Almost one year ago, right after Kerry picked Edwards to be Veep candidate, they did a joint interview with the NY Times. It was so filled with errors that I had to do a thorough fisking of it. Why is it relevant today?

One of the stupidest and also most dangerous things Kedwards (and by the way, I think I called that one first) said was this:

EDWARDS: I think what we know from the intelligence report, there are several things. One is that the al Qaeda-Hussein connection was not there. I believed that at the time, I continued to believe it in the interim, and I believe it now. I believe it was not there. I did not believe there was a strong al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection, I never believed that.

Back then, I referenced one of the most powerful books (and fortunately short so our none too bright lefty friends can read it) called The Connection by Stpehen Hayes which showed overwhelmingly the Saddam/al Qaeda connection. Most curious of all is that it's never been debunked or assailed but rather ignored. Now why would that be? Is it perhaps the elephant in the room?

Thanks to Charles at LGF, for pointing out Stephen Hayes' latest article at Weekly Standard. It is once again newsworthy because our friends enemies at CNN have decided to pull the "we hate Bush more than we like freedom" card:

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

Now, this shows either complete ignorance, as the 9/11 commission report, as well as co-chairs Kean and Hamilton have affirmed a Saddam/al Qaeda connection. Or, it shows journalistic malfeasance as they are knowingly lying to their audience and simultaneously betraying the security of the country.

Here's just a short list hayes compiles in his latest piece:

eyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an "understanding" that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including weapons development. This understanding, which was included in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a "former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19." When bin Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi intelligence sough "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." That same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's presentation on Iraq and terrorism was "reasonable."

In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on prewar intelligence.
In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a report from the National Security Agency in October reveals that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on February 14, the Philippine government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-related terrorist activites. Andrea Domingo, head of Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters that "studying the movements and activities" of Iraqi intelligence assets in the country, including radical Islamists, revealed an "established network" of terrorists headed by Hussein.

This ignorance of ideology. They hate Bush so much, are so opposed to the war effort, they will do anything to sabotage it. Of course, would we expect any less from the same news agency whose news chief covered for Saddam.

I can solve Bush's dilemma over a nomination for the Supreme Court. He can nominate me.

Here's why:

1) Since I am not a lawyer (henceforth IANAL), most people won't hate me.

2) Since IANAL, I don't have a long legal record to pick over with a fine tooth comb, thus there won't be that one paper that sinks my nomination. My only public record is this blog.

3) I'm a history teacher. I have actually read the Constitution and nowhere does it say one has to be a lawyer. In addition, having read the Constitution, and having studied the history of that period, I am fairly certain I know what the founders meant with each passage.

4) I am a public teacher, live in a middle class manner, have friends and colleagues of all colors, religions, political persuasions, etc. I am not, nor have I ever been, confined to the lofty towers of academia. I am the real world. I have a family, a mortgage, two cars, plenty of bills, savings accounts, Roth-IRA's, 403b's, and a host other things 100 million other people have. I don't have to read about them, I am them.

5) I will not lie, obfuscate, distort, or agree to alter my positions during Senate testimony. I believe life begins at conception. I believe the majority of federal government spending is unconstitutional. I believe the second ammendment means what is says and says what it means. I believe that states should decide most things as per the 10th amendment. I believe the federal government needs to get out of education, the environment, business, and a whole host of other issues not specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

6) I believe the constitution is not a "living document" but instead it must be a rock against the changing tides of opinion.

7) I believe the constitution applies equally to every citizen regardless of race, color, etc., that any countenance of such factors is unconstitutional, regardless how it is presented to the court.

I don't believe that one has to be "legal scholar" to be a SC Justice. Why should I be constrained to the opinions of others, as many times they are overturned. Wouldn't I bring a new and fresh perspective to the court?

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me anytime. I'll be waiting.

Pelosi press conference

After a thoroughly hack job of partisanship against Republicans, we get down to this:

Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

First, what is most obvious is that she has no idea what the Kelo case is about. Rather than admitting this, she rambles on incoherently about the separation of powers and the constitution. She seems to think that the decisions of the court are equivalent to the "word of God" and thus the end of discussion. I was unaware that Congresswoman Pelosi was so attuned to the power of the Gospel.

She also has no idea that the proposed legislation would simply withhold federal funds from projects which were seized under Kelo-style eminent domain.

"Knowing the particulars of the case", the SCOTUS decision is then appropriate. Fine. What say Madam Pelosi about Bush v. Gore in 2000? Or how about if they take into account ultrasound technology and reconsider Roe? Hmmm...

Finally, here's this nice thought. Without knowing the case, she basically endorsed the government taking land from the poor and giving it to the rich. How democratic, eh.

The president met with his defense secretary, Chairman of JCS, and heads of unified commands and was warned of a "nose dive" in military readiness. DoD spokesman said "in the last year or so, readiness trends have nosed down. We want to pull up on the stick before there's a nose dive." He added that the Sec Def said military leaders believe "forces at the tip of the spear ... are well prepared, well led and ready to do their job,". But he added that there is concern about readiness strains in follow-on forces.

All that sound rather familiar? Was it Last week? Last year? President Bush? Sec Def Rumsfeld? None of the above. It was 1999, CJCS General Shelton, and SecDef William Cohen.

According to a 1999 WaPo Article:

Responding to demands by the nation's top military commanders, Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget will include a boost in spending on the armed forces of $12 billion and a total increase of about $110 billion over the next six years, according to administration and Pentagon officials.
...
Over the last few months, the nation's military chiefs, led by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, held what one participant called an unprecedented series of meetings with Clinton to argue for the increase.

In those meetings, the commanders argued that the increase was necessary to boost pay and retirement benefits to retain mid-level officers and noncommissioned officers and to maintain and improve the most sophisticated arsenal in the world.

Let's look at the defense readiness "highlights" from a 1998 speech on the floor of the House by Rep. Duncan Hunter.

Now 5 years ago when we fought Desert Storm we had 18 army divisions. Today we only have 10. We had 24 fighter air wings. Today we only have 13. The Clinton Administration has cut our air power almost in half. And in those days we had 546 naval ships. Today we only have about 333 ships in the U.S. Navy, so they have cut the Navy by about 40 percent.
...
Admiral Archie Clemmins, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Pacific Fleet (said) The net effect is that we are stretching our forces to the limit. He said further: In the past 4 years, we have reduced our personnel force size by over 22 percent while maintaining recruiting standards and keeping faith with the career force. Although we have been manning our deploying ships at adequate level, we are experiencing manning shortfalls that have grown into readiness concerns.

Now that means, Mr. Speaker, that these 333 ships in a Navy that used to be 546 ships are having to operate at an increased OPTEMPO. That means that they are on deployment more often than they were 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, even during the Cold War. And that means that a young sailor who goes off on a 6-month cruise, or a young marine who goes off on a long deployment to Bosnia, or in days past Somalia or Haiti, now comes home and before he can spend time with his family, he is told that he has to leave again on another deployment; or he has to go with his ship while it is being repaired, given an emergency overhaul at some other port, and he is home just in time, has just enough time basically to hug his family, kiss his wife good-bye and leave.
fter a period of time, Mr. Speaker, the American personnel who are serving in the uniform say, that is it, I have had it and

I am leaving the service. Even today, and this was testimony throughout our hearings, pilots, who are a very, very critical component of our military forces, are in declining number. It is tougher to retain them. They are leaving and going other places.
...
One other important area, Mr. Speaker, is ammunition. I asked the Marine Corps and the Army and the Navy to tell me if they had enough ammo, and if they did not, how short they were. The Marine Corps is $193 million short of the basic ammunition supply that it needs under its definition of a two MRC. That means two-conflict scenario. Incidentally, a two MRC scenario presumes that we might have to fight Desert Storm again in the Middle East, and we might have to fight almost at the same time as a conflict in Korea.

Well, the United States Marine Corps, which is our 911 force, those are the guys that go in first and sometimes they take enormous casualties. They are $193 million short of their basic ammo supply. We ought to be ashamed of that, Mr. Speaker. The Army is $1.7 billion short of its basic ammunition supply. And the Navy is over $300 million short of its basic ammunition supply.

So Mr. Speaker, we are disserving the American people. And the American people may not think a lot about national defense right now, now that the crises with Saddam Hussein seems to be momentarily past us. But there is going to be a time when we have another conflict, another war, and the American people are going to turn to us and say, `Why did you follow the Clinton administration when it slashed national defense?'

Jack Spencer wrote on Sept. 15, 2000, eerily almost one to the day that we were attacked about the grave readiness problem we faced. From the executive summary:

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

FACT #2. Military deployments have increased dramatically throughout the 1990s

FACT #3. America's military is aging rapidly.

FACT #4. Morale is on the decline in the U.S. armed forces.

Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

Military readiness was a large part of the debate between then Governor Bush and then VP Gore. PBS's Margaret Warner reported that

Signs that America's military was being strained by these operations started in 1993. Over the years, anecdotal stories accumulated in the trade press about shortfalls in training funds, lack of spare parts, and highly trained pilots deciding not to re-enlist. Still, as recently as early 1998, the Clinton administration and senior military leaders insisted there wasn't a problem.

GEN. HENRY SHELTON: I can report we remain fully capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict. We are fundamentally healthy.

MARGARET WARNER: But seven months later, the military top brass was back on Capitol Hill, and saying they did, in fact, have a readiness problem.

GEN. HENRY SHELTON: Our forces are showing increasing signs of serious wear. Anecdotal, initially, and now measurable evidence, indicates that our readiness is fraying and that the long-term health of the total force is in jeopardy.

Speaking of current recruiting and retention woes, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson in 1999 remarked that:

Last year, the military had its worst recruiting year since 1979. The Army failed to meet its recruiting objective for infantry soldiers, the single most important specialty in the Army. Navy recruiting is 13 percent below its annual goal and highly skilled sailors are leaving the service in record numbers leading to a shortage of 18,000 sailors in fleet manning.

More than 350 Air Force pilots turned down the $60,000 bonuses they were to receive for another give years in the cockpit. They had a 29 percent acceptance rate for that bonus this year compared to 81% in 1995.

This year, only 10 percent of the Navy's eligible naval aviators decided to take bonuses and remain on active duty.

She also adds

This pattern continues today and was fully exposed by former U.N. Iraq inspector Scott Ritter's allegations that the Administration had ignored Saddam Hussein's frequent violations in order not to provoke a conflict.

At the same time the Administration is appeasing countries of proven terrorist pedigree, it is sapping the strength of America's armed forces in places where our vital interests are not at all clear, such as Bosnia.

(Of course, this was before Ritter hooked up with a sixteen year old and got on Saddam's gravy train.)

James Anderson PhD, writes in a 1997 piece for Heritage that

The Clinton Administration's penchant for social experimentation has unleashed a war against military standards and values. These assaults have taken various guises. For example, the Administration has undermined effective military standards by:

Appointing civilian leaders who view the military as a laboratory for social experimentation
President Clinton's assistant secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, has averred that "We are in the process of weeding out the white male as the norm. We're about changing the culture."

Hiring radical consultants
Duke University law professor Madeline Morris, who served as a special adviser to Secretary of the Army Togo West on gender integration issues, has written that Communist Party cells and Alcoholics Anonymous provide possible models for military cohesion. Her appointment to a panel conducting an Army study of sexual harassment was terminated only after the press reported her bizarre views.

Ignoring comprehensive studies urging caution with respect to the assignment of women to combat roles
Casting aside the recommendations of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, the Clinton Administration rescinded the Risk Rule that previously limited women to serving in billets in which they would not be exposed to combat hazards. Issued by the Department of Defense in 1988, the Risk Rule was formulated to help standardize the services' assignment of women to potentially hostile areas.

Pressuring senior officers to endorse gender-integrated basic training and the expansion of combat billets open to females
With little discussion or debate, the Clinton Administration has expanded the number of combat billets open to women dramatically. At the behest of the Administration, the Army opened more than 40,000 jobs to women. In like manner, the Navy was pressured to end its restrictions on placing women aboard combat ships. Instead of engaging in a dialogue about the dangers women assigned to combat billets may face and the problems associated with gender-integrated basic training, senior officers have taken to mouthing "train-as-we-fight" platitudes.

He goes on to highlight many of the other changes that the military has instituted from the Navy no longer drilling with rifles, the Army ending running in combat boots, and DI's no longer able to verbally stress recruits. This is top down policy, the direct result of administration goals and planning.

Why is all this necessary to rehash in 2005?

Let's take a trip down memory lane to December 7, 1941 and compare where the military was in relation to Sept. 11, 2001. From American Military History in the Army's website, we find that in the first main growth came in 1937 with the Protective Mobilization Plan of 1937 and by 1941 the total troop strength was at 1.2 million with planning to increase it even more. In 1940, the first peacetime draft was established and separate artillery and armored divisions were created. By the autumn of 1941 the Army had 27 infantry, 5 armored, and 2 cavalry divisions, 35 air groups, as well as many other supporting units in training. Though these were unready for combat, the massive increase in force had begun. The training installations had been established, all services began ramping up for war, the economy was moving towards a war footing, the country had been on a limited preparedness state, and we were actually engaging the German subs off the east coast and joining the Brits in patrolling the Atlantic.

In short, we began to go to war, long before we would "go to war."

A comparison of the two periods should be done not from a view of stasis, but of flux. In other words, now where was the military vis a vis the enemy and our ability, but which direction we were moving. Thus, in 2001 we faced the exact opposite situation as we did in 1941. Then, we were in a period of military expansion. In 2001, we were in a ten year period of military downsizing, reforming, and "modernizing". When we were attacked in 1941, we were still a long ways from ready, yet we were much larger than just two years earlier, and rapidly accelerating its growth. In 2001, we were not only significantly smaller than just a few years previous, we were continuing the downsizing.

We became technophiles, not just in our intelligence but in our military capability. Hundreds of millions were poured into the Joint Strike Fighter, the Osprey, and the Paladin, while such vital necessities as the Chinook troop transport were simply retrofitted with new blades and given another decade of service. The services got happy on the shiny, while forgetting, or ignoring, the new reality. Wars would be Mogadishu or Kosovo, or so the thinking went. We could bomb Milosevic from 30,000 feet and bring him to the Hague.

There would never be an invasion through the Fulda Gap, there would be little need for an air superiority fighter when the F16 was still two to three generations ahead. There would be no need for large troop assemblages, no need for a large scale land invasion. Who were we going to fight? Saddam? Hah, took care of him in '91.

So, we let the military lapse. Training became too expensive, weapons systems would replace the soldier, and most significant of all, much of the garrison type duty was transferred to the reserves, promotions became hard to come by and morale suffered, and the military became a petri dish for societal experimentation. Gays in the military and women in combat were two battles that never needed fighting. What is, after all, the purpose of the military but to kill the enemy and defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. There was no need for a "new" Army.

Yet, somehow, we retained a sizable tactical advantage over any adversary. But our strength lie primarily in the special forces and the elite units, such as the Marines and the airborne. We saw that manifest in Afghanistan, were spec forces, the CIA, and a limited number of ground troops could interact with the indigenous forces. All the while B-52's flew 50,000 feet above dropping precision guided bombs and unmanned drones monitored the enemy silently and mercilessly.

So that brings us to Iraq, a war "fought on the cheap", one which we "rushed into fighting", without "our allies", without " a plan", and with "too few troops". But the sad fact that remains is that the military we "needed" simply didn't exist. We didn't have 500,000 troops to re-invade Iraq. We did once, but that era was long gone.

The skill and courage of the troops in OIF was unbelievable, the weaponry proved itself, and the military achieved one of the greatest armored assaults in history. We had no option to go to war when we did. Would that we could have had several years warning. Would that Saddam would have remilitarized, annexed the Rhineland, invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, then Poland.

Would that bin Laden would have given us many years advanced warning. Would that he'd have attacked the WTC center with a bomb in 1993, two US embassies in Africa, military barracks in Saudi Arabia, and a US warship in throughout the 1990's. Would that we'd have known what was coming next.

So the question remains is that were we ready to go to war? The answer will probably be no. But not often do you get to pick the time and place of your wars, this was no exception.

The last factor that needs be considered is all the hand wringing, second guessing, politicizing, and criticizing. Sure, Kimmel and Short were railroaded, but we didn't spend three years in denial that we were in a war, and half way through, go through some self-flagellation of conscience. We got to the task at hand. When mistakes were made, we fixed them instead of creating a website by a few disgruntled servicemen. I don't recall there being a "Tankers for the Truth" even though the M4 was a death trap throughout the entire war. How many parents of bomber crewmen got to testify in front of congressional hearings about the deficiencies in the B17 armor?

That therefore is the last vestige of Vietnam, the overly critical attack, the supremacy of indignation that allows one to so openly question and critique. Debate is necessary in a free society, but in a war, sometimes the security of the nation takes primacy over such niceties that otherwise are in jeopardy. Lest not it be relegated only to the military either. I hear from parents and even students how to teach. I recognize that I am a public servant, but if my house was on fire I'd call the fire department but refrain from giving them firefighting instructions upon arrival.

There is no doubt that the war we are fighting is a long and difficult one. We're hyper-sensitive to casualties, something the enemy knows all to well. We're also a highly critical and open public society where the idea of decorum has vanished. Invective and slander have replaced reasoned debate. It is insignificant when debating taxes but debilitating in war. The enemy knows this all too well as well.

We simply were not ready to go to war when we were forced to. Given the successes we've had, the progress that's been made, how much safer we are, one would think that we'd be fighting the next battle, preparing for the final victory. Instead we refight old battles, who knew what and when, seek political gain at others, and our own, misfortune.

The same critics who lash out today were nowhere to be found 5 years ago when the military was underfunded, beset by low morale, and became a mere fraction of its recent past self. The state of readiness was a long debated issue, not thrust upon us by sudden attack. Yet this is what we are to believe, and even moreso, we are supposed to believe that it all fell apart in the nine months bewteen January and September 2001.

It is a stretch of credulity that they would even dare offer rebuke. It is a paradox indeed.

Links:
The Facts About Military Readiness
by Jack Spencer

executive summary

raw data

Boot Camp or Summer Camp? Restoring Rigorous Standards to Basic Training by James H. Anderson, Ph.D.

MILITARY READINESS 2000

Clinton Dangerously Compromising Military Readiness Houston Review Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison January/February 1999

President Clinton's Military: Part One - Fighting Force or Social Planners By C. Grady Drago

Clinton Briefed on Potential Readiness "Nose Dive"

Clinton to Seek Defense Spending Boost

ATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY READINESS
March 11, 1998

Between World Wars

Why is it that the so-called "open-minded" are so impervious to thought. Captain Ed examines the predictable media response to the president's speech last night.

Typical is the criticism of the president linking Iraq to the larger WOT. They continually claim that there was no connection between al Qaeda when clearly the evidence shows otherwise. It is a sad day when they cannot accept a truth because it won't fit their preconceievd poltiical ideology. Sadder still is the inability to grasp the bigger picture of dictatorships, jihadists, and the climate of despair where the former nurtures the latter.

It is almost as if the newspapers would be arguing for simply getting Germany out of France in 1944, as if there wasn't a larger and more noxious disease of fascism. The left is forever talking about the "root causes" of things like poverty, crime, etc., that when a president finally goes after the "root causes", they're blindsided.

It must be painful to be so hard headed.

Wow, hit 10000 unique page views today!! Still, a long way to go until world domination!!

To all who have visited, thanks.

Thanks for finally talking to the American people and explaining to them the necessity of the war. We are fighting terrorists in over there so that we never fight them here.

Fifty years from now, people will ask why were we attacked. The answer is a simple one: because they thought they could.

They misjudged us. Big mistake.

They didn't think we had the strength and resolve to wage war, to stay the couse, to fight and win. The president reminded not only us, but our enemies, that we will win and they will lose. As has always been the case.

Most importantly, the president reminded us that there is no more noble calling than service to the country.

I wish you'd have been harsher on the critics. But you're better than that.

Thank you Mr. President.

I was waiting for the president to finally talk to the American people. This is something he should have been doing for a long time now, for it is getting close to having this become Vietnam if we let it.

Brandon Miniter nails it perfectly:

Rather the Vietnam metaphor is apt today because the U.S. is in a war it can win and is winning, if only those inside the Beltway would stop preferring defeat to victory and disgrace to honor.

All the progress in Iraq will make not a bit of difference if we at home don't believe that a) the war is vital to American security and b) that we can and are winning. On both accounts, the president has an easy case to make.

But before that, he has to confront the defeatists in the Congress. He has to specifically single out the most grievous and irresponsible claims, and take them to task for jeopardizing the war effort. He needs to play a little politics if you will.

Now, the president's not the most political person in the world, and too often tries to make nice. I've implored him often here to take the gloves off. Maybe tonight he will. Words that have aided the enemy and hindered the war effort need to be addressed. Let the democrats shriek like little "girly men" that he's questioning their patriotism, that he's squashing dissent. Who are the people going to side with: the president or Pelosi/Kennedy/Reid/Dean et al.

He needs to level with the American people, we deserve that much. He also needs to be honest, we exepct as much. He has to trust us, I have faith that we'll deliver. If he will.

It'll only become Vietnam if we let it. If he let's it.

Well, pull out of Washington DC.

Hat tip Mudville Gazette

From Jack Army, Exit Strategy via lindasog:

Its a quagmire I tell ya!

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in theater in Iraq during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington.

As Glenn says: Heh.

Rubin Navarrette describes the situation perfectly in Schools are for children but adults get in way. I've highlighted many of the problems in schools, and even some of the simple and I think feasible solutions.

A couple of months ago, I addressed an article George Will wrote (link expired, sorry) about a proposal to help schools in Arizona. Basically, it would dedicate 65% of education expenditures to the classroom. Will quotes the man behind the initiative as saying if he had a silver bullet, he'd shoot the NEA first. On that note I can certainly agree. Though I have to differ with Will somewhat, as I wrote that to help public education, money is the smallest part.

Where are the areas public schools need to address: differential pay for teachers, special ed, student/parent accountability, curriculum weakening, multiculturalism, educational standards, and school culture.

None of these require any money to change.

Rubin Navarrette describes the problem perfectly:

Here's what should have bothered them: It's not just money, it's that this habit of putting adults first spills into everything. It helps explain why educators are quick to dig in and fight off any proposed reform, from testing to merit pay to fixing special education.

You name it, and the reason that it's creating friction or meeting resistance is because it pits the interests of adults against those of children. And in the public school system, the adults run the show.

And why is it so bad:

One thing that helps tip the balance in favor of the first option is the fact that teachers unions have their fingers in school board elections.

I first heard about this insidious practice about a year ago when I spoke to a group of school board members about the federal education reform law, No Child Left Behind. After my talk, one of the members approached me and, trying to explain why the reaction had been so hostile, revealed that school board candidates often get contributions from teachers unions, which strongly oppose No Child Left Behind.

Every parent, and every taxpayer in general, ought to be far more aware of what is going in in schools and their school districts. I really think the public is kept purposefully unaware. This is not true for all districts and all schools, but it is for a sizable number of them. It is especially bad in the larger school districts.

Imagine for a moment if there was a need, which I think there is, to add twenty days to the school calendar. First, I can attest that every teacher runs out of time long before they run out of material. At least I know that is always the case for me. And I can defintiely attest to the fact that teaching is a lot less expensive than not teaching, especially when you have children. And when you figure that I work 185 days of the year, adding 20 still is well under what most people work. Now, imagine the opposition to such a proposal.

As Navarrette, quoting Alan Bersin, recently appointed as Secretary of Education, said:

"Is public education going to be an enterprise that gives adults what they want for their jobs, or is it to be something that serves children?" he asked.

With the two recent SCOTUS decisions on the 10 Commandments, I simply want to know how long it will be until someone sues the military and tries to get rid of the chaplains.

Ralph Peters writes a great column today called Gerhard's Grovel. He's coming to the US to make nice with the president at a time when his country is dire economic and culutral straits.

The first trio, Bush, Blair, and Howard contrast starkly with the trio of Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder. The first stood for freedom and democracy, and fought the unpopular fights. All three were re-elected in spite of overwhelmingly virulent opposition. All three have never relinquished their support for Iraq and confronting terrorism globally.

The second trio is going to remember as leading the fight to keep Saddam in power. We know that all three countries had back alley deals with Saddam, both weapons and oil. Putin is in trouble over his intrusion into Ukrainian and Georgian elections, while Chirac and Schroeder face plummeting support, high unemployment, and loss of their precious EU.

Strategy page

Sunni Arab and al Qaeda gangs agree on one thing; their biggest enemy is the Iraqi police. The cops have become the major threat to the anti-government forces...

But the police have become effective and reliable enough that the enemy has not, since last fall, been able to attack and take a police station. The enemy still tries. In the last week, there was a major attack on a police station. Over a hundred men took part in the attack, which was defeated by the police and army alone. At least ten of the attackers were killed, and 40 were captured. Many of the enemy wounded got away. Thus over half the attacking force was killed, wounded or captured. The anti-government forces are desperate to show they are more powerful than the police, and nothing does that better than taking, and pillaging, a police station. This latest defeat makes the enemy appear weaker, and encourages more Iraqis to actively side with the police. During the recent attack, the police received 55 calls from civilians around the police station, to report the attack and demand reinforcements. Some Iraqi civilians were seen firing, from their homes, at the men attacking the police stations.

Read the whole thing. More and more the Iraqis are taking control of the situation. Expect a more desperate insurgency as more progress is made. What will derail all of it? A timetable.

Several House members have introduced legislation to repeal the 22nd ammendment which limits presidents to two terms. I wonder why this is getting so little attention, as this is a very good idea. Does any democrat think that Clinton wouldn't have beaten Bush in 2000?

The reasons for the ammendment are no longer valid. Worse, the damage it does to the political process is staggering. The moment Bush became elected he became a lame duck and the democrats pounced on it immediately. This forces presidents to do everything in the first term, and allows no chance for a president to tackle tough issues.

Instead of the security of being unable to run for re-election and addressing the long term problems that social security faces, democrats have dug their heels in the sand and fought him every inch of the way. Why? The campaign for 2008 began on January 21st.