Tag Archives: Iraq

Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago ?

Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ; 221 killed in Iraq .

Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
House leader Mike Madigan,
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)
…..our leadership in Illinois …..all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago
Of course, they ‘ re all blaming each other.
Can ‘ t blame Republicans; they ‘ re aren ‘ t any!

State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look ‘ em up if you want).
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .  And he ‘ s gonna  ‘fix ‘  Washington politics for us!

Dillion M134 Gatling Gun

Al-Qaeda: the cracks begin to show (Times Online)

A succession of leading Muslim radicals has condemned the terror group’s tactics as its support in Islamic countries falls off dramatically. Is Britain following the pattern?

Read the original article in The New Republic here

During Friday prayers this weekend, Dr Usama Hasan stood at the pulpit of his Tawhid mosque in Leyton, east London, and delivered a sermon on the sinfulness of alcohol and drugs.

It was quite a sedate affair compared with some of the sermons the 36-year-old imam has given. He often uses his platform to rally his congregation against terrorism, condemning Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri as unIslamic criminals.

This has earned Hasan death threats from some worshippers, while others have called him a “sell-out” and a “government stooge”.

Undeterred, Hasan has vowed to continue his fight against extremists. “It’s a hard struggle,” he said last week. “I’ve had people storm out in protest, but I’ve been involved in this mosque for 20 years so the vast majority of people still respect me.”

There is another reason why many of the young worshippers respect him: Hasan was himself once a jihadi. This has, he says, given him “street cred”.

In 1990, while an undergraduate at Cambridge University, he fell in with an extremist group which led him and three others to travel to Pakistan and then into Afghanistan.

There, Hasan says, he learnt how to use Kalashnikovs, M16s and hand grenades. He returned from his training after about two weeks and throughout the 1990s remained an admirer of Bin Laden.

After the 9/11 attacks on America, and especially since the 7/7 bombings in London, Hasan began to question Al-Qaeda. He was particularly horrified that a Tube train on the Piccadilly line was blown up. “To me the Piccadilly line was home, because my house in north London was near one of its stops,” he said. “I just could not understand why anyone would attack London.

“I realised that Muslims had to speak out against the extremists. We had to teach that jihad is a just war, but groups like Al-Qaeda have perverted it.”

His journey is a reflection of one which is being taken by a number of leading figures in the extremist milieu. An article published recently in The New Republic, the American journal, by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank – both respected experts on terrorism – outlined a radical change in thinking on Al-Qaeda’s strategy among some of the most respected thinkers in the Islamist world.

For the first time, they reported, men whose previous pronouncements had been used as a justification for jihad were speaking out against it. They were not embracing the West, by any means, but they were questioning the ideological basis upon which Al-Qaeda, as a scattered movement, relies. In the battle for “hearts and minds” the group appeared to have scored an own goal.

What is behind this change in thinking and what effect is it having on Al-Qaeda abroad and in Britain?

LAST week saw a prime example of why some radicals are turning against Al-Qaeda and its tactics. On Monday a car drove up to the Danish embassy in a suburb of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. Its driver detonated a bomb which killed himself and five others.

Al-Qaeda quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it was revenge for the publication of cartoons three years ago in a Danish newspaper that had caricatured the prophet Muhammad. Yet while the cartoons had inflamed the Islamic world, the reaction to the bombing was one of outrage. The reason: the victims had all been Muslims.

An Al-Qaeda attack on a wedding in the Jordanian capital of Amman in November 2005, which killed 60 people and injured more than 90, had provoked a similar reaction.

Add to these the daily reports of sectarian strife in Iraq and a number of former high-profile supporters felt compelled to speak out.

The most prominent attack on Al-Qaeda’s methods has come from Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, an Egyptian radical who has been called the “ideological godfather” of the group and who was a former mentor of Zawahiri.

The shift in his thinking is significant because it was Sharif – also known as Dr Fadl – who gave prominence to the doctrine under which Al-Qaeda justifies many of its attacks on co-religionists.

In the 1990s he promoted takfir, which says that Muslims who do not support jihad or who had participated in elections in the “puppet regimes” of the Middle East or in the West, had become kuffar, or infidel, and consequently legitimate targets of jihad.

Late last year came a remarkable change of heart. Sharif, who is languishing in a Cairo prison cell because of his terrorist activities, published a book which argued that the jihad waged by groups like Al-Qaeda was “blemished with grave sharia violations during recent years . . . Now there are those who kill hundreds, including women and children, Muslims and non-Muslims, in the name of jihad”.

Speaking to an Egyptian newspaper, Fadl went further. “Zawahiri and his emir Bin Laden are extremely immoral,” he said.

His words sent tremors throughout the jihadist world. Al-Qaeda does not have a central organisation and has been a movement based more on ideas, rather than concrete plans for political change. Here was one of its former theorists attacking those very ideas.

The reaction from Al-Qaeda was telling. It went on a big offensive. Zawahiri issued an audio recording lambasting Sharif and published a rebuttal that extended to 200 pages.

Zawahiri hinted that Fadl’s statements were made under torture. “Do they now have fax machines in Egyptian jail cells? I wonder if they’re connected to the same line as the electric shock machines,” he said.

While that argument might have some credence, it could not be used to refute another intervention that had come only two months before from one of Bin Laden’s mentors.

Sheikh Salman al-Oadah, a leading religious scholar from Saudi Arabia, addressed the Al-Qaeda leader in a television interview to mark the sixth anniversary of 9/11. “My brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt?” said Oadah. “How many innocent people, children, the elderly and women have been killed . . . in the name of Al-Qaeda?”

As a cleric, Oadah cannot be dismissed as a Saudi government stooge. He was instrumental in the fundamentalist awakening of Saudi society in the 1980s, known as the sahwa. His fiery sermons against the presence of US troops on Saudi soil after the first Gulf war helped to turn Bin Laden against America. He also signed a religious ruling in 2004 with 26 other scholars that gave Islamic backing to Iraqis fighting US forces. He has a mass following among young men and women throughout Saudi society and the Islamic world.

Former jihadis seem to be lining up to condemn Bin Laden. In November last year Noman Benotman, ex-head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which is trying to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gadaffi, published a letter which asked Al-Qaeda to give up all its operations in the Islamic world and in the West, adding that ordinary westerners were blameless and should not be attacked.

The evidence from opinion polls show that the Arab street is following the lead of these figures. Last week a survey by the Pew Research Center, a respected American polling organisation, showed that support for Bin Laden had come down considerably in Muslim countries. It found that while in 2003, 56% of Jordanians had confidence in Bin Laden “to do the right thing in world affairs”, today only 20% believed the same. Over the same period, support for the Al-Qaeda leader among Lebanese Muslims has plummeted from 20% to 1%.

The poll also revealed that in 2002, 33% of Pakistanis believed that suicide bombings were justified. The figure has now dwindled to 9%.

WHAT about in Britain?

There is no recent polling data, but anecdotal evidence suggests that support for Al-Qaeda is waning and that the recent intervention of the jihadi thinkers is significant.

Hasan said that when clerics of the stature of Oadah break ranks and criticise Bin Laden, it gives him more ammunition on the streets of the capital, dubbed “Londonistan” for its high concentration of extremists and its significance in the battle against terrorism. “We can tell our youths that even Oadah has turned against Bin Laden and they listen, because Oadah is revered among the young here. Whatever he says, they listen,” Hasan said.

A sign of Oadah’s popularity is that in 2006 he attracted 20,000 people to London’s Excel conference centre when he was a speaker at a rally organised by the Islam Channel, a satellite television station.

Hanif Qadir, another former jihadi sympathiser turned “deradicaliser”, who runs a mosque in Walthamstow, north London, claims that radical groups have been forced out of mosques and community centres. Instead, they preach on street corners and then invite individuals who show interest to safe houses.

Similarly, in northern cities such as Bradford and Leeds, home town of three of the four 7/7 bombers, Muslim leaders say they are noticing a decline in the interest in radical groups. Radicalism in these areas is considered more difficult to counter because they do not have the social or economic opportunities that metropolitan London can offer.

Azmat Ali, who works with youth groups across West Yorkshire, said: “Before 7/7, you go to any mosque and there would be people standing outside with their faces covered distributing extremist leaflets. But now you don’t see any of that. I think things have improved for the better now.”

West Yorkshire police, however, paint a different picture. Senior officers say they are concerned that in places such as Dewsbury, Islamic extremists are now targeting children as young as 13 in a bid to find new recruits.

Indeed, MI5 and antiterrorist police maintain that the threat from Al-Qaeda in Britain has not declined, with more than 2,000 individuals being monitored, up from 1,600 two years ago. They point out that there have been 40 convictions of people linked to Islamic terrorism in the past 14 months. A further 160 people are awaiting trial.

Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism specialist at St Andrews University, is also cautious. He says that while its policy of attacking co-religionists was “probably its biggest mistake”, Al-Qaeda does have the ability to strike again. “We must remember Al-Qaeda is not a mass movement and you don’t need that many people to hatch a plot – 9/11 only took 19.”

Yet some interested parties are displaying a new-found confidence. Having declared last year that Al-Qaeda was “resurgent”, Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, suggested last month that America was now doing “pretty well” in countering it.

He said that the group had suffered serious setbacks both in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. “Fundamentally, no one really liked Al-Qaeda’s vision of the future,” he said.

Brown’s terror troubles

LABOUR grandees, legal experts and up to 54 backbench rebels stand in the way of Gordon Brown’s plans to lock up terror suspects for 42 days without charge, writes David Leppard.

Lord Falconer, the former lord chancellor, said yesterday that even if Brown wins a critical vote on the issue in the House of Commons on Wednesday, he will lead a revolt in the Lords against the bill. He said the proposals were “unacceptable”.

Falconer is supported by Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney-general. Goldsmith said extending detention without charge from 28 to 42 days would “destroy the free society our ancestors fought hard to create”.

Sir Ken Macdonald, director of public prosecutions and the man overseeing terrorist cases in Britain, is also opposed and said recently that his prosecutors have “managed quite comfortably” within the existing 28-day limit. Under the proposed law Macdonald would personally have to approve each application to detain a suspect beyond 28 days up to 42 days.

To win over Labour MPs threatening to vote against the measure, Brown has taken to making what one insider called “desperate late-night phone calls . . . calling on tribal loyalty”.

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, has tabled concessions, promising increased parliamentary scrutiny and other safeguards.

Among opponents who have been won over is Keith Vaz, chairman of the influential all-party home affairs committee.

Nevertheless, the Tory calculations yesterday were that as many as 54 Labour MPs will oppose the measure, leaving the outcome of the vote on a knife edge.

Sarandon’s out? (Glenn Beck)

 

The media has already pulled out on the story of Iraq, and they are sticking to the storyline that it’s a complete failure. All politicians, for or against the war, say what a great job the troops are doing—the translation that the media doesn’t give you is that ‘great job’ includes killing tons of terrorists. So much so that the head of the CIA is saying that Al-Qaeda is near defeat in Iraq and overall. This is the kind of news story that has people like Susan Sarandon threatening that if John McCain wins, and continues this horrible war that’s beating the terrorists, she will move to Italy or Canada. Let’s hope it’s Italy because it’s much, much farther away. No word on if she’ll take Tim Robbins with her.

Exclusive: Dishonest Divisive Barry Obama

by Bill Siegel

Barack Obama’s Watertown response to President Bush’s Knesset speech is precisely what Obama himself accuses Bush and John McCain of engaging in: a dishonest divisive attack, or perhaps better stated, a dishonest, distorting, divisive projection of his own thinking.

President Bush said: “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

The following is the text of Obama’s response, annotated to point out just some of the dishonesty and distortion that animates much of Obama’s rhetoric:

I do want to say something about yesterday. You know, after almost eight years I did not think I could be surprised about anything that George Bush says. But I was wrong. Yesterday George Bush was before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to help commemorate the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence. That’s a wonderful occasion and a time for celebration.

It is also a time to demonstrate that he understands the dangerous conditions in which Israel finds itself and that he understands fully the dangerous types of thinking that pervade America and the West that can and have paralyzed the West from taking the actions necessary to adequately assist Israel.

But instead of celebrating and offering some clear ideas about how to move the situation in the Middle East forward,

Bush had presented the Road Map and, rightly or wrongly, is currently actively engaged in what is often called a “peace process.” What is Obama’s idea other than to sophomorically suggest that his magical persuasive powers and desires for “change” will bring about a resolution? The arrogance embedded in this position is precisely that suggested in Bush’s historical reference.

the President did something that presidents don’t do – and that is launch a political attack targeted toward the domestic market in front of a foreign delegation.

The intended target is most sensibly the world, including (i) the Israeli population to show that Bush has a certain grasp of the futility of never-ending appeasement, (ii) Europe and others which are often stuck in the thinking Bush has outlined, as well as (iii) Israel’s enemies. To limit the target to our domestic market is Obama, himself, taking a global issue and using it for his own political objectives – the very projection he uses against Bush himself.

On a day when we were supposed to be celebrating the anniversary of Israel’s independence, he accused me

Again, on the surface this seems simple naïve narcissism for Obama to claim victimhood here. Needless to say, an attack on a thinking pattern is being construed as an attack on Obama himself. Additionally, it can appropriately be seen as an attempt to elevate himself to being on a par with Bush, rising above Hillary Clinton, and starting to take the mantle of being the Democratic nominee. Finally, Obama is twisting the outgoing president’s global remarks on foreign soil into his own accusation – another maneuver of projection.

and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler. That’s what George Bush said in front of the Israeli parliament.

Despite arguments by cable “news” faces who differentiate “appeasing” from “talking,” this is a correct statement concerning Obama. In simple terms, appeasement consists of rewarding the enemy’s unsatisfactory actions in an effort to induce it to stop such behavior. This is precisely what Obama and his Democrat partners do when they neuter all of our applications of force while allowing Iran to stall “negotiations” and continue to advance its nuclear program. Iran couldn’t be clearer with its frequently stated proposition that it will never cease its nuclear program.

Now that’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world.

Embedded in this remark is a laundry list of distortions about our recent history. This “talk” is not at all what divides or supposedly “alienates us” from the world. Rather, we are divided as a country in large part based on the very thinking Bush described. The accurate history is that within months of our successful liberation of Iraq, the Democratic base, assisted by many in the State Department, CIA, and the media did all they could to interfere with Bush’s original plan. That plan was to liberate Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam and have the Iraqis quickly install their own government and then leave. As described in numerous accounts, including Doug Feith’s War and Decision, and Ken Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors, those plans were systematically deconstructed, sabotaged, and discredited. This description does not excuse Bush, as he is the ultimate executive. Nonetheless, our divisiveness exists in large measure because of the great political anti-Bush efforts made by those who currently support Obama. As for alienated allies, having vetted all of the self-interest connected with many European votes against our efforts in Iraq (as well as their having now experienced directly the effects of liberal policies towards Shari’ah motivated Muslims), many of those same European countries are returning to more conservative leadership.

And that’s why we need change in Washington. That’s part of the reason I’m running for President of the United States of America.

Now that was frustrating enough, but then John McCain gives a speech. He gave a speech in the morning where he talked about the need for civility in our politics. He talked about elevating the tone of the debate in our country. He talked about reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to the other side.

And then not an hour later, he turned around and embraced George Bush’s attacks on Democrats. He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn’t fit to protect this nation that I love because I wanted to sit down and negotiate with tough diplomacy with countries like Iran. He accused me of not being fit to protect this nation, a nation that my grandfather served in World War II, this nation that has given me everything that I have. So much for civility.

Civility? As if Obama and his “community organizer” hit men have not been constantly beating up on McCain, deceitfully attaching McCain’s name to Bush’s at every opportunity and attacking McCain’s age and so forth. These tactics, while perhaps expressed in a civil tone, are anything but the type of campaign Obama claims he and the name of “change” stand for. Again, he does precisely that which he claims is a part of the “old” system he will change.

Speaking of names, Obama’s followers attack anyone who cites his middle name “Hussein”, again charging a lack of civility and even racism for suggesting Obama is Muslim. As far back as Cassius Clay, blacks have changed their names to Arab-Islamic ones precisely to demonstrate that they are Muslims. Obama’s given name makes clear that he was a Muslim at least at birth. He certainly realized the significance of his name when, in his younger years he changed and went by “Barry.” If he so wants to dispel any issue today, he is free to change his name again to Barry rather than holding the rest of the world responsible for ignoring and overlooking the obvious.

I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain and with the people of South Dakota. If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place. And that is a debate that I will win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

[Standing Ovation]

Rhetoric and debate are his strong suits. Perhaps this is why he goes around saying he will talk to anyone. “Talk” is precisely all he stands for and all that his Messianic worshippers “hope” is necessary to rid our world of evil and solve our problems. Again, that is precisely part of the thinking Bush was describing.

George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for. They have to explain why we are now entering our sixth year of war in Iraq. We were supposed to be going over there for weapons of mass destruction that we never found.

Not true. We went into Iraq for a variety of reasons. The most often expressed reason was the failure of the UN to take sufficient action on 17 Security Council Resolutions. WMD was also a reason, given that most who saw the intelligence believed WMD to exist. Even today, numerous sources believe there is clear evidence that WMD were shipped out of Iraq before the liberation. More profoundly, as Obama insists he is the only one who had the good judgment to know in advance that the war was a mistake. Did he somehow know the almost universally accepted intelligence stating Iraq did have WMD and WMD programs was faulty? Or was the “judgment” he trumpets the conclusion that assuming the intelligence was correct, there was insufficient reason to go to enforce the Resolutions. In either case, his tactic of whining that no WMD was found disguises his real philosophy; that which Bush was outlining to the Knesset.

We were told that it was going to last a few months and cost a few billion dollars.

This was the plan until the State Department, under the influence of Democrats, sabotaged its execution and stretched the liberation into an occupation.

We have now spent over 600 billion dollars. Thousands of lives lost, and we have not been made more safe.

Safe by what measure? Obama inappropriately conflates the realities that truly threaten us with conditions that were caused by Bush’s supposed failures. This is where he demonstrates either ignorance or naïveté as to the real threats the West has faced for decades or he is deliberately abusing the truth to sell his candidacy. For all the hardship that has been incurred during the Bush years, it is foolish to think this decades-long battle will be easy. At least a significant portion of America has woken up to and become aware of the powerful force that confronts the West. That is as critical to our safety as any military or police victory.

They’re going to have to explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large and is sending out videotapes with impunity. They need to answer for the fact that al Qaeda’s leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. They’ve got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger.

What has made Iran stronger after the Iraqi liberation was America’s show of deep ambivalence with any use of force. It was this fear that Obama’s Democrat cohorts used to paralyze any effective stance against Iran. With the liberation, much of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had so feared an attack on Iran that they moved themselves and/or their assets out of the country. This was the time that Iran was offering to assist us with efforts against Al Qaeda and the time we had maximum leverage because of our use of force against Iraq. Once America’s Left taught Iran that it was unwilling to take a right turn and deploy force against Iran, the regime became emboldened and began to ignore every attempt to “negotiate” for the cessation of Iran’s nuclear program. Bush is responsible ultimately for inaction but the anti-Bush forces are what informed Iran that it could get away with endless stalling and lying. America has so blatantly communicated its fear of being militarily aggressive against Iran that Iran has done simply that which is expected-been unwilling to negotiate or give anything, stalled, and continued to advance its nuclear program.

George Bush’s policies. They’re going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.

That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

I’m a strong believer in civility and I’m a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy.

This completely misrepresents his record of virtually no bipartisan efforts. He “talks” well but his actions (specifically the lack of bipartisan action) belie his words.

But that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we’ve seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple of days.

Again with the projection – Obama is very skilled at divisive dishonest attacks, all packaged with a soothing voice and face.

John McCain has repeated this notion that I am prepared to negotiate with terrorists. I have never said that.

This is simply false as his debate responses have made clear- unless he wants to make the evasive distinction between terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism. If he relies on that distinction, he is more naïve than generally thought.

I am adamant about not negotiating with Hamas, a terrorist organization that has vowed to destroy Israel and won’t recognize them. In fact, the irony is that just as John McCain was making these attacks, a story broke that he was actually guilty of the exact same thing that he was accusing me of, and in fact was saying that maybe we need to deal with Hamas.

That’s the kind of hypocrisy we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy. The kind of fear-peddling, fear-mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.

Actually, it is Obama and his “community organizer” cohorts who have mastered fear-peddling and fear-mongering. Obama’s “change” campaign is code for “revolution” as has been so thoroughly articulated and mastered by Obama’s “community organizer” guru Saul Alinsky. One of Alinsky’s tactics, mastered by Obama, are to personalize the target and describe it as 100% evil. Obama has done that perfectly with Bush and then further extends it to McCain. In fact, the essence of Obama’s thesis is that we only really need fear Bush and Cheney as they are completely responsible for our threats. Get rid of them and their representative McCain, and Obama promises you will have nothing to fear. This is perhaps one of his most devious and dangerous projections – the transfer of fear off of our real and appropriate enemies onto those he seeks to destroy.

They’re trying to fool you.

Again, a true investigation into Obama’s roots reveals his alignment with Alinsky. Most of the public has no idea who Alinsky was or what he taught. It is Obama’s fooling them that has allowed him to suggest that “change” means something other than radical revolution.

They’re trying to scare you. And they’re not telling the truth. And the reason is that they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits. But it’s not going to work. It’s not going to work this time. It’s not going to work this year.

Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now,

To the extent that is true, it is due to our actions as describe earlier. McCain may hopefully be able to teach the Iranian regime to think differently.

and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism.

Actually, it is only when there is a credible threat of tough action, not talk, that we have a prayer of having a successful Iran policy. Obama, the master of “talk” is completely unable to sell any credible threat of action.

I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course.

I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy. That’s what John F. Kennedy did. That’s what Ronald Reagan did when dealing with the Soviets. And that’s what the president’s own Secretary of Defense wants to do.

Many have already written on the historical misrepresentations embedded in these faulty analogies, distinguishing talks in secret from summits, talks at the brink of war when the force card is played rather then when force is interpreted to be avoided at all costs, and so on. Obama fails to point out that it was precisely Khrushchev’s perception of Kennedy’s weakness that emboldened the Soviets to take the game to the brink of all out war in the first place. We can not afford to replay that game today with religiously motivated, apocalyptic Mullahs. Simply put, this is more of Obama’s distortive talk. He is able to get away with it because many of his idolaters know no better.

Understand: George Bush’s Secretary of Defense suggests we talk directly to Iran. So I don’t know if George Bush is calling his own Secretary of Defense an “appeaser.” I don’t know who he’s talking about.

Didn’t you already narcissistically insist he was talking about you?

It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.

This is perhaps the most dishonest element of his speech. None of this is new. These positions have been advanced by the Europeans and America for years. This is precisely what has been attempted and met with challenge from the Russians, the Chinese, and others. Alinsky instructs his followers to recognize that much of the population is ignorant and to utilize that ignorance. Obama deploys that tactic here as he has crystallized in the minds of his followers the illusion that no negotiations have taken place with Iran for years.

But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.” Back during his “No Surrender Tour,” John McCain said that anybody who wanted to end the war in Iraq wanted to surrender. He even said later on that he would be willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Again he distorts what McCain actually said and clearly intended. Nevertheless, Obama presents himself as the innocent force for good who has been so maliciously misrepresented.

I think he noticed that it wasn’t polling well, because he announced yesterday, he said that suddenly all our troops are going to be home by 2013, although he didn’t explain how he was going to do it.

Projection again? Perhaps what annoys the Clintons more than anything else in losing to Obama is that Obama has hijacked all of the old Clinton strategies and implements them even more skillfully. Every position Clinton took was polled and adjusted and this has become an Obama staple. Then, like a Clinton, he accuses his opponent of the very ploy.

He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush’s plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying. And that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war and bringing our troops home. We don’t need John McCain’s predictions about when the war will end. We need a plan to end it, and that’s what I’ve provided during this campaign.

The American people have had enough of the division and the bluster. Both Bush and McCain represent the failed foreign policy and fear-mongering of the past. I believe the American people are ready to reject this approach and to embrace the future. I think you’re ready for change that unites this country and ends this war and restores our security and standing in the world and that is serious about a bipartisan foreign policy.

This it the true first step towards an appeasement policy. Irrespective of any words, its intention is to convince the crowd that under Obama’s guidance, we will be able to talk our way back to a civil world. As Bush was suggesting, a civil world requires participants who respect and seek civility in terms similar to each other. It is the very fact that our enemies do not share our notion and terms of civility that generates the problem in the first place.

You can’t suggest that you want to be bipartisan and then run the kind of campaign tactics that we’ve been seeing over the last couple of days. You’ve got to start while you’re campaigning. That’s why we’ve got to bring about some change in the White House.

“Change” as Obama truly means it, is anything but bipartisan. His notion of bipartisan is to listen to what those on the other side of the aisle have to say in order to politely tell them that, in fact, he will act only as he has done throughout his career – in the most partisan liberal fashion possible.

Perhaps the most important part of most Bush speeches is truly relevant here – “God Bless America.” We will certainly need it.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Bill Siegel lives in New York.

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer orthis article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note – The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Surge To Victory

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:20 PM PT

War On Terror: They said the surge would fail. They claimed we had no allies. They called Iraq a quagmire. They sought to cut and run. Now, our victories over terror are accelerating across the world.


Read More: Global War On Terror | Iraq


 

Take a look at what happened in the global war on terror just over the Memorial Day weekend:

• Iraqi forces ran al-Qaida terrorists out of Mosul, the terror organization’s final urban stronghold. That victory reduces the killers to fringe areas with little public support, and a truncated capacity to recruit and strike terror in Iraq’s cities. Al-Qaida has “never been closer to defeat than they are now,” said Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Iraqi troops also cleaned out Basra and Sadr City, reducing any prospect for domestic insurgents to take power by force. Along with al-Qaida, these terrorists may try to continue, but the will is fading as the pressure is ratcheted up.

• In Colombia, Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos announced that Manuel “Sureshot” Marulanda, founder of the FARC Marxist terror group, died a hunted man in the jungle on March 26 as bombs rained down on him. Better still, the government knew this because it penetrated FARC. Marulanda died knowing his chosen successor, Raul Reyes, had been blown away, too. Indeed, three of FARC’s seven top leaders have been killed since March, and the rest are headed “for the grave,” Santos said.

Hundreds of FARC foot soldiers are now furtively phoning the government to beg for a deal. Along with fears of their own men turning them in for cash, FARC leaders now work in a poisoned atmosphere, knowing spies are in their midst. They won’t win.

• British forces for the first time drove the Taliban from a southern stronghold in a 96-hour battle this month. It was their first combat operation since new troops arrived in March. The New York Times reported a “palpable” sense of relief among villagers, with the district chief and exiles returning to rebuild. “There has been huge optimism from the people,” an officer was quoted as saying.

• In the south Philippines, Marxist and Muslim terrorists are desperate. A big arsenal belonging to al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf was unearthed in Sulu Saturday, taking 283 sacks of bomb components out of circulation. Meanwhile, Nur Misuari, the top terrorist of the Moro National Liberation Front, on parole in Davao, pleaded with other terrorists to drop arms and sue for peace at a rally Saturday.

• In Egypt’s al-Qaida inner circle, a leading jihad ideologue, using the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl, has now openly questioned terrorism as a tactic, given al-Qaida’s mounting losses. He threatened to renounce violence — a new blow to the jihadists.

Has there ever been such an epidemic of terrorist surrender? And the trend is growing. For the first time, the possibility of a world without major terror organizations is real. The world has shrunk for them, while the nations that fight back are getting stronger.

Significantly, those doing much of the winning are U.S. allies — the ones we supposedly don’t have.

The British have sprung to life after years of ineffectiveness. They now show their old mettle as they break the Taliban.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi, Colombian and Philippine militaries have become effective anti-terrorist fighters after U.S. training. Those countries’ forces were directly responsible for victory in Mosul, and big reversals in the jungles of Colombia and Philippines.

U.S.-trained anti-terror forces now form a united, global front of sorts. It’s a bad time to be a terrorist.

So where are the naysayers now with their conventional wisdom that the war can’t be won? The tables are turning on terrorists all over the world. As victories crescendo, it should be trumpeted loudly: The surge is working.

Current Events and ’08 Election Checklist

News of the TX polygamy sect is a Red Herring to distract attention away from the brainwashing in our very own taxpayer funded Madrassas. What is more of a threat to national security, Islamic institutions promoting unvarnished antipathy toward the West, or some hermitic Quakerish people with a distorted view of Christianity? In order to answer this question, one must ask oneself firstly, “How many Quakers have terrorized Western civ and how many Muslims have done the same? 

On that note:  If McCain gets the election nod, the Iranian regime is now in the process of digging its own grave. A Republican victory in 2008 will send a strong signal to the rest of the world that we’re not going to take transcendentalist terrorism sitting down. Sanctimonious preacher men like Martin Luther King, Jr. may have snookered a vacuous baby boom cult and helped to hijack American culture for multiple decades, sending ripple effects across the globe. However, the consequences of the multicultural disease vector, a byproduct of a liberal project gone mad, importing trouble from all parts of the globe, has calloused the hearts of erstwhile idealists, thereby earning significant pushback from the same.

This POTUS election cycle, like Hurricane Katrina, has been analogous to turning lights on in a cheap apartment and watching cockroaches scatter. We need to clean up our own house and the time is now. We are facing our foes more directly in the face than ever before and now it’s our opportunity to show the world what we’re made of. Will we be cowed by hypocritical personal attacks from our enemies or will we stand strong in truth and good character, in longsuffering and personal as well as collective faith? Our problems as a nation are our own, but not every one of our citizens’ or our aliens’ problems is our fault.

It is time to halt with the sanctimonious self-flagellation and confront the bitter, supercilious rhetoric of radical particularism.

The following is a burgeoning checklist to see where you stand on the issues (from my view). It can be amended; I can put it into mydocs on Google or in MSFT Livewindows and you can edit this as you please. Just let me know and I’ll post a link.

Vote Democrat to:

1.    be a dhimmy and subsidize Muslim charter schools; encourage plenty of Islamic immigration while denying basic rights memorialized in the American founding documents to Christians

2.    dragoon white heterosexual Christian men by every hate-filled liberal, anti-traditionalist orthodoxy

3.    raise high the red flag of Socialism and raise taxes, thereby sending the economy over a cliff

4.    nationalize health care and every other industry because the free market is ‘unfair’ since there is opportunity to both win and – gasp – lose. By the same token, allow the bureaucrats to take away the freedom inherent in the free market and receive kickbacks from monopoly profits for themselves

5.    have ‘free’ public services that you can wait in a multiple-day Russian breadline for, regardless of your place in the social hierarchy because that’s fair!

6.    Promote and subsidize abortion on  demand in the name of freedom, meanwhile condemning national defense via accusations of ‘baby killing’ (a la Jane Fonda in Vietnam) – ohh the irony!

7.    Censor free speech that is deemed racist against nonwhites but advocate racist and sexist ideas against white men in public schools

8.    Disallow bible and prayer in public schools while indoctrinating sex education and atheism

Vote Republican to:

1.    confront [if not attack] Iran, the main state sponsor of terror in the Mid-East

2.    stop affirmative action and put the ingrate crazies back in their place

3.    keep taxes low and allow hard working people who obey the laws and take care of their business to receive the just fruits of their respective labors

4.    stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country

5.    keep a security presence in Mesopotamia for as long as necessary to pre-empt terrorists from securing a command and control base there [which they will otherwise do] in order to stage future attacks on the West

6.    continue to build healthy economic relations with our allies like Columbia via free trade

7.    promote family values, including preservation of our religious and free speech liberties as well as the amendments which respect private property, personal privacy and the right to use lethal force in the aim of self-defense

8.    promote teaching of the controversies surrounding the nation’s major issues in public schools to render our children more well-adjusted (e.g., origin of life, racism, sexism, slavery, imperialism/colonialism, politics, economics, etc.) rather than propagandizing left-wing views via the Department of Education run by the Black Panther party

a.     Better yet – defund the Department of Education and localize control over public schools; get rid of bussing and give parents more control over the curriculum meanwhile setting baseline national standards for consistency

 

“Men of intemperate mind can never be free; their passions forge their fetters.” – Edmund Burke