a Democratic campaign agenda of tax breaks and incentives designed to make the costs of health care, college and retirement more affordable for millions of Americans.

The former first lady delivered the keynote address at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council's summer meeting, unveiling the results of the "American Dream Initiative," a year-long effort she led on behalf of the DLC to produce a domestic platform that Democrats can take to voters this fall in their bid to win control of the House and Senate.


---------snip--------

The American Dream Initiative includes proposals that DLC President Bruce Reed said would cost $450 billion to $500 billion over 10 years. He said the cost could be offset by eliminating corporate subsidies in the tax code, cutting out 100,000 unnecessary federal contractors and making a more aggressive effort to identify and collect taxes now going uncollected by the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative also calls for a return to pay-as-you-go budget rules in Washington, which means that all spending on new programs must be offset by cuts elsewhere.

The centerpiece proposal would provide additional support for college costs, with the goal of increasing the number of college graduates by 1 million a year by 2015. The proposal includes $150 billion in block grants for states to ease rising tuition costs and a consolidated tax credit for students. To qualify, states and universities would have to limit tuition increases to the rate of inflation.

Other ideas include requirements for employers to establish retirement accounts for all workers and a refundable tax credit for savers; "baby bonds" that would create a government-funded savings account of $500 for every child born in the United States; a refundable tax credit to help provide the down payment on housing; universal health care for children; and benefits for small businesses to lower the cost of providing health insurance to workers.

Mrs. Bill Clinton is complaining about fiscal discipline while suggesting the above initiative? She must be on drugs. The estimates as to the cost of the proposals she has made are laughable. A closer cost estimate would probably be closer to $2 trillion. When one estimates spending, one must include any anticipated fallout in other segments of the economy. Oh, and not that same old song of "making a more aggressive effort to identify and collect taxes now going uncollected by the Internal Revenue Service." How many times do they think we are going to buy that one?

So now we're going to spend billions of dollars to pay for students to go to college (an entitlement for the education industry), drop $500 into the bank for every child born (another entitlement for unwed and profligate mothers and families), a tax credit to provide a down payment on housing (another entitlement-notice they say "housing" not to buy a house), universal healthcare for children (another entitlement), yes if only the federal government would spend enough money, life would be wonderful for all...as I said, Hillary's socialist paradise.

Heaven forbid if we allowed the free market control the cost of college, rather than having tuition and salaries set by state governments. If student's don't go to a college or university because it is too expensive, then the school will have to alter its expense structure of fail. That's what a free market is all about. It seems as though Democrats are the only ones incapable of comprehending how a free market system works. They remain locked into the failed (proven in country after country) economics of socialism.

There is no evidence that real family incomes have stagnated or even dropped, as the Democrats keep saying. The data suggest exactly the opposite, of course for Democrats, the self-employed don't count. The fact is that the data look really good for a nation just finally recovering from the Clinton Recession.

Full Story: Hillary: Hey Big Spender...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Deception Only Tactic Available for Democrats in South

Rethinking Red States
Can Democrats Compete in the South?

Washington Post
Shailagh Murray
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A08

If you want to understand why Democrats are the minority party in Congress, look at four states: Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Kentucky. Before the 1994 elections, when Democrats still controlled both chambers, these Southern states had 24 Democratic House members and 14 Republicans. Among senators, there were five Republicans and three Democrats.

Look today. There are 24 GOP House members and 15 Democrats, and all eight senators are Republicans.

Democrats acknowledge that their prospects for regaining control are dim until they start winning elections in this region. Several of this year's races are lab experiments in this effort, with Democrats testing new types of candidates, messages and media.

They hope to underscore that they do not fit stereotypes of Democrats as cultural liberals, and they hope to win voters with a mix of economic populism and traditional values. There is talk of raising the minimum wage and creating more jobs, but usually little about abortion or gun control.

You better believe that Democrats are not going to mention abortion or gun control. For Democrats to tell the truth on those two issue is a guaranteed loser for them. The only way a Democrat has a chance to win in these states is to pretend to be something they are not. Now the specific candidates may or may not be pro-gun control and pro-abortion, that is irrelevent. The platform of the Democrat Party on which these candidates are running is pro-gun control and pro-abotion, so they must not mention those two subjects when addressing their voting public.

Lies and deceit are the Democrat Party's most effective weapons. If they actually ran on what they believed, socialism, authoritarian centralized government, control of every facet of your life, the usual Marxist-Stalinist Democrat party platform.

These guys claim that they do not fit stereotypes of Democrats as cultural liberals, but they are avoiding discussing the two most defining issues of the Democrat Party. Yeah, they are typical lying Democrats.

Full Story: Southern Democrat Lies

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Checks and Balances Are A 3-Way Street

Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed
Bar Association Panel Criticizes President's Many Challenges to Legislation

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A05

A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

The panel members described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and they urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of such statements.

"The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked."

The report seemed likely to fuel the controversy over signing statements, which Bush has used to challenge laws including a congressional ban on torture, a request for data on the USA Patriot Act, whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.

The ABA, now there's an unbiased group of Leftists if I've ever seen one. Am I supposed to be surprised that they find fault with any of the President's actions? We know from the outset that they are going to criticize any effort by this President to exercise his authority as outlined by the Constitution.

This line up of "Legal Experts" is a parade of Leftist extremists beginning with the organizer, Michael Greco. He has assembled a distinguished group of Liberals including Harold Koh, Kathleen Sullivan, Charles Ogletree, Patricia Wald, added a few questionable moderate Republicans, former Congressman Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), former FBI director William S. Sessions, former Reagan Justice Department member Bruce Feinand and named as chairman Neil Sonnet, a Miami Trial Lawyer.

Of course Mr. Sonnet and his fellow members told the press that they hope their report will not be viewed as an attack on Bush (nudge, nedge, wink, wink) and that they were "more interested in the issue rather than the particular president."

Right!

Full Story: Nothing like going to the ABA for "Objective" Views

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Presidential Signing Statements: Preserving the Balance of Powers

Legal Group Faults Bush for Ignoring Parts of Bills

By ROBERT PEAR
New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.

In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.

These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.

In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.

The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president “must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto.”

Much to the chagrin of the Times, I'm sure, as well as this extreme Left-wing group of "Legal Scholars," there is nothing unusual or remarkable on the use of the President's use of signing statements to exclude or call attention to provisions in laws passed by Congress which he feels are beyond the bounds of Congress' authority to regulate.

There is nothing new about the conflict between Congress and the President and the balance of powers between them. Periodically in our history an overzealous Congress has sought to rein in the powers of the President when they disagreed with the direction in which he was moving. Just as frequently, the Executive has strained against those reins, or simply ignored them when he felt Congress was interfering with the powers of the Presidency. These cases resolve themselves in the courts, which is as it should be.

There seems to be a belief in Congress, relatively recent in origin (probably began in the late 60's with President Nixon) that Congress was the first among equals. Aside from it's primacy in the articles of the Constitution, there is no evidence that our Founding Fathers intended that to be so. The powers of the three branches were laid out carefully so that they balanced each other thus insuring that no single branch could usurp governing authority.

For the Times to assign this ABA group anymore than passing authority or relevency merely demonstrates the extreme Left bias of the paper. No one in the real world believes that the ABA is anything but a legal hit-group for the Democrat Party.

Full Story: Restraining An Overzealous Congress

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Oh Golly Gee Another U.N. Resolution on Iran, How Droll

U.N. Resolution Would Pressure Iran

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 21, 2006; Page A13

UNITED NATIONS, July 20 -- Britain, France and Germany on Thursday introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran stop enriching or reprocessing uranium by next month or face unspecified sanctions.

The U.S.-backed resolution calls on states to prevent trade in ballistic missiles and nuclear technology to Iran. It also would require Iran to submit to more intrusive U.N. inspections than are required by the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, would be instructed to report on Iran's compliance with the resolution sometime next month.

The move comes a week after the council's five veto-wielding members -- the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain -- and Germany admonished Iran for failing to suspend its uranium-enrichment program or respond to incentives offered by global powers. They unanimously agreed in Paris on July 12 to weigh Security Council sanctions against Iran if it failed to comply with their demands.

But Russia has sought to soften the resolution introduced Thursday by calling for the elimination of crucial language that would require Iran to cease its enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel. Instead, Russia proposes that the council simply call upon Iran to do so.

Another U.N. resolution, boy that's sure to get the Iranians attention. What's this one say? "Now listen Iran, this time we really really mean it. I know that last time we said that, but this time buster you better pay attention, or else...or else...or else we're gonna pass a final, final resolution and then buddy boy you better watch out!!"

I'm sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will treat this one with the respect it deserves. He's probably running low on toilet paper and sent Kofi another requisition. It is time to rename the U.N. to the Useless Nations and send it on its way. The resolutions it passes are worthless. Witness the 17 or so they sent to Saddam prior to the U.S. invasion.

I bet the Iranians are already laughing hysterically.

Full Story: Useless Nations (I kind of like that)

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Froomkin Continues to be an Idiot Bush Basher

Bush's Choice

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 21, 2006; 12:38 PM

Presented with a crisis on the Israeli-Lebanese border in which the two pillars of his foreign policy -- fighting terror and spreading democracy -- were conspicuously at odds with each other, President Bush made it clear which pillar is dearest to his heart.

Bush is strongly supporting Israel's furious wave of attacks against Hezbollah and other targets in Lebanon, even going so far as single-handedly thwarting a humanitarian-based international consensus for a cease-fire.

But the cost to the fragile Lebanese government -- up until now, the greatest success story in Bush's push for democracy in the Middle East -- has been enormous.

"The country has been torn to shreds," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told diplomats in Beirut on Wednesday. "Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions? . . . You want to support the government of Lebanon? Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, no government can survive on the ruins of a nation."

Interestingly enough, there might have been a way for Bush to be spared such a grim choice, having to pick one pillar over another. Conceivably, at least, if Bush had opened lines of communication with Hezbollah's patrons in Syria and Iran, he might have been able to, in the president's own immortal words, " stop this shit ."

The destruction being rained on Lebanon is solely the responsibility of the Lebanese people and their Hezbollah partners. It is unfortunate that so much of the recently built up Lebanese economy is being destroyed, but for Froomkin to lay the blame at the feet of President Bush or the Israelis is as dishonest as it is stupid, that is to say, to be expected from a hack like Froomkin.

Froomkin's suggested solution..."Let's negotiate with Hezbollah." Gee what a great idea. Let's examine a little give and take here:

America/Israel: "Hezbollah we want you to stop blowing the heck out of Israel,
how can we help you to reach that decision?"

Hezbollah: "Die!"

America/Israel: "No, we understand that you are angry with us, but we
want to live in peace with you as our neighbors."

Hezbollah: "Die!"

America/Israel: "Well okay we see that you want us to make an offer, how
about if we convince Israel to back out of all territories occupied by them and
grant the Palestinians sovereignty? In addition, we'll stay out of Lebanese
politics completely. What do you say to that?

Hezbollah: "Die!"

You see what I mean? It's kind of a one sided conversation. Do you get it now Froomkin? Hezbollah has been building up their supplies of arms for 6 years-ever since Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon-in preparation for this battle. They don't want peace. They're not interested in peace, or coexisting, or playing nice, or any of the crap that idiots like you keep suggesting.

Full Story: Froomkin the Fool

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Europeans As Ever, Anxious to Flee In the Face of Danger

U.S. at Odds With Allies on Mideast Conflict
Citing Civilian Casualties, European Nations and U.N. Eager for Cease-Fire

By Robin Wright and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A17

The United States faces growing tensions with allies over its support of Israel's military campaign to cripple Hezbollah, amid calls for a cease-fire to help with the mounting humanitarian crisis.

European allies are particularly alarmed about the disproportionately high civilian death toll in Lebanon. They are also concerned that the U.S. position will increase tensions between the Islamic world and the West by fueling militants, playing into the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and adding to the problems of the U.S.-led coalition force in Iraq.

"What there needs to be now is a cessation of hostilities," U.N. Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown told reporters yesterday. "The Middle East is littered with the results of people believing there are military solutions to political problems in the region." He said civilians are "very unfairly bearing the greatest brunt of the conflict."

The fragile Lebanese government has pleaded for a cease-fire, and France has urged the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution calling for an end to hostilities, proposing political and security measures. France also has called for "humanitarian corridors" to guarantee safety for civilians fleeing areas under fire.

Might I remind our readers, this is the same Mark Malloch Brown who whined that

[The United States] "prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable...You will lose the U.N. one way or another."

No great loss says I. The U.N. has long been an ineffectual organization whose seeming sole purpose is to provide a forum for jealous nations to bash the United States for keeping them free from oppression and endeavoring to assist them in becoming civilized nations. Malloch also whined:

"Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."

This of course is the old threadbare claim that people in the "heartland" of America are rubes who cannot think for themselves, cannot evaluate world events, and are somehow less than equal to the illuminati of Europe, like Malloch himself.

Now when faced with an implaccable foe whose only interest is the total annihilation of the State of Israel and the imposition (by force if necessary) of a world-wide Islamic State (according to their own standards), Europe is crying "Surrender!" once again.

Europe has lost its soul and its way. States like Germany and France truly deserve the moniker of "Old Europe."

Full Story: Europe's "Peace At Any Cost" Policy

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Decision Time in Israel

Toll Climbs In Mideast As Fighting Rages On
As Leaders Weigh Plans, Westerners Flee Beirut

By Jonathan Finer and Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 18, 2006; Page A01

JERUSALEM, July 17 -- Israel traded heavy fire with Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon on Monday, its air and artillery attacks killing at least 38 Lebanese, many of them civilians, and Hezbollah rockets made their deepest strikes yet into the Jewish state.

Blaring air raid sirens sent Israelis dashing for concrete bomb shelters throughout the day, and thousands of people across Lebanon abandoned their homes to flee the violence. Several Western nations, including the United States, launched plans to evacuate their citizens from the battered country.

With the violence came a flurry of diplomatic efforts to bring about a cease-fire and quell the crisis. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called for deployment of multinational peacekeeping forces to southern Lebanon. U.S. officials called such a move premature, but did not reject it; Israeli officials did.

Hours after that proposal, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed that Israel would not halt its offensive on Lebanon until four conditions were met: the release of two soldiers abducted last week, the deployment of the Lebanese army along a buffer zone at the border, the withdrawal of Hezbollah fighters from that zone and the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarmament of militias such as Hezbollah, a radical Shiite Muslim group.

"There are moments in the life of a nation when it is compelled to look directly into the face of reality and say: no more. This is such a moment," Olmert told Israel's parliament in a defiant, emotional speech, his first formal address since the new violence began. "We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere."

Olmert is exactly right. It is, if you will pardon the expression, "Come to Jesus time" for the Israelis. They have tried every diplomatic means available, short of surrender, to solve the problems with the Palestinians and the Terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is now time to eliminate these groups as far as is possible.

Hezbollah and Hamas are not just enemies of Israel, they are the enemy of all who live under Western style democracies. They are the enemy of all who would practice, or not, the religion of their choice. They are the declared enemies of freedom throughout the world. As such, they need to be obliterated whereever they reside. They, like al Qaeda and other Global Jihadist Sects need to be erased from the face of the Earth. They are no different than the Nazis and Stalinists of the last century, murderers and cutthroats all.

We should be helping Israel, using every means available, to end this threat once and for all.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

MSM Still Delusional On Cause of Lost Revenue

NYT to cut paper size and close plant

Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:36 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times Co. plans to narrow the size of its flagship newspaper and close a printing plant, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs, the company said in a story posted on its Web site late on Monday.

The changes, set to take place in April 2008, include the closure of a printing plant in Edison, New Jersey. The company will sublet the plant and consolidate its regional printing facilities at a plant in Queens, the paper said.

The newspaper will be narrower by 1 1/2 inches. The redesign will result in the loss of 250 production jobs, the company said.

The New York Times said it expected the changes to result in savings of $42 million.

The narrower format, offset by some additional pages, will reduce the space the paper has for news by 5 percent, Executive Editor Bill Keller said in the article.

The Times will join a list of several other papers from The Washington Post to the Los Angeles Times that have reduced their size as they cut newsprint and other production costs and try to stem a loss of readers and advertising to the Internet and other media.

Separately, Chief Financial Officer Leonard Forman will retire in 2007 after the company names a successor, another article posted on the Times Web site said.

I love it! These Liberal bastions of bias are losing their readership as people find less biased sources for their news and they still don't understand why people are turning to the internet. If anything, the increasingly irrelevent voices of the Left which can be found on their pages are becoming more and more shrill and moving farther and farther Left.

Once more we are seeing the cost of their elitist attitudes of infallibility.
they are incapable of understanding that it is that very Left-wing bias that is driving their readership down.

It likely won't be long before the hatefull traitors like Bill Keller will be relegated to complete irrelevence, as they should be.

Full Story: Ah me, ain't life wonderful?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Bush A Plain Spoken Man...So What?

Microphone Captures Bush's Unscripted Comments at G-8

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 17, 2006; 8:50 AM

ST. PETERSBURG, July 17 -- President Bush should know that in Russia, someone is always listening. In this case, it was the rest of the world.

During a lunch with other leaders at the Group of Eight summit on Monday, Bush was caught on a live microphone talking in tough, occasionally profane terms with British Prime Minister Tony Blair about the latest conflict in the Middle East. Bush criticized the position taken by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and said he would soon send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region.

"What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over," Bush says with his mouth full as he buttered a piece of bread.

"Who, Syria?" asked Blair, standing next to the seated Bush.

"Right," Bush said. Within an hour, the remarks were broadcast on television stations, radio stations and websites around the world.

The conversation, while consistent with Bush's politer public remarks, offered a rare glimpse of the president in a less-guarded moment at a major diplomatic event, capturing his style of interaction with one of his closest allies.

I guess this is supposed to shock...someone...I don't know, the Christian Right (they don't believe in perfection). The Syrians perhaps? Like they don't know what the President thinks already?

This is the most non-story the Paleo-media has run in some time. We already know that this President, like all of those before him, is willing to use some earthy language from time to time. I haven't looked yet (but I will after publishing this) but I'll bet the moonbats over at democraticundergrounddailykos.com are having a field day over this, as if it is some great revelation.

Yep, I was right. The moonbats act as though they have never heard of an American President speaking frankly and using profane or obscene language, language I might add that they seem to have no difficulty in using themselves. The reaction of these pitiful souls is as predictable as it is hypocritical.

Full Story: Move on, move on, nothing to see here.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Post 9-11 Bipartisanship A Chimera Created by MSM

How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split

By David S. Broder and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 16, 2006; Page A01

It was the moment that was supposed to change everything. But almost five years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, American politics has reverted to many of its old habits and patterns.

The bipartisanship that appeared spontaneously in the aftermath of the attacks was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians. National security emerged not as a source of unity, but as a new fault line between the two parties, creating a set of issues that have led to bitter disagreement.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath played out in two national elections, in 2002 and 2004, as President Bush and his team skillfully used the issue of terrorism to expand Republican congressional margins and to retain the White House. And with midterm elections looming in November, Sept. 11 still resonates politically, with fears of terrorism and memories of a nation bound together in shock and sadness capable of affecting the attitudes of some voters.

But in the intervening period, the war in Iraq has assumed a far more prominent role in the political debates and in shaping what have become the negative views of Bush's presidency that have defined much of his second term.

Whether the return to national rancor and partisan conflict was avoidable or inevitable remains a topic of debate, although the evidence tilts in the direction of inevitability. The deep divisions that produced the disputed election of 2000 never disappeared and quickly reasserted themselves shortly after Sept. 11. In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation.

Get real guys, there never was any "spirit of bipartisanship" following the events of 9-11. Democrats have never gotten over the 2000 Presidential election, and at best, there was a brief strategic respite taken by Democratsunder the realization that any attacks against the President would be counter productive. That brief moratorium had nothing to do with any "spirit of bipartisanship." It lasted only as long as the Democrats thought it necessary.

Witness the efforts by President Bush to be inclusive in virtually allowing Senator Teddy "the Chauffeur" Kennedy to write the administration's education bill, euphemistically called "no child left behind" and the virtually immediate attacks by that same Senator on the Presidents policies. There was no period of grace whatsoever.

It has been the same with each naive overture by President Bush to the Democrats in Congress. Each effort by the President has been greeted with the same unfelt words of acknowledgement followed by an immediate attack by them of their surrogates in the MSM or their advocate groups like MoveOn.org or the nut-rooters from dailyKos and democraticunderground.


For Broder and Balz to assert that there has been any "spirit of bipartisanship" is as ludicrous as for them to claim to be objective providers of information, or for them to claim that the Washington Post is not one of the most pro-Democrat news organizations in America.

Full Story: Bipartisanship? When? Where?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Olmert Pursuing Precisely the Right Path

Dual Crises Test Olmert as Leader
Tactics Differ From Those of Sharon

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 15, 2006; Page A01

JERUSALEM, July 14 -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, elected just months ago on a promise to ease Israel's grip on the occupied Palestinian territories, now is fighting a two-front war on battlefields the Jewish state has occupied and abandoned before in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. The outcome will determine not only the fate of three captured Israeli soldiers and the northern Israeli towns under rocket fire, but also his own goal of defining Israel's permanent borders.

Over the past three days, Olmert has ordered one of the largest Israeli military operations in Lebanon since the 1982 invasion, bombing roads, bridges and Beirut's international airport in response to a cross-border raid by the militant group Hezbollah that resulted in eight Israeli soldiers being killed and two others captured. Coupled with Israel's operation in Gaza, Olmert's offensive has killed more than 120 people and drawn criticism from European countries that he is using disproportionate military force.

Olmert has refrained from a large-scale ground operation in Lebanon, despite continuing rocket attacks that have killed four Israeli civilians and injured scores more. In doing so, he has charted a different course from his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, the former general who engineered Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Moreover, soon after the June 25 raid by Hamas's military wing and two smaller armed Palestinian groups killed two Israeli soldiers and captured Cpl. Gilad Shalit, Olmert rejected plans for a large tank invasion into northern Gaza presented by his generals, favoring short ground incursions and airstrikes instead, Israeli officials said.

The choices underscore what Israeli officials say is Olmert's desire to wage the fight with the radical Islamic groups Hamas and Hezbollah not through major ground operations that have turned world opinion against Israel in the past, but through punitive airstrikes and artillery fire, coupled with indirect diplomacy involving Israel's allies such as the United States and countries in Europe.

By striking at the Lebanese infrastructure, and limiting his nation's response to air strikes and artillery fire (combined with a limited incursion into Lebanese territory) he is putting the onus of controlling Hezbollah back where it belongs, on the Lebanese people. The solution to this crisis is very simple, the Lebanese people need to take back control nation and if they can't, then only then should Israel attack in force.

This crisis and the troubles in Gaza are the fault of the residents who voted to empower these terrorist organizations. Until the Islamists cease their war against Israel once and for all, until they fully acknowledge the right of the nation of Israel to exist and respect it's borders and the rights and lives of the Israeli people, they need to understand that their choices have consequences and that those consequences can be quite severe.

Frankly, I don't care that the "civilians" are being injured or killed, because it is due to their tolerance and encouragement that the terrorist groups are able to function. Only they have the power to stop violence, by putting pressure on the terrorists.

Full Story: Only the Lebanese Can Save the Lebanese

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hezbollah/Hamas Bear Blame for Current Violence

Bush Blames Hezbollah for Mideast Violence

By TOM RAUM
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 15, 2006; 7:16 AM

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia -- President Bush on Saturday blamed the Islamic militant group Hezbollah and a compliant Syria for the escalating violence in the Middle East, taking a sharper stance than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Bush held Israel blameless while Putin was also critical of Israel's military response.

"The best way to stop the violence is for Hezbollah to lay down its arms and to stop attacking. And therefore I call upon Syria to exert influence over Hezbollah," Bush said about the flare-up that could overshadow this weekend's meeting of world powers.

Bush blamed Hezbollah's rocket attacks at Israel from its base in southern Lebanon, and the militant group's capture of two Israeli soldiers for triggering the fierce fighting. Putin agreed it was unacceptable for Hezbollah to try to achieve its goal by using force and abductions.

Mr. Raum, you say this like is is some sort of surprising conclusion. We need to remember here that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, as is Hamas. The problem with having terrorists in controll of your government is theat they are...well...terrorists. Israel is pursuing the only reasonable course in dealing with this situation. What those on the Left seem incapable of comprehending, no matter how often it is proven true, is that the enemies of freedom see compromise as weakness. When dealing with people like Hamas or Hezbollah, one must deal from a position of strength and a show of force is the only strength they seem capable of understanding.

Unless those Muslims who continue to claim Islam as a religion of peace stand up to these monsters who have (according to them) co-opted their religion, we are rapidly approaching the point at which the rest of the world, for their own protection, will have to declare Islamists as an enemy of freedom just as we did Nazism 60 years ago.

Cowering in your basement and complaining that the U.S. or Israel is blowing your nation to bits in response to these continued attacks by terrorists is not going to cut it. If the "Peace-loving" Muslims don't like what Israel is currently doing, let them stand up and make the forces of evil like Hezbollah and Hamas to stand down. If they are to be believed, they far outnumber the terrorists. So let them demonstrate some courage.

Full Story: No Peace with Hezbollah

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Froomkin Just Another Delusional Liberal Flake

Another Stab at the Truth

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 14, 2006; 1:26 PM

There are some hugely important aspects of the Bush presidency that remain insufficiently examined, and the most important are about the run-up to war in Iraq.

Polls show that a majority of Americans believe President Bush and his associates intentionally misled the public in making their case for war. It's a terribly serious charge, if true. In fact, it's hard to imagine a more serious charge against a president.

But is it true?

Did Bush, Vice President Cheney and others know the intelligence they were citing wasn't reliable? Did they purposefully understate the considerable doubts within the intelligence community? Did they consciously exaggerate the extent of the findings?

And after the war, when critics began to emerge, why were they so obsessed with discrediting anyone who suggested as much, rather than just responding with a factual defense?

With a few partial exceptions , the media has proven itself unable to answer these questions definitively.

There were once two promising official lines of inquiry. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, by all accounts, has collected a considerable amount of related information in the process of investigating the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity during a White House drive to discredit her husband.

But it looks as though he's not going to make public most of what he's found out, apparently having decided to limit himself to a narrowly defined obstruction-of-justice case against former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby.

Danny Boy you wouldn't know the truth if it was a 2X4 hitting you across the face (not a bad image to fantasize about). Your editorial is just another example of a Liberal wallowing his own imaginings and mistaking them for the truth. Since when is taking your opponents claims apart in a factual manner being

"obsessed with discrediting anyone who suggested as much, rather than just responding with a factual defense?"

I have seen no obsession other than that of the Bush-haters of the extreme left, such as yourself, with trying to destroy or discredit President Bush by any means. Your obsession with President Bush has been so obsessive as to approach pathological dimensions. To fools like you and your cheerleaders at sites like democraticunderground.com President Bush has become the cause of all the ills of the Earth.

As I have come to expect from the pages of the rapidly dying Washington Post, your posts have more in common with DNC propaganda than they do with covering the news. Your article today is nothing more than a thinly veiled Democrat wish list. You have the journalistic integrity of a Cold War Era Pravda publisher.

Full Story: Froomkin's Democrat Propaganda

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Plame/Wilson Lawsuit Transparent Democrat Ploy

Vice President Sued by Plame And Husband
Ex-CIA Officer Alleges Leak Of Her Name Was Retaliatory

By Eric M. Weiss and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 14, 2006; Page A03

Former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, filed a lawsuit yesterday against Vice President Cheney, presidential adviser Karl Rove and former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, accusing the three of violating their constitutional rights in retaliation for Wilson's criticism of President Bush.

Plame and Wilson say that, after Wilson accused Bush of twisting intelligence about Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Cheney, Rove and Libby conspired to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against the plaintiffs that included, among other things, disclosing to members of the press Plaintiff Valerie Plame Wilson's classified CIA employment."

Plame and Wilson ask for unspecified monetary compensation for what they described as a "gross invasion of privacy" that could jeopardize the safety of their children and target Plame for retribution by enemies of the United States. They also allege that the incident has impaired their professional opportunities. Plame has since retired from the agency.

The White House declined to comment on the suit, as did the vice president's office. Plame, Wilson and their attorneys declined to comment yesterday, saying they will answer questions at a news conference scheduled for 10 a.m. today.

This lawsuit is the most transparent of political stunts planned by the Democrat party in concert with the Plames. Wilson's need to spark some interest in his dead career was the sole source and cause of this entire comedy. Both Plame and her husband Joe Wilson are hardcore Democrats and are closely coordinating their efforts with the Democrat leadership.

They have no evidence let alone proof that anyone inside or outside the administration set out to intentionally discredit or destroy their careers...er..her career (he doesn't have one except as hanger on and official whiner of the Left). They know that this lawsuit is going nowhere, it is simply a further attempt by the Democrat Party and their surrogates to embarass and harass the President and Vice-President and to distract from the fact that the Democrats have no plan, and have absolutely no idea of how to run this country (except into the ground)or how to solve the nation's problems.

The Democrats are reducing themselves further down the road to irrelevence and absurdity. They have become a parody of their former party.

Full Story: Democrats Screaming for Attention

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Milbank Is Always Wrong.

It's Bush's Way or the Highway on Guantanamo Bay

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A02

As Congress opened hearings yesterday on the treatment of terrorism detainees, the Bush administration's view was neatly summarized by Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department lawyer serving as lead witness. "The president," Bradbury said, "is always right."

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court rebuked the administration by rejecting military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and forcing President Bush to get approval from Congress. But the officials who came before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday -- Bradbury and Pentagon lawyer Daniel Dell'Orto -- were unrepentant.

"Surprising and disappointing . . . without historical analogue" was Bradbury's view of the high court's ruling on the Hamdan case.

Rather than regard it as a defeat, Bradbury said it presents Bush with an "opportunity to work together" with Congress.

The ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy (Vt.), fished for any admission that the administration's legal view had been wrong. Bradbury retorted: "It was completely reasonable."

When Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested a framework for future tribunals, Dell'Orto cut him down. "I have many concerns about taking that approach," he said.

The witnesses were even dismissive of the new Pentagon memo applying the Geneva Conventions to all detainees for the first time. "It doesn't indicate a shift in policy," Dell'Orto said.

And in a veiled warning, Bradbury told Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) that Bush still didn't need Congress. "The court did leave open the theoretical possibility that the president could come back on his own," he said.

Why is it that someone who allegedly makes his living from writing doesn't even know the definitions of the words he uses? Hey Dana, for your edification and enlightenment, I give you the following definition pulled from the pages of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.

"re-buke, n. a sharp repremand; a chiding; reproof for faults; reprehension."

That varies quite a bit from the ruling produced by the SCOTUS in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The "witnesses" were exactly correct. Additionally, to anyone with half a brain (whoops Dana, I'm afraid that leaves you out of the picture) who read the complete ruling it was patently obvious, as Justice Scalia stated, that the court was in violation of its jurisdiction. Congress had clearly intended for the SCOTUS to be out of the loop in cases such as Hamdan.

I suggest you go back to crayons and coloring books and leave the thinking to us adults.

Full Story: Administration "Unrepentant" Over Hamdan Case

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cut Federal Taxes, Raise Federal Revenues...It's not rocket science.

White House Lowers '06 Deficit Estimate
Bush Says Tax Cuts Helping Economy

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page D01

The Bush administration yesterday lowered its estimate of this year's federal budget deficit to $296 billion -- a figure that prompted the White House to claim vindication for its tax cuts, and Democrats to issue new denunciations of the nation's fiscal problems.

In its midyear report on the budget, the administration projected that tax revenue will increase 11 percent in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That is "much better than we had projected, and it's helping us cut the budget deficit," President Bush said in a White House ceremony to release the report, which is usually a low-key midsummer event. So instead of the substantial increase from last year's $318.3 billion deficit that the administration and other forecasters predicted a few months ago, the 2006 deficit will fall by 7 percent, according to the new projection.

"Tax relief is working. The economy's growing. Revenues are up. The deficit is down," Bush said.

The president and his top aides tempered their enthusiasm by acknowledging that over the next several decades, the deficit outlook will drastically worsen as the nation bears the retirement and health-care costs of the baby boom generation.

Bush hinted that he is planning to tackle the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid before the end of his second term. "It's so much easier to shove these problems down the road," he said. "We need to fix this for younger generations of Americans to come."

Hey Paul, Bush deserves credit, and tax-cuts do not require "vindication" as they have always worked to lower the deficit and raise federal revenues. Only blind committed socialists like yourself and the Democrats in Congress seem incapable of comprehending that simple fact.

Fact: Unemployment down to 4.6%, the lowest since 2000.
Fact: Federal revenues up 14.5% since last year.
Fact: GDP growing at 3.5% average annual rate for 18 consecutive quarters.

All the above at the same time we are fighting a war in Iraq, recovering from the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history, recovering from the worst national disaster to hit the United States in history, facing the highest gasoline prices in our nation's history, and while giving the American taxpayer the largest tax-cuts in 20 years (since Reagan).

The fact that Harry "the Nepotist" Reid and Nancy "the Wicked Witch of the Left" Pelosi live in denial doesn't make their wild and irrational claims true.

Full Story: Bush Continues to Win War on Deficit

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Israel Again Shows Us The Way to Handle Terrorists

Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers
7 Troops Killed as Israeli Forces Enter Lebanon to Conduct Search

By Anthony Shadid, Scott Wilson and Debbi Wilgoren
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; 9:22 AM

SIDON, Lebanon, July 12 -- The militant Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers along the Israel-Lebanon border Wednesday morning, and Israeli officials said seven more soldiers were killed after tanks and troops moved into Lebanon in response to the attack.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the abduction of the soldiers an "act of war" and said Hezbollah would pay a "heavy price," the Associated Press reported. The kidnappings follow the June 25 capture by Palestinian gunmen of an Israeli soldier in the Gaza Strip.

Israel will hold the government of Lebanon "fully responsible" for Hezbollah's actions, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said in a statement. He said the government "must act immediately and seriously to locate" the soldiers, "to prevent any harm done to them and to return them to Israel."

The Israeli forces entered Lebanon soon after the 9 a.m. abduction. At least three soldiers were killed in a blast involving one of the tanks, Israeli officials said. Preliminary reports said four other soldiers also had been killed.

In southern Lebanon, fighter jets bombed five bridges in quick succession, effectively cutting off that region from the rest of the country, civil defense officials said. At least two Lebanese civilians were killed in one of the bridge strikes, and a power plant was badly damaged.

With any luck Syria will stick their noses into this and we can knock them out while the Israelis take care of Lebanon. We will finally then have the proof of WMD's which were transported out of Iraq by the Russians just prior to our invasion.

Seems like Israel is the only nation with its spine completely in tact. Would that more Americans understood what it takes to defend and maintain our freedom in a hostile world.

The enemies of freedom understand one thing and one thing only, power. It has been demonstrated time and again that despotic governments see negotiation as weakness. It was so during Chamberlain's day, it was true during the Cold War, and it is true today. Anyone who believes it to be otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

Full Story: Go Israel! Go!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Half-bright's Mental Lapse

Albright says Iraq war biggest mistake in US history

ArabicNews.com
Iraq-USA, Politics
7/5/2006

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright today harshly criticized the Iraq war, calling it the "biggest mistake in US history."

Asked by the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper, whether the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Albright responded by saying that this is "likely the biggest wrong foreign policy decision in the history of the United States."

She pointed out that Washington did not take into account the repercussions of the Iraq war, according to the German-language transcript of Albright's interview with the Frankfurter Rundschau.

Albright made clear that America's reputation was "badly damaged, ts moral status undermined and its credibility in terms of rule of law harmed" in the wake of incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison.

The ex-US official added that America would face a hard time to restore its image as role model in the world.

Seems Ms. Albright has a short and distorted memory. I wonder what she thinks of this moment in American foreign policy:


Hey Madeleine, you think maybe this might have been a foreign policy mistake of some small import? You remember your new best buddy Kim Jung Il, don't you? You remember the really groovy deal you made with him, you know, the one in which you and Billie Boy gave away the farm, and then turned around a sold our intercontinental ballistic missile technology to the Communist Chinese? God what a horrible hypocritical beast you are.

Maybe the guilt from all of those dead people in Africa you allowed to be slaughtered has clouded your memory.

Full Story: Madeleine's Lies and Distortions

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below