About Me

Name:
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Militias Face Arrests: Maliki Stands Firm On His Word

 This should give some of us heart when it comes to the troop surge that is coming. It looks like al-Maliki is starting to pay attention to what the president has said about the continuing mission in Iraq, and has started to round-up members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army:

Facing intense pressure from the Bush administration to show progress in securing Iraq, senior Iraqi officials announced Wednesday that they had moved against the country’s most powerful Shiite militia, arresting several dozen senior members in the past few weeks.

It was the first time the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had claimed significant action against the militia, the Mahdi Army, one of the most intractable problems facing his administration. The militia’s leader, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, helped put Mr. Maliki in power, but pressure to crack down on the group has mounted as its killings in the capital have driven a wedge into efforts to keep the country together.

Although the announcement seemed timed to deflect growing scrutiny by an American administration that has grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Maliki, American officers here offered some support for the government’s claims, saying that at least half a dozen senior militia leaders had been taken into custody in recent weeks.

In perhaps the most surprising development, the Americans said, none of the members had been prematurely released, a chronic problem as this government has frequently shielded Shiite fighters.

“There was definitely a change in attitudes,” in the past three to four weeks, a senior American military officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Maliki, in a meeting with foreign journalists on Wednesday, said 400 Mahdi militiamen had been arrested “within the last few days,” according to a tape of the interview made available to The New York Times. A senior government official said later by telephone that the total number arrested was 420 and that they had been detained in 56 operations beginning in October. Several dozen senior leaders have been detained in the past several weeks, the senior official said on condition of anonymity. He said the total number of senior commanders did not exceed 100.

As Thomas and I pointed out in our latest column the president stated that the days of the Iraqi government protecting these people are over. As Thomas brusquely puts it for Iraq it is a "put up or shut up" moment. Either they will be serious about taking down the militias that continue to fuel much of the violence in Iraq, or we are packing up, and coming home.

It appears that thus far, based on the reports of these raids, that al-Maliki is taking the president seriously. And while al-Maliki may be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the Shi'ite-dominant Mahdi Army. Al-Maliki is a Shi'ite, and he is going to face intense criticism over this move. He may even face it from al-Sadr himself, but he is left with no choice. IF he truly wants peace, he must abide by what is being asked of him. The gloves are coming off, the handcuffs have been taken off, and we are going forward to finish this mission, once and for all.

Captain Ed took notice of this story and notes that instead of seeing a flare up in violence over this new strategy being executed by al-Maliki, the Mahdi fighters have slowly faded into the background. Some are trying to get out of Baghdad, and even Iraq itself. That tells us two thing. First, those wanting to get out of the country are most likely foreign fighters that came to help al-Sadr fight against the United States. Even wealthier Iraqis that were withing the Mahdi's ranks will not leave their home country.

Second, those that are choosing to stay, but leave Baghdad, are likely heading out to the other provinces to either lay low, or to start violence out there. Not exactly the smartest thing to do given that Iraqi security forces--working hand-in-hand with US forces--have firm control of the other provinces. If they start trouble out there, there will be a rude awakening for them. Little support, logiostically locked down, they will not last long in the other provinces.

The Times piece notes that one of the reasons for a lack of violent response to the crackdown is more likely tied to the fact that many of those rounded up thus far are literally criminals; undesireables that al-Sadr himself saw as a problem. He may be telling his Mahdi associates to lay low until those people are rounded up, and purged fromthe militia. But al-Sadr knows that we are not simply going to go away once we have gotten rid of the worst of the worst. Indeed, the military commanders on the ground are considering another stab at Sadr City in the northern part of Baghdad.

And such a strike could prove to be more fruitful this time around. The dfirst time we went in, the Iraqi government shielded al-Sadr. The second time we went it, he was again shielded by the government--specifically al-Maliki--and he announced he was joining the government. Drat, and double drat; it simply seemed that we could not nail him down. But that now appears to be over. We will see what really happens int he long run, but thus far it seems that al-Maliki and President Bush are finally on the same page.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The President Caves In On The NSA TSP

Captain Ed has a disturbing story that should have the president's supporters fuming. It seems that he has decided not to renew the NSA terrorist surveillance program:

The Bush administration has agreed to shift course and let a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government's controversial domestic spying program.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will have final say in approving wiretaps on communications involving people with suspected terror links, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Since Jan. 10, when the court began overseeing the program, at least one request has been approved to monitor communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.

In his letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Gonzales wrote that "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

When this progrsam was established, it was stated by the administration that they were legally circumventing the FISA court because of the court's inability to act quickly and that was simply not effective enough for the administration. NOW, the tune has changed, and the administration believes that the FISA court will work with the utmost expediency.

Let us not continue to view this through the smokescreen the administration is putting up. The president clearly does not feel that the program would still be allowed to continue under the auspice of a Democrat-controlled Congress. In other words, to end any possibility opf them possibly killing the program altogether, the president has caved in.

Captain Ed notes that when this program was started, the president repeatedly addressed the question of legality by citing the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force. And he was right to do so. With the nation at war, his powers expanded to the necessary boundaries, governed by the ecompassing national security interests. That reasoning is now notably absent from his statement regarding this program.

Now, why do I call this "disturbing?" For the simple reason that we--the president's supporters--stood on the front lines, and conducted the war of words in his stead because he refused to. We knew he was right., We knew he was justified. We knew this program was legal in every sense of the word. NOW, we have been sold out. He has kicked those of us to the curb who stood by and defended him. So, naturally, we feel slighted.

And those slights are going to continue at a fever pitch if the president continues to act as though he is a lame duck president. He is not going to help the party secure control of the White House by acting like this. He will not help us win back Congress by capitualting to what the Democrats may or may not do. He confounded the Democrats this far in his administration, and backing off of them now will only embolden them to make life more difficult for him.

This was not a smart move on his part, and the base is looking for an explanation. He had better come up with one that we can accept. His future--no, the fuiture of the party--depends on it. He cannot afford to lose the support of his base, and since the midterms, that support has been slowly dwindling.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Column Up!!

 (As always, this post will remain at the top of the page for the next 24 hours so readers can click on the links and peruse the fine conservative authors at Mr. Lindaman's site. Scroll Down For updates.)

Yes, yes. We are now three for three when it comes to the mid-month issues of Common Conservative. Our new column addresses the president's recent speech regarding his plans for Iraq.

Mr. Lindaman touches on the do-nothing Democrats that took control of Congress on the 4th.

Mr. Fiore gives his thoughts on Barack Obama, and to say that he thinks highly of the man is going too far. His point is well made; a run for second best is about the best the freshman senator can hope for.

Mr. Adkins informs us about a new Chinese product soon to be on American streets thanks to a deal with Chrysler.

Mr. Shanahan discusses the real legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Another fellow guest columnist, John Lillpop also touches on the president's speech regarding his plans for the new surge in Iraq.

Rudy Schober gives us (and hopefully the Democrats) a brief lesson on economics when it comes to their plans of raising the minimum wage.

The ongoing feud between the self-serving DC elite and Americans, in general, is the focus of Chris Adamo's new piece for the site.

Larry Simoneaux remembers the good old days, and compares them to what kids have to deal with today. WARNING: If you think the kids of today had the same problems in school as you used to have, think again.

Carey Roberts rounds out the guest writers with a piece about where the GOP went wrong when it came to the male and female vote in America.

So please, for all of our regular readers, and for those newbies that we have picked up since arriving on TownHall, check out Tom Lindaman's site. It is one of the best on the 'Net with intelligent, thoughtful, conservative writers. And we are there--almost guaranteed--each and every month.

Enjoy reading!!

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Agrees To IAEA Inspections: Opening It's Doors For Propaganda Purposes

In a surprising turn of events, Iran has agreed Iran has agreed to allow IAEA inspectors in to inspect it's nuclear facilities:

Iran has invited envoys from developing nations accredited to the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear sites in a show of openness about its atomic fuel program, diplomats said.

Washington said Iran could regain trust only by cooperating fully with U.N. investigations into the nature of the program.

The Islamic Republic has been slapped with limited U.N. sanctions over suspicions that its experimental efforts to enrich uranium are secretly geared to building atom bombs, rather than to generating electricity as it maintains.

Iran has vowed to expand into industrial-scale fuel production, but has also pledged continued compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections while trying to rally diplomatic support in its stand-off with Western powers.

Tehran has invited envoys from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of developing nations attached to the IAEA, and heads of the larger Group of 77 states and of the Arab League office in Vienna, to visit on February 2-6, an Iranian diplomat said.

"They have been invited to visit our nuclear installations from the 2nd through the 6th," the diplomat, who asked for anonymity, said on Tuesday. He did not elaborate.

A NAM envoy to the IAEA said the invitation had been accepted: "It'll be a publicity exercise for Iran -- to display transparency, saying, 'We invited the ambassadors, we're showing them the facilities'," the envoy told Reuters.

None of the big guns in the blogosphere have picked this up yet. But I'd like to note that while this looks promising, we should be skeptical. As a matter of fact, Greg Shulte--our ambassador to the IAEA sums it up best in the Reuters piece:

Gregory Schulte, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, noted that the U.N. Security Council Resolution sanctions resolution passed on December 23 requires Iran to suspend work at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant and the Arak heavy-water reactor project.

"Instead of inviting IAEA ambassadors, Iran should give ... IAEA inspectors ... access to all of those documents, nuclear facilities and individuals that Iran's leaders have refused to provide access to for the last three years," he told Reuters.

"Suspending these activities would build confidence. Showcasing them does not," Schulte said on Wednesday.

To be perfectly honest, we can't trust Iran to be completely transparent in these endeavors. I sincerely doubt that they will be open with ALL of their facilities. Call me crazy, but I just don't see them being as open as they proclaim to be. The Natanz site is believed by many to be where the majority of their enrichment is taking place. But on 11 January, the Wasington Times reported that their program seems to be stalled, and that assessment was based on a slow down in production at the Natanz plant. But int hat piece, diplomats involved with the IAEA stated:

Diplomats accredited or otherwise linked to the Vienna-based IAEA, speaking on condition of anonymity in exchange for discussing restricted information on the Iranian program, said some intelligence services believed that the Natanz site was a front.

While the world's attention is focused on Natanz, Iranian scientists and military personnel could be working on a secret enrichment program at one or more unknown sites that are much more advanced than what is going on at the declared site, they said.

So, unless Iran is opening it's doors to ALL of their sites, these inspections are simply a dog and pony show. As the Reuters piece points out, this is more about publicity than anything else. The Iranians are going to make it look like they have come clean. And when the IAEA gives them a clean bill, the rest of the world will chastise the US and her allies for ever having thought that the Iranian program was ever anything but peaceful.

I'm not buying it. I've been studying the Middle East for too long to swallow Iran's line. The international community might be bowled over by this overture, but we shouldn't be. The primary reason for this is that intelligence sources around the world--amongst our key allies--have stated that there's no way to be sure where ALL of Iran's sites are. We know of a few underground ones. Will Iran open them up, as well? I doubt it, especially if the IAEA isn't aware of them.

I firmly believe that Iran is still working towards nuclear weapons; a modern day "slouchign towards Gomorrah" scenario, if you will. They're rhetoric hasn't changed in regard to Israel or the West. We should remember what their response to the Sunday Times article about a possible Israeli strike on their facilities would produce. They vowed to unleash everything they had in retaliation for such an act.

Let them show the world what they want. I do believe this is more about publicity than anything else. Ahamdinejad isn't going to be dumb enough to show the world he's really working on a nuke. That's only going to invite more pressure from the international community. And it would invite a possible military response from either Israel or the US, and he's not going to risk that with a new carrier group sitting off the coast of Iraq; within striking distance of his facilities. No, the IAEA will go in, and come out publicly stating that Iran's program is indeed peaceful. Fine. Whatever. But I'm not going to trust it one iota.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sevan And Nadler Indicted: Extradition Sought For Both Men

 This has been a long time coming, and it's about damn time these indictments were handed down. Anyone who's been following Claudia Rosett's superb investigative reporting on the UN's Oil-For Food Scandal knows that today, an indictment in federal court was issued for Benon Sevan and Ephraim Nadler for their complicity and roles in the scandal that ripped off billions from the US and other countries, and hardly ended up where it belonged. Reuters has the news:

A former executive director of the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq and a brother-in-law of a former U.N. secretary-general have been charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud tied to the program, a U.S. federal prosecutor said on Tuesday.

Former executive director Benon Sevan, the highest ranking U.N. official to be charged in relation to the program, and Ephraim Nadler, brother-in-law of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, were named in an indictment unsealed in Manhattan federal court on Tuesday.

Michael Garcia, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement that Sevan, a Cypriot, allegedly received about $160,000 from Nadler on behalf of the Iraqi government.

Garcia said the United States had issued warrants for the arrest of Nadler and Sevan and will seek their arrest and extradition to New York.

"The allegations in this current indictment that the executive director of the very program that was created to provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people was involved in such a scheme demonstrates how pervasive the corruption was and how that corruption undermined the operation of the program," Garcia said.

Claudia adds more:

Concerning the global extravaganza of graft that was the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, Kofi Annan’s line was to blame everyone but the UN itself. “If there was a scandal,” was how he tried to spin it when asked about corruption in his own secretariat. Apparently, U.S. federal prosecutors see it differently. This morning, jointly with the Manhattan DA’s office, they announced the indictment in New York’s Southern District of Annan’s handpicked head of the former Oil-for-Food program, Benon Sevan, on charges of
bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Also charged is Ephraim Nadler (a.k.a. “Fred Nadler”), a brother-in-law of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. If that sounds like the UN might be prone to problems at the top, keep going. The web of fathers-sons-sisters-brothers-and-wives is stunning; and there is of course the mystery of the death of Benon Sevan’s pensioner aunt, whom Sevan claimed was the source of the $160,000 that the Feds allege he took in Oil-for-Food pay-offs, and who perished after falling into the elevator shaft of her Cyprus apartment block, just as Oil-for-Food investigations were taking shape in early 2004.

Sevan, who denies any wrong-doing, slipped out of New York in 2005, but has been living in plain sight on Cyprus, where I found him settled into his late aunt’s penthouse apartment when
I paid a surprise visit there last March.

This indictment comes nine years after Sevan allegedly took his first payoff on Oil-for-Food deals, and follows years in which top UN officials denied, stonewalled, dismissed and in some cases lied about the
extent of abuse within the UN itself. Billions in taxpayer dollars, as well as enormous amounts of trust, are lavished on this institution by our own government. The question today is not only whether Sevan, now facing an Interpol warrant, might decide to cooperate with the laws of the U.S., where — while working at UN headquarters in New York — he is alleged to have banked stacks of Iraq-begotten cash. The larger questions are why Annan and his top aides and advisers felt they could with impunity deflect blame from their own failings and from the UN itself, and why, apart from perhaps Sevan, they have gotten away with it.

A couple of things that I'd like to note. First, he still need to be extradited to New York. Should he actually make it back here, and his lawyers tell him that he's screwed, I'd like every effort made to keep a firearm out of his reach. The one thing that would make this trial anticlimactic is if he commits suicide. He's facing some pretty heavy charges, and they could carry some serious jailtime. (Unless, of course, a deal can be struck where we can nail Kooky Uncle Kofi in this, which would just make me absolutely giddy.) And it should go without saying that if he is brought back to New York, his passport should be confiscated.

Second, the media chose to ignore this scandal for the most part, so it's going to fall to people like Claudia to keep people abreast of the trial. I want people who are interested in this trial to pay close attention as to how the world had the wool pulled over their eyes by the crooks and liars at the UN. Maybe if we pay attention to this trial, we can demand the right reforms int he UN. Of course, I'd prefer we pull out of the organization. as far as I'm concerned, they burned up their last bit of credibility a long time ago, and the UN simply has no place in this world.

Publius II
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

La capitulation, le Style français

 Allah at Hot Air has a wonderful story up regarding our cheese-eating, surrender monkey "friends" in Europe, and how they're, well, capitulating to the Islamicists there:

Young people branded "scum" in 2005 this year offer an electoral prize, as an approaching presidential election draws politicians to France's riot-hit suburbs on the hunt for votes.

Even conservative presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy -- who dismissed angry youths as thugs -- has joined Socialist Segolene Royal in hiring rappers and actors to court young voters from France's poor neighborhoods, the 'banlieues'.

But it will take more than music to win over people in the ethnically diverse estates, where youths angry about poverty and unemployment torched thousands of cars 14 months ago.

"I'm a bit fed up with politics. Nothing's changed since the riots," said Karim Yassine, 20, hanging out with his friends on a parking lot in a bleak estate north of Paris.

"Many people here have too many personal problems. Worrying about politics is not a priority ... There's nothing here. No jobs, no perspective. All we have is that sad basketball court," he said, pointing to an empty, potholed square.

Royal has called on youngsters like Yassine to register to vote. Pro-democracy groups say more than a third of potential voters are not on electoral lists in some poor neighborhoods. Even among those who are, abstention has run as high as 50 percent in recent polls, they say.

See, everything the French seem to touch nowadays turns to garbage. Even the Islamicists can't get excited about the vote, and that speaks volumes about French politics. It really doesn't surprise me that those running for the presidency are playing games with these people. The next thing you know, one of these yay-hoos will offer them unequivocal shari'a law. I just get this feeling, deep down, that these guys will keep giving in more and more, and before too long, they're just going to hand the keys over to the Muslims there. The French will never learn.

And I wonder what the people of France--the non Muslims--think about this. After all, how would you feel if your politicians were making conciliatory moves to a group of people who rioted across the greater area of Paris in 2005, and to mark the anniversary, they went on a mini-riot, torching more cars? If I were a Frenchmen, I'd consider changing my name from "Francois" (sp) to "Frank", and move to Hoboken. The Democrats are better than French politicians. They haven't directly appealed to our enemy during an election cycle, yet.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Threat Level At Red After LA Suffers A Nuclear Detonation: No One Ever Said Jack Could Win Them All

I am still in shock. Yes, I know it is only a TV show, but when I saw the blazing headline on Drudge yesterday, and I showed it to Thomas neither one of us believed the guys behind "24" would pull the trigger on nukes this early in the season, but they did it tonight.

Yes, a mushroom cloud bloomed over LA as Jack Bauer--your hero and mine--failed to stop the first detonation. I say the first because the terrorists alluded to the possibility of four more going off in the same day. This just goes to show that the good guys do not always win.

We also got to see a more human side of Jack tonight as he was forced to kill a fellow CTU member threatening to kill a former terrorist over his past misdeeds. Unfortunately for Jack, the country does still need him despite his comments to the contrary to Buchanan.

We cannot wait for the next episode two weeks from last night. We will be tuned in. Will you?

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bauer And Bush: Not Necessarily In That Order For Appearances

It was a red-letter night for us last night. For the first time is my memory, we actually watched over two hours of TV. Of course we joined the rest of this crazy nation in welcoming Jack Bauer back from his Chinese vacation in nutso torture land. (Danger Will Robinson--Those links contain spoilers.) That's for those who wanted to tape or TiVo last night and tonight's episodes BEFORE watching them altogether. All I will say is "Great Gazoo!" Jack, despite being tortured at the hands of the Chinese, still knows how to get the job done. That is what we need. We needa CTU with 1000 Jack Bauer clones. (Of course, that would mean that we would need at least that many Chloe's too. Which reminds me, are those two ever going to hook-up?)

The other thing we watched last night was the president's interview with 60 Minutes, which, as Allah notes, really antagonized the Left. So smug and sure of himself. That's our president! We also caught what Allah did regarding the surge. The president says that he can do it, and Congress cannot do a darn thing to stop him. That is partially true, as my astute hubby noted last night. They only need to go back, and put a freeze on the troop levels, basically amending the original AUMF. The problem, they both state, is that you need sixty votes to accomplish that, and good luck getting nine Republicans to cross the aisle.

If Harry Reid were holding his breath for John McCain to take that step, he might be holding it a tad longer. And with Mitch McConnell leading the Senate now, the GOP wil go into a true filibuster to prevent such a move. Bring in the cots and mattresses, boys; we will be staying awhile.

The one thing that caught both of our attentions was the fact the president hedged on naming al-Sadr an enemy of the Iraqi government. To be precise, he almost made it sound like if we leave him along, al-Sadr will leave us alone. If he truly thinks that, he and Harry will be holding their collective breaths for a very long time. Al-Sadr hates our presence there because we keep mucking up his plans. We have been saying it for months, and we wish the president would take the advice--smoke him and be done with it.

The other thing that bothered me, at least, was how he described himself. " a" flexible, open-minded person." Yes, I am that way as well. I am very flexible. (You boys in the back, stop your snickering.) And I am open minded. But when this nation goes to war, therte should be a single goal: We fight and win. We worry about the clean-up later. But you remove the enemy's capacity to fight, and if necessary, their capacity to breathe FIRST. We have not done that entirely in Iraq, and we have paid the price for it.

In addition, if the neighbor cannot keep his dog off of the lawns of others, you do not complain to the neighbor, or the block watch group. Yoiu take a rolled-up newspaper to the mutt, and teach iot to stay in it's own yard. And we are stiull waiting for the president to take out that newspaper, and smack some of Iran's mutts with it. (Make sure you use a Sunday edition, Mr. President. It will leave a lasting impression.)

While the interview with the president was all right--definitely not something to write home to mom about--it was made up by a riveting two-hour season premiere of "24." And tonight's episode looks even better than last night's. We will be tuned in again, which will bring our total TV watching time this week up to four-plus hours. The only reason for this anamoly is because the brilliant minds behind "24" decided that they had to propel us to the backs of our seats with the first four hours right now. Had they simply given us the first hour, or two, we would be right on par with our regular amount of TV watching.

Oh yes, I should close with some wit from Lileks' post about "24" last night, and it makes perfect sense to a loon like myself:

... Terrorists never learn. Don’t start the day by hijacking 14 planes as a diversion from your real plan to introduce bubonic plague into the ventilation systems of the schools which is merely the first step of a three-pronged attack, which culminates in an EMP over Chicago after you’ve blown up Hoover Dam. Pick one thing and stick to it, guys. The preliminaries may be fun to plan, but all you’re going to do is make Jack Bauer mad. And when he’s mad he shoots people in the leg before he can even think of a question to shout. Seriously. He usually covers well, but one of these days he’s going to put a round in someone’s kneecap, and yell WHO PUT THE RAM IN THE RAMA-LAMA DING DONG? TELL ME! Because that’s the first thing that came to his mind.

Heh. Indeed.

Marcie


ADDENDUM: For all the "24" fans out there, if you have not already discovered it, there is a Wikipedia portal for the show 24 just for people like us that wanted to know as much about the show as possible, but were afraid to ask. (And mostly because we dislike being classified as "geeks" for our devotion to an outstanding bit of TV drama.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm Never Comfortable With Our Negotiations With The Palestinians

 I am on my way out the door right now, but I couldn;t help but notice this from Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed on Monday to hold a three-way summit with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on reviving peace talks, Israeli media reported.

The reports did not say when the summit would take place or where. Rice met Olmert in Jerusalem one day after the top U.S. diplomat, meeting with Abbas, promised a bigger American push toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Rice has been pressing Olmert to take steps that could help bolster Abbas of Fatah in his power struggle with Hamas Islamists who control the government. ...

... During Rice's meeting with Olmert, she was expected to press the Israeli leader to fulfil pledges made at that meeting to remove roadblocks in the West Bank and release $100 million in withheld Palestinian tax funds to Abbas.

Olmert has promised to make take more sweeping steps if the Palestinian government, led by Hamas since March, agreed to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by interim peace deals.

Israeli and Palestinian officials said Rice's visit, her eighth to the region during her two years as secretary of state, was meant to test the waters for a more concerted peace push in the coming months. ...

... But Rice offered no details in public about her future plans. She has shied away from high-speed Middle East diplomacy in the past.

Israeli officials said Washington was exploring several options including the creation of a Palestinian state with temporary borders, an idea proposed in a U.S.-backed peace plan known as the "road map" but repeatedly rejected by Abbas.

While the idea of a peace plan is a nice idea, and Lord knows Israel could use it, I'm skepitical. Knowing what I know of Abbas AKA Abu Mazen, who helped found Fatah. That group was behind the 1972 Olympic massacre of 11 Israeli athletes. So, forgive me if I don;'t have a lot of faith in Abbas, and his overtures of peace.

Israel and the Palestinians could have peace if there was something that linked the two together, but as yet there's nothing. And Abbas's inability to reign in the other organizations operating in Gaza shows that there's no real desire for peace. I hate to call things that way, but it's how I see it. The Palestinians haven't ever tried to truly reign in those that want to keep up the last intifada issued by Arafat before his death, and Abbas never recalled that order. Until I start to see some give on the part of Abbas, I can't believe that his peace overtures to the media are real.

And for those who'd like to comment here, and are intent on bringing up the disputed past, I don't want to hear it. I don't want to read it. THAT is something that needs to be set aside if there's to be any real gestures towards peace. The Palestinians will claim this. The Israelis will claim that. Before we know it, we'll be back to Biblical times. ENOUGH! Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and right on down the list, the Israelis has tried to make peace since the pressure on them to do so has been lodged. Carter--for all his faults--at least accomplished the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. They also have a treaty with Jordan. It's not like they won't do their best to abide by the treaties they agree to.

As of right now, as Reuters points out, it's been Abbas, and by default, the Palestinians that have been reluctant to give the peace plan a chance. The one thing I dislike about this deal is State's acting as an intermediary. The Palestinians, with all the terror groups operating under their umbrella, is just as much an enemy of the US as al Qaeda is; as Iran is. Yet, we're playing games with them. We believe in someone who has portrayed himself as a reformer, and I've yet to see anything that can back up that belief. Personally, I think we're wasting our time on this.

Like I said, it'd be nice to see peace over there, but with the current leadership over there, I doubt it'll happen. Olmert is too much of a dove, in OUR eyes; Abbas just hasn't sent the signs he;s serious for peace. To continue pushing this idea is in vain, and it sends the wrong message to the world. WE claim we're not willing to negotiate with terrorist groups. Fatah is a group connected to designated terrorist groups by State, yet we're talking with them. That doesn't send the right message to the world, especially when it comes to the war.A terrorist is a terrorist, and they're all enemies of the United States--regardless of their national affiliation.

I want to see more out of Abbas. Olmert's offered more than his fair share, and Abbas won;t match it. For both sides to succeed, there has to be a common ground, but there also has to be some give and take. Olmert's given all he can afford. He's all in. It'd be nice to see Abbas at least try to match the stakes. Right now, he seems to be complaining about the ante.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Mr. Chait, We Can't Let The Doves Win This Debate

Normally on Sundays, you don't see Marcie or I unless Sabrina is unable to blog. But as the "editor-in-chief" of Running The Gauntlet, and formerly of The Asylum, I feel a certain obligation in addressing an op-ed penned by Johnathan Chait and pointed out by Allah at Hot Air. Now, our readers know that I, personaly, am not to fond of Mr. Chait. He's on the Left. I'm on the Right, and we rarely see eye-to-eye on things. But his op-ed today makes a good point:

I DON'T WANT to accuse American doves of rooting for the United States to lose in Iraq because I know they love their country and understand the dire consequences of defeat. But the urge to gloat is powerful, and some of them do seem to be having a grand time in the wake of being vindicated.

Radar magazine recently published an article bemoaning the fact that pro-war liberal pundits have not been drummed out of the profession for their error. In it, lefty foreign policy guru Jonathan Schell sniffs, "There doesn't seem to be a rush to find the people who were right about Iraq and install them in the mainstream media."

Being right about something is a fairly novel experience for Schell, and he's obviously enjoying it immensely. But before we genuflect to Schell's wisdom, it's worth recalling that his own record of prognostication is not exactly perfect. After the 9/11 attacks, Schell railed against attacking the Taliban, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden and much of the Al Qaeda hierarchy. "A military strike against the Taliban or any other regime is full of perils that … are far greater than the dangers we already face," he warned. For instance, he wrote, "millions of Afghans could starve to death this winter," Pakistan's government could be overthrown, etc.

Yep. So many pundits and members of the MSM predicted dire consequences for our troops with an invasion of Afghanistan. Within a week of being on the ground, people like former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Vice President Cheney were asked if we were in a "quagmire?" They were asked if we were worried about losing to a group of people who successfully fought against, and drove the Soviets from their nation. Of course, the media frenzy over our "quagmire" failed to recall that we had helped the mujahadeen against the Soviets. This time, we weren't going to be helping our enemies. But, I digress ...

Or go back to the last war we fought with Iraq. Schell insisted that we could force Iraq to leave Kuwait with sanctions alone, rather than by using military force. But the years that followed that war made it clear just how impotent that tool was. Saddam Hussein endured more than a decade of sanctions rather than give up a weapons of mass destruction program that turned out to be nonexistent. If sanctions weren't enough to make him surrender his imaginary weapons, I think we can safely say they wouldn't have been enough to make him surrender a prized, oil-rich conquest.

Most liberals made the same argument as Schell in 1990, and as subsequent years exposed the silliness of the claim, many of them were humbled. Indeed, most Democrats in the Senate voted against the Persian Gulf War, and that vote disqualified many of them from running for president in 1992. The presidential nomination went to a governor, Bill Clinton, who didn't have to vote on the war, and he selected as his running mate then-Sen. Al Gore, one of a handful of Democrats who supported it.

Gore certainly deserves credit for his foresight as one of the very few public figures to support the first Iraq war and oppose the second. (Having supported both, I'm batting .500.) But this method of judging one's worth solely by his or her record of supporting or opposing the right wars has pretty limited value. Sen. John Kerry, who opposed the first Iraq war and favored the second, has a more dismal record than Vice President Dick Cheney, who at least got one of his wars right. Does that mean Cheney is necessarily a wiser foreign policy sage than Kerry?

We definitively know now (and some of us have known for some time) that the UN is completely and utterly ineffectual. They stink. Their "harsh language" and "threats" barely gain notice of the dictators and tyrants they threaten. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN for twelve years before we finally said enough was enough. There were many reasons for going into Iraq. Among them were his ties to terrorist groups in the region, his continued flouting of UN resolutions, his continued attacks against our forces enforcing the no-fly zones, and yes, even WMDs. And while we have found some WMDs and components, there wasn't the vast amounts that many people believed we would find. Fine. Split hairs if you want to, but the fact remains they were there, and more than likely (based on the allegations provided by some such as former General Georges Sada) they were shipped out the door prior to our invasion. In fact, even the admitted such had happened prior to the invasion.

Does that make the critics any less relevant in our eyes? No because the critics will always be there. But critics like Mr. Chait have stated that they still support the troops and their mission. Yes, they'd like the troops to come home, but they realize that's not happening any time soon. We're giving this one last push to end the sectarian violence that is rapidly turning into a religious civil war over there. Were the critics right? Not exactly. Were the supporters right? Again, not exactly. Both sides have to admit their mistakes. And that is a point Mr. Chait makes a little later ...

What's even sillier is judging someone's foreign policy insight solely based on his or her stance on the last war. Over-learning the lessons of the last war is a classic foreign policy blunder. Yet many liberals want to make the lessons of the Iraq debacle the central basis of American foreign policy. The story in Radar is of a piece with this growing impulse.

But this is the flip side of the same impulse that got us into the current mess. Because the doves made so many bad predictions leading up to the Gulf War — remember the mass uprisings in the Arab world and tens of thousands of U.S. casualties? — many of us ignored warnings this time that proved more prescient.

There are many lessons to be absorbed from Iraq. We'd be foolish not to absorb them; only the most dense war supporter has come away from the experience unhumbled. But the failure of a criminally negligent administration to carry out a highly challenging rebuilding task in the most hostile part of the world does not teach us everything we need to know about the efficacy of military power.

Of course we'll learn lessons from Iraq. I'm worried that we'll learn too much.

Now I take offense to the "criminally negligent" part of his argument because that entails that the president knowingly put our troops into a country that was going to come apart at the seems. He had advisors telling him that things would go fine. Not fine in the sense that this was going to be a cake walk, but that we wouldn't have the excess difficulties that we do now. We didn't know al-Sadr was there. We didn't know the extent of al Qaeda infiltration in Iraq. And we didn't expect the former Ba'athists to put up as much of a fight as they were. Mistake. Mistake Mistake.

But we're learning. Granted, this is the worst way to learn these lessons, but all war never goes the way it's planned. We learn lessons from going to war. We learned them in our war of independance, and from the Civil War, and World War I, and World War II, and so on. This war we'll learn new lessons. But the one I think Mr. Chait is trying to remind us of is that the doves aren't right in wanting to leave the field of battle now. Had the doves succeeded with that in World War II (granted there weren't as many of them being as vocal), the French would probably be speaking German today, and the UK would be the lone outpost of freedom in Europe.

If the doves win the debate this time, we're in trouble. We can't afford to run from these animals again. Doing so will only inflame the situation worse. They'll keep coming at us. There is a time where a stand needs to be taken, and the doves need to remain relatively silent. We're there. We're engaged. You can have your criticism, but part of that critique should not include a demand to retreat. That's what the doves are preaching, and that's why they can't win. We've learned this lesson now, that some enemies won't simply fade away as history goes by. History right now shows us, through the rhetoric of the enemy, that they beleive they're at a turning point in history. That this is the great and final crusade. Their objectives are clear.

And so are ours. We must win. We can't retreat. It's the only way we're going to survive. And THAT is a lesson we all need to learn and comprehend. If we really love this nation as many of us profess, then the answer to the dilemma is not withdrawal and appeasement. It's stay, stand and fight.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pam Hess slaps down her colleagues

 Is it a case of "carrying Bush's water," or is this an honest reporter asking questions, and making the case that many in the media seemed to have completely overlooked? You be the judge. This exchange (courtesy of The Instapundit) happened on CNN's Reliable Sources between Howard Kurtz, and UPI Pentagon reporter, Pam Hess:

KURTZ: Pam Hess, has the sending of 20,000 additional troops gotten a fair hearing in the media or has it gotten caught up in this wrenching, emotional debate about whether the war itself was a mistake?

PAM HESS: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight. What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

The emphasis above if from The Instapundi, but the point is well made. Why aren't the media people, journalists, and media pundits asking the key question about national secuirty. What happens if we lose? The media has had it's fun at the president's expense--calling him dense, stupid, foolish, incompetant, etc.--yet none of them want to ask the question of what will happen if we lose this war. Do they think that our enemy will just smile, and wave good-bye as we leave? If they do, then they're definitely not paying attention to what's going on in the world today.

The Islamofascists were driven from afghainstan. Wehere did they go? We know that many ended up in Pakistan, and that the government of pPakistan, unwisely, struck a deal with them. That deal is now in shambles as they aren't honoring their end of it, and their causing problems in Pakistan. THAT FACT should have everyone's attention. If the Musharraf regime falls to the Islamic extremists there what will happen to their nuclear arsenal? Does anyone think that they won't be tempted to use those weapons?

In addition to that, they headed into Malaysia, which is currently a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, and to Africa. I suppose the press could have missed the recent war between pro-government Somali forces, fighting alongside Ethiopian forces against the Islamic radicals that had swept themselves into power in Somalia. Al Qaeda was flocking to Somalia, believing they had found a new Afghanistan there. Fortunately for the world, the Ethiopians weren't going to tolerate a militant Islamic state to their south, and one that was threatening to begin causing mayhem in their nation.

But, the point Ms. Hess is making is that if you're a reporter, and you don't tow the "Bush is an evil, misguided prick" BDS line, then somehow you're going easy on him, and giving him a pass. Or worse, somehow you've become a mouthpiece for him. Since when did agreeing with the administration, and pointing out their position equate to being a cheerleader for them? As the readers here know, we are conservatives, and we support the president. But we're anything but water-carriers for him. All three of us--Thomas, Marcie, and myself--have handed out criticism to the administration. We're not too happy with a lot of the things the president has decided to do. But, he is the president.

He's the commander-in-chief of the United States military, and on September 11th, we went to war with people who wanted to destroy this nation. President Bush didn't want to be a wartime president. He's said that repeatedely. But he walso knows that we rarely get to do things we want, and at times we have to do what's right even though we really don't want to do it. He made a tough decision in going to war. But he looked at the past mistakes made by previous administrations and decided that we weren't going to run away from these people any longer.

National securitry is most definitely at stake in this war. If we run now, we'll never stop running. And our enemy will simply continue to pursue us until we ultimately are forced to surrender. Better for this nation, collectively, to die on it's feet than live on it's knees. And that's the whole point. For some odd reason, those opposed to this war don't seem to catch that clue. They miss that. Our enemies don't just want us out of the Middle East. They want us vanquished; removed from the face of the planet, and merely a footnote in history.

Ms. Hess is quite correct in making her point, and maybe it's time the media actually wakes up, and realizes this. They're in just as much danger as everyone else is because they'll be lined up right next to us and killed. They're not above the law that our enemies will force upon the conquered. Best to step up, cut the president a little slack, and remember that they're just as American as everyone else. The target is on their backs as much as it's on ours. So, for crying out loud, let's start being honest in our reporting. You don't have to do a rah-rah cheer for the home team, but when some nutcase in the media, like CNN's Jack Cafferty, makes a retarded statement about the president, call his butt on it. Call the media on the carpet when they start going off the tracks.

After all, why do they think that so many people have become fed up with their idea of honest and balanced reporting? Because it's anything but balanced, and the furthest thing from honest. Let the talking heads and the "dead-tree industry" (to quote Marcie's favorite description of the media) chew on that for awhile.

Sabrina McKinney

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So much for the "Consular" excuse

 Naturally, the Iranians are denying that they had operatives in Iraq providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups. But the military and the administration know different, and it's starting to come out: (link to story courtesy of Dafydd ab Hugh, guest-blogging at Michelle Malkin's site while she is in Iraq.)

Five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq last week were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. military said Sunday.

The five were detained by U.S.-led forces Thursday in a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in Irbil, a city in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq 217 miles north of Baghdad.

"Preliminary results revealed the five detainees are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," the U.S. military said in a statement.

"Qods" is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, and a frequent name for political or military factions across the Muslim world.

Tehran denied the five detained Iranians had been involved in financing and arming insurgents in Iraq.

"Their job was basically consular, official and in the framework of regulations," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Sunday during his weekly media briefing. "What Americans express was incorrect and hyperbole against Iran in order to justify their acts."

Hosseini said the Iranian representative office where the five men worked was established in Irbil in 1992 to facilitate the visit of Kurdish businessmen and medical patients from Iraq to Iran.

"Then, both countries agreed to promote it to consular level," he said. "Agreement for formation of the Iranian consulate section was exchanged in the current (Iranian) year."

The United States accuses Iran of helping to provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq, and a bitter standoff already exists between the two countries over Iran's nuclear program. Iran has rejected the allegations.

Hosseini accused the United States of resorting to "hostility and conflict toward neighbors of Iraq" because he said the country did not want to acknowledge it had failed to bring stability to Iraq.

"The United States should release all the five persons, prevent possible similar acts and compensate damages," Hosseini said.

And Iran shouldn't be sending their people into Iraq, period. The military has the Qods information which shows that they've been coordinating with terrorists and insurgents in Iraq; possibly even collaborating with Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. Not hard to believe if we remember that Hezbollah from Syria and Iran has been training his militia. As for the release of the Iranians, that's not going to happen. At least not until our investigations are done.

The president was deadly serious about finishing the job in Iraq, and isolating nations like Syria and Iran from their continued intrusions into a conflict that doesn't concern them. The only reason they're even sticking their noses in Iraq is because they know what a successful Iraq spells out in their futures--R-E-V-O-L-T by their own populace that really isn't too fond of them right now. So it stands to reason that they're going to meddle in Iraq's affairs to prevent it from ever having a chance at stability.

I'd like to say that we should be presenting the information we uncovered to the UN, maybe in the hope that they'll actually do something about Iran other than twiddle their thumbs. But the UN's so irrelevant right now. They don't care what Iran does. The effete sanctions slapped on Iran late in 2006 were laughable. There's no teeth behind them to force Iran's hand whatsoever, and we can see what happens with issues like this in the UN.

They'll never take a solid stand against Iran. There's too much bureaucracy involved there. Nations cover each other's backsides like only politicos can. So, we're going to go this route and force Iran into the open. Maybe if we shine a light on this fiasco, the world will finally wake up and realize that Iran's lying through it's teeth. We're already on a collision course with the Islamic regime, and there's no turning back now. We have to take them out of the Iraq equation, and this is just the first step in doing so.

Sabrina McKinney

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The gloves Come Off: Iranians In The Crosshairs

 And to think that a few of us thought the president did not mean what he said on Wednesday night. Saturday night the UK Telegraph reinforced the president's statements regarding Iran, and it's continued meddling behavior in Iraq:

President George W Bush has ordered US forces to launch a military offensive against Iranian officials and Revolutionary Guards officers behind a support and funding network for anti-American fighters in Iraq.

Mr Bush signed the clandestine directive after he was given new intelligence on the scale of Iranian operations to foment violence in Iraq.

US troops were operating under the new instructions when they raided an Iranian "liaison office" in northern Iraq last week, detaining five men, in the latest showdown with Teheran's agents.

The swoop, which was condemned by Iran and its political allies in Iraq, came less than two weeks after a senior Revolutionary Guards commander was seized in another raid near Baghdad with documents linked to the bloodshed. It has fuelled fears of direct armed clashes between US forces and Iranian operatives.

The US military has been authorized to use force against Iranian operatives in Iraq fueling this violence. The president has, quite literally, tossed down the gauntlet to Iran. Their tomfoolery in Iraq isn't being tolerated any longer, and under Maliki's guarantee that people won't be shielded, we're going for the gusto. We're taking them into custody when found, and taking them out if needs be. Now to some this might seem extreme. I disagree:

In a further development, US intelligence has learnt that the Shia-led Islamic regime is backing Sunni insurgents in Iraq, as well as the murderous militia operated by its fellow Shia clerics.

Iran's policy of pursuing "managed chaos" in Iraq is mainly conducted by the Revolutionary Guards' Quds (Jerusalem) Force, the military's foreign arm, which also supports the Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Sunni Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Shia and Sunni armed factions have for months been fighting a vicious sectarian conflict, murdering thousands of civilians. But the top Quds commander arrested late last month - known by the alias Chizari - was carrying documents that showed links with both sides, according to a senior official.

It comprised "a smoking gun," he told The New York Sun. "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," he said.

We've found their plans for perpetuating this violence. this is literally the evidence we've been looking for that refutes all of Iran's posturing. They've said repeatedly that they're not there, and they're not fueling this violence. Yet, our raids have produced the contrary, and we're acting on that information. Like I said, some people may disagree with this. They may not even like it. But we're not sitting on our laurels waiting for Iran to up the stakes. They're going to pay for interefering in Iraq's future, and by default, the region's future.

Our troops will deal with the Iranians quickly enough, and this will hopefully be over soon. President Ahmadinejad would be smart in not sending anymore of his "emissaries" into Iraq. They're not wanted there until AFTER the country's been stabilized. Then Maliki and Company can talk to whomever their heart's desire is. But while we're still there, and taking live fire from the people who want to kill us--such ammunition, IEDs, etc. being supplied by Iran--their diplomats and operatives aren't welcome there. And we're not apologizing if a couple get killed in the process. It's a war zone, and it's about time some geniuses figure this out.

Sabrina McKinney
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barbara Boxer Was Out Of Line, And Needs To Apologize

 I would really prefer to take the high road on this particular issue, but I am sick and tired of the self-righteousness, faux-patriot Left in this nation with regard to the war. What precisely am I referring to? Sen. Boxer's confrontation with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. This reaches new lows I never though the senator was really capable of. But I am surprisingly astonished at the chutzpah of this woman:

Boxer, defending herself against critics from the right, said Friday that she was "speaking truth to power" at a Senate hearing Thursday when she confronted the secretary of state -- who is unmarried and childless -- noting that neither she nor Rice will "pay a price" personally for sending more American troops to war.

"I was just saying what I felt,'' the California Democrat said in an interview with The Chronicle. She said she would not apologize for the exchange because "I delivered a very strong message and tried to find common ground with her ... and I tried to draw us together, and not apart.''

The exchange occurred when Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support President Bush's proposal to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.

Boxer, during her questioning of Rice, said she wanted to focus attention on the human consequences of the decision.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young," to serve, Boxer told Rice. "You're not going to pay a price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.''

Boxer was denounced Friday on the New York Post editorial page, which called the comments "a low blow." The exchange generated a firestorm among conservative bloggers and cable news commentators.

"I think it was more than cheap -- it was degrading," Fox News commentator Karen Hanretty said in an interview. "There's nothing more vicious than feminine politics, and Boxer proved herself a shrill harpy.''

White House spokesman Tony Snow -- a former Fox commentator -- called the comments "outrageous" and opined that Boxer had made "a great leap backward for feminism.''

Fox News ran headlines all day Friday on the topic, such as, "Will Boxer Apologize?'' and "Boxer Slimes Rice,'' and some conservative critics charged that Boxer inappropriately raised questions about Rice's personal life.

Rice, speaking Friday to Fox News, suggested the comments were unduly personal.

"I guess that means I don't have kids. Was that the purpose of that?'' Rice said. "Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing, frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that. That the only question is, 'Are you making good decisions because you have kids?' "


First let me state that as someone who does have a loved one in this war, it was his choice to sign up. He did not choose to go where he is. He goes where he is sent, and he does his duty to this nation regardless of how tough things are. Is being away from his family and loved ones easy? No. Would he rather be home than in some godforsaken country halfway around the world? Yes. But he does not get to make those choices. I love my brother deeply, and I miss him dearly. And when I see a shrew like Boxer come out and take swipes at Secretary of State Rice--making demnading questions the answers of which are none of her damn business, and making her questioning extremely personal--it makes my blood boil.

Does Boxer think that the decision to go to war was easy? Does she think the president leapt int he air for joy that he had to commit American soldiers to the battlefield? Does she think that members of the administration are cold, callous human beings that relish the possibility of a war? If she does, that senile b***h needs to be handed a loss during her next reelection bid. She may buy the Kos Kiddie mindset that the president is a monster, and his administration is nothing more than mindless, blood-lusting animals, but America does not think that.

Certainly the families who have their husbands, sons, brothers, sisters, daughters, and mothers in harm's way do not think this way. If they do, then they are as deranged as Boxer is. But I doubt that any real feel that way, and if they admit to it, it is their emotion speaking, and hardly logic and common sense.

She needs to issue an apology to Conmdi Rice for the accusations and statement. She owes an apology to her constituents in California, as well. And most of all--before ANY apology is uttered to a single soul--she owes one to the families who have loved ones serving abraod. Her comments did not simply attack an individual. They directly attacked an administration that did not want this war, but responded to it by deploying its military to destroy an enemy of this nation. We do not hide under our desks like some of previous presidents, and pray that the bad dream will go away.

Animals like those we are fighting now do not go away. They only continue to come--bolstered by their bloody ideology--and they will not stop until they are either dead, or they have achieved victory. I would much rather we take the fight to them than sit back and watch more Americans die in attacks similar to those of 9/11, and the previous decade. Our enemy put us on notice then, and we ignored it. They got our attention on 9/11, and we have made them pay for that day over and over again.

Do we want to send more troops into Iraq? No. Absolutely not. But if we are actually going to win this fight, we need to. Boxer should know that, and she likely does. The problem with her and her ilk is that they are so blinded by partisan politics that they will NEVER see the forest through the trees.

Marcie

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somali Islamicists Defeated: They CAN Be Beaten, And Ethiopia Did It Decisively

 According to a post from Captain Ed, the last vestiges of the Islamofascist fighters in Somalia have been routed. The BBC reports that they're in hiding--broken and beaten by vastly superior forces:

Somali government troops backed by Ethiopian soldiers have captured the last stronghold of the Union of Islamic Courts, the defence minister says.

Col Barre Aden Shire said the town of Ras Kamboni, in south-eastern Somalia, fell after several days of fighting.

Remnants of the militia are now reported to be hiding in dense forest along Somalia's border with Kenya.

Ethiopia has led a military campaign against the Islamists, who controlled much of Somalia for six months.

The US this week launched air strikes against Islamists, who they accuse of harbouring al-Qaeda members suspected of carrying out attacks against US embassies in East Africa. ...


... "Government troops and Ethiopian forces have captured Ras Kamboni after heavy fighting," the defence minister told the Associated Press news agency.

As news emerged of the fall of Ras Kamboni, interim President Abdullahi Yusuf met warlords in Mogadishu in an effort to agree a pact.

Earlier, warlords who battled for control of Somalia for 16 years agreed to surrender their weapons after a clan gunfight left at least five people dead.

"The warlords and the government have agreed to collaborate for the restoration of peace in Somalia," said government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari following the talks in Somalia's presidential palace.

People believed that the Islamicist forces were unbeatable as they tightened their grip on Somalia. The West looked to the Horn of Africa with worry--believing that yet another nation had fallen to the Islamofascist thugs that are running all over the world, doing their best to keep from being annihilated by Western forces seeking to rid the world of their threat.

Captain Ed notes that Ethiopia didn't buy the line that the Islamicists were invincible. Quite the contrary, and it's been proven by them and pro-government Somali forces. The tide of battle is said to have turned as soon as the Somali warlords jumped into the mix. With the routed forces caught between Kenya's reinforced border, Ethiopian and Somali forces to the north, the US navy to the east, and US reinforcements via Spectre gunships to the west, the Somali Islamicists were given one of two options: Surrender, or fight and die.

This is a lesson we hope the West has learned. They aren't invincible by any stretch of the imagination. The Ethiopians proved it. They proved that with the right means, and an iron will, these animals can and will be defeated.

Publius II

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive