Archive for September, 2007

That’s what the debate will be about when they take up FISA reform. Here’s how David Rivkin and Lee Casey frame the debate in their WSJ op-ed. In my opinion, they’ve framed it perfectly.

Would any sane country purposefully limit its ability to spy on enemy communications in time of war? That is the question Congress must answer as it takes up reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Privacy activists, civil libertarians and congressional Democrats argue that both foreign and domestic eavesdropping must be subject to judicial scrutiny and oversight, even if this means drastically reducing the amount of foreign intelligence information available to the government, without ever acknowledging the costs involved. It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.

One of the sentences in that paragraph that I disagree with is when they say “It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.” It isn’t that it isn’t important to have such a debate. It’s that we’ve already had that debate. As usual, we’re waiting for the Democratic leadership, indeed all of Washington, to catch up. In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly supported the NSA’s intercept program, which is what we’re really talking about here.

When this legislation was first debated, Democrats caved because they didn’t want to be blamed for terrorists’ communications reaching their destination without us listening in:

The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

The real debate is in the Democratic Party. In fact, it isn’t a debate as much as it is a all-out food fight. Here’s what said at the time:

“Enough is enough. We have to send a strong message to Congress that there is no trade-off between fundamental liberties and security,” said on Tuesday.

“Preserving our Constitution is essential to our security; we can’t lead on freedom around the world when we’re actively undermining the rule of law at home.”

I’ve pointed out before that when says jump, Democrats ask how high. That’s when the debate ends. Sort of. They’ll take their marching orders until the polls show how voting against FISA reform will seal their defeat next November. Then their strongest instinct kicks in: their re-election instinct.

Predictably, is using misinformation to win:

A liberal advocacy group is blasting the Democrat-run Congress for giving the Bush administration “more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant.”

That’s blatant misinformation. For those who’ve paid attention, that tactic isn’t new to It’s predictable that organizations will use misinformation when they’re on the wrong side of an issue. In fact, I’d submit that using massive amounts of misinformation is the only way that they can win. will continue losing because they’re so focused on doing whatever they have to to accumulate political power. They’d be better off if they focused on getting on the right side of issues by thinking things through instead of promoting policies that are the opposite of what President Bush proposes.

Mssrs. Rivkin and Casey make a point I’ve made numerous times:

Warrantless surveillance is also constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Although today’s privacy advocates routinely claim that warrantless searches are inherently unreasonable, that position is insupportable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly approved numerous warrantless searches, balancing the government’s interests against the relevant privacy expectations. Thus drivers can be subjected to sobriety checkpoints and international travelers are liable to search at the border.

THANK YOU!!! It’s long past time for this to be preached on a national stage. I first learned this truth when reading John Hinderaker’s post on FISA’s exceptions. Until this morning, I hadn’t seen it discussed in a national publication such as the WSJ.

Read the entire op-ed. I’ll guarantee you won’t regret it.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That should be the GOP’s theme for 2008. Think of what’s happened each time we enunciated a forward-looking, pro-growth vision. That’s what Ronald Reagan did in 1984 when he told us he’d cut taxes, defeat the Commies and appoint strict constructionist judges. In 1994, Newt’s revolution was made complete with the unveiling of the GOP’s vision for America. George Bush got 23 percent more votes in 2004 than he won in 2000 because he painted a vision of what he wanted to accomplish in his second term by filling his stump speech with things like appointing strict constructionist judges, fighting terrorists, reforming Social Security while keeping taxes low.

Part of why we got whipped in 2006 is because every other GOP commercial only talked about how America wouldn’t like Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco values agenda. The GOP’s message didn’t inspire people to vote for GOP candidates. That’s also why funds trickled into the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC in 2006. People were fed up with Republicans who didn’t act like Republicans. This year, the funds are trickling in again. The cure is in Republicans acting like Republicans. It’s also about them not worrying about tailoring their message to appeal to moderates. Let me explain.

If we put together a coherent agenda that keeps taxes low, that prioritizes how we’re spending the taxpayers’ money, we win because Democrats don’t believe in prioritizing. Their core belief is summarized in one word: MORE!!! More spending. More taxes. More regulations. More restrictions. The only places where MORE isn’t their mantra is more troops to kill jihadists, more freedom from government and more money in people’s pockets. The bad news for Democrats is that the last three issues are the highest priority items on the American voter’s wish list.

Despite all these facts, some of the highest profile pundits say that the GOP faces an uphill fight this election. I don’t agree. Eight months ago, I would’ve wholeheartedly agreed.

That’s a political eternity. In this instance, eight months made an incredible difference. Eight months ago, Speaker-elect Maggie Kelliher told Minnesotans that the House DFL caucus was a moderate bunch. Three months later, that myth had vanished in an unprecedented flurry of major tax and spending increases. Voters knew it because they were bombarded daily with a new tax increase and a new spending increase. Voters knew that the House and Senate DFL didn’t stop pressing that agenda until the last frantic moments of the session.

Eight months ago, the scene in Washington was dramatically different, too. In an attempt to appeal to moderates, Washington Democrats said that they wouldn’t cut off funds to the troops. They used that message last fall to get several ‘moderates’ elected in southern swing districts. That myth has vanished because they’re following MoveOn’org’s orders like a puppet follows his master’s dancing hands. It isn’t arguable that Democrats are now the mouthpiece of the Incoherent Left.

It’s also time to recognize two things about the Iraq war: (a) it isn’t popular and (b) it isn’t the drag that it was six months ago.

Again, eight months made a huge difference. In those eight months, President Bush implemented a new counterinsurgency plan led by David Petraeus. People were initially hesitant to trust President Bush. They were justified in doing so.

Eight months later, the military results are undeniable. People are rallying to David Petraeus because his plan is working. People’s opinions have changed because they trust Gen. Petraeus. People’s opinions have changed because there’s too much undeniable proof that Gen. Petraeus’ plan is working brilliantly. The nation’s opinions have shifted so much that Democrats are in full retreat mode.

This is best illustrated with the Democrats’ hopes in late July that the voters would deliver a stinging rebuke of the war to GOP wobblies so that they’d abandon President Bush about the war. Those GOP wobblies got some stinging rebukes…for not fighting for victory. When the Senate reconvened, the GOP wobblies’ resolve had stiffened considerably. Democrats, meanwhile, noticed. Suddenly, Democrats were the tentative ones. Nowadays, they’re the ones caving into President Bush’s wishes.

Minnesotans have noticed the DFL’s indifference to their needs. Independents are looking for an uplifting message to rally around. They’re looking for a shelter from the DFL’s tax increase storm. That’s why they’re open to hearing sensible ideas about taxes and spending restraint. It’s no different on the national scale.

Here’s the plan going forward. Our highest priority should be that, eight months from now, every GOP activist knows the GOP agenda frontwards and backwards, inside and out. Our second agenda should be that the GOP’s activists believe in that agenda with every fiber of their being. If these activists know the agenda and passionately believe in that agenda, they’ll be able to articulate that agenda. If that happens, they’ll be the most effective GOTV team in GOP history. That’s when the candidates and incumbents should start contrasting their pro-growth, pro life agendas, highly-prioritized spending agenda with their opponents’ records of fiscal irresponsibility, higher taxes and irresponsible national security policy.

By the way, another benefit of adhering to a clearly defined, appealing agenda is that the activists then become the most articulate editorial writers come election season. (BTW, election season started two months ago.)

It’s important to remember that it wasn’t that people got fed up with low taxes, sensible spending priorities and a government that protected them from terrorists.

They got fed up with a spineless GOP that piled up earmarks at a rate that would’ve almost made Robert Byrd and John Murtha blush. They got fed up with a spineless GOP that teamed up with Ted Kennedy on a sham wrongfully titled ‘immigration reform’. Voters knew that it wasn’t a reform. They got fed up with a spineless GOP that didn’t fight for low tax burdens for Americans, whether they were factory workers or small business owners, single mothers or college graduates.

If we follow the blueprint of low taxes, sensible spending priorities and protecting Americans from terrorist attacks from neighborhood to neighborhood,from city to city, one state to the next, election victories will be plentiful for the GOP in 2008. You can take that to the bank.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Mike Ciresi has had enough of getting beaten over the head with the ad. That’s why he wants to return to debating the Iraq policy. I’m all for that so let’s have at it. Let’s just stipulate one thing before getting started: that we get beyond the focus group-tested cliches and actually use actual logic. Let’s apply that logic to actual events on the ground. Likewise, let’s talk about verifiable statistics that support our opinions.

Immediately following the general’s testimony on Sept. 11, I said he should receive the gratitude of the nation for his service. Attacks on his veracity and patriotism have no place in the critical debate that Congress must have on Iraq. There never has been any question of our ability to achieve the “military objective” of dampening down violence as a result of our troop surge. Indeed, the nation’s resolve in going after terrorists is an objective supported by all Americans.

While it’s true that Mr. Ciresi said that Gen. Petraeus’ veracity shouldn’t be challenged “immediately following the general’s testimony”, it’s equally true that he flinched a bit immediately after that:

Ciresi’s campaign just flubbed an opportunity to take a centrist position by repudiating their perceived repudiation of’s attack ad.

The blogger who contacted Ciresi’s campaign also claimed his spokeswoman “did not respond to a separate question asking what Ciresi saw in the Congressional testimony that targeted Petraeus as ‘unpatriotic.'”

So, Ciresi’s campaign won’t provide an example of what qualifies as the attacks on Petraeus’ “veracity and patriotism” as mentioned in their email of September 11, 2007. But, according to Ciresi’s spokeswoman, it’s apparently not the ad.

Let’s get back to actually debating the policy. Here’s what passes for policy with Mr. Ciresi:

My long-stated plan offers that new direction:

  • Support a comprehensive surge in diplomacy and the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council that should involve all regional governments.
  • Establish a plan for withdrawing our troops from the civil war within a given time period.
  • Redeploy our troops with an emphasis on combating terrorism, training Iraqis and protecting Iraqi borders.
  • Calibrate the reorientation of our troops with a concomitant obligation by the Iraqi government to meet the economic and political benchmarks that they
    established and agreed to.

This is strictly typical focus group-tested regurgitations of the Democrats’ talking points. It isn’t policy. The term comprehensive surge in diplomacy means nothing to the average voter. I’d further state that Gen. Petraeus has already talked about withdrawing troops as more terrorists cells are eliminated. It’s foolish to “establish a plan for withdrawing our troops” beyond that.

It isn’t apparent whether Mr. Ciresi is paying attention to what’s happening in Iraq. If he were paying attention, he’d know that some of the surge troops are protecting the Iraq/Iran border. Other surge troops are fighting terrorists in western Iraq. They’re also starting to direct their attention towards killing al-Sadr’s militias south of Baghdad.

In short, Ciresi’s telling us that we should keep doing what we’re doing with the exception of putting together a plan to leave. That doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me.

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

After Nancy Pelosi’s panderfest at the HESTEC, it was inevitable that she’d get ripped for her irresponsible statements there. Brian Bilbray used the opportunity to rip Ms. Pelosi and like-minded Democrats of playing politics with national security:

“In a post-9/11 world, our borders represent a major vulnerability to our homeland security,” he said. “We have not only the right, but the responsibility to act now so that we can protect ourselves against all potential threats to our country…Speaker Pelosi clearly does not understand the link between border security and homeland security.”

EXACTLY RIGHT. Let’s see if his statements get any national coverage. There aren’t any national articles out yet about it so I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t.

Bilbray is right in highlighting the national security aspects of border security because it forces Democrats to give us their solution to the illegal immigration problem. Just spouting the words ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ have lost their punch. The American people don’t buy that anymore. When people first started using the term, it enjoyed a certain level of support. That phrase has lost all impact following the crash of the Senate’s “Grand Bargain”.

In fact, I’d argue that it carries a negative connotation with it now. I think that people are repulsed when they hear that phrase because it’s supported by Ted Kennedy, a known open borders supporter. Simply put, they don’t trust Ted Kennedy having anything to do with illegal immigration.

Pelosi still hasn’t learned that voters are sick of having to pay rapidly increasing taxes to pay for health care and education for illegal immigrants. People simply won’t tolerate that. In their minds, they’ve already paid too much. The old line that “I’re mad as hell and I’m not gonna take this anymore” should become our battle cry. We’re mad as hell that congress is persistent in ignoring our wishes. We’re mad as hell that they aren’t taking their responsibilities of protecting us from terrorists seriously. (Yes, that includes President Bush, too.)

This isn’t about just any policy; it’s about enforcing the law and protecting us from letting the next wave of terrorists slip into the country. This one’s personal. Damn personal in fact. I’ll put up with alot of things but I won’t sit idly by and watch politicians attempt to pass legislation that might get me and my relatives and friends killed.

Thank you, Brian Bilbray, for putting Ms. Pelosi in her place. It’s about time someone highlighted one of the awful policies she’s espousing.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

According to this article, a judge has ruled that Rep. John Murtha must testify in a defamation lawsuit. That isn’t his only obligation:

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

If Murtha is forced to giving a deposition, he’ll likely be forced to say who, if anyone, gave him this information. If one of his cronies in the Pentagon fed him this information, it’ll expose that person’s anti-war (or possibly anti-Bush) agenda. If Rep. Murtha made this up, then he’s in deep trouble. Even if another court rules that his accusations were part of his official responsibilities, he’ll be exposed to the entire world as pitching these Marines’ constitutional guarantees aside.

At that point, it won’t matter if he’s made daily trips to Walter Reed. It won’t matter if he’s helped win billions of dollars of funding for the troops. His railroading these Marines will be his legacy. PERIOD.

That’s why I’m betting that Murtha will do everything in his power to quash this judge’s order to have him give a deposition. The judge in this lawsuit is Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush appointee. Here’s what she said:

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won’t know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha’s testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

“You’re writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?” Collyer said, adding later, “How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.

A representative shouldn’t be able to hide behind the Constitution to protect himself from a lawsuit after he’s tossed the Constitution aside.

When Rep. Murtha declared that the Haditha Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” before he’d been briefed and before the NCIS investigation was finished, he essentially said that the Constitution’s protections didn’t apply to Frank Wuterich and the other Haditha Marines. Forgive me if I don’t buy into that thinking.

Furthermore, it’s worth questioning at what point Rep. Murtha isn’t protected by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause. Should senators and representatives be covered 24/7? Should they be covered when they’re holding press availabilities? Should they be able to viciously slander someone, whether they’re on the House floor or at a press galley, with full immunity? I’m certain that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend on providing that type of protection when they wrote the Speech and Debate Clause into the Constitution.

I’d argue that the Founding Fathers wrote the Speech and Debate Clause into the Constitution to protect them from lawsuits if they debating a bill on the House floor or if they’re writing legislation in their office. I’d be hard pressed to think that it was meant to protect congressmen when they defame a private citizen, especially without justification.

I’d further argue that this judge’s ordering Murtha’s testimony and deposition puts the House leadership on notice that they can’t excuse Murtha’s corruption and unethical behavior. Thus far, the House Democratic leadership has fallen far short of their promise to be the most ethical congress in history. In fact, it isn’t difficult to make the case that they’re the most unethical congress since the 1994 bloodletting.

Let’s further stipulate that letting Murtha slide without starting an ethics investigation into his malicious attacks on the Haditha Marines would tell the world that the Democrats’ culture of corruption runs deeper than did the Republicans’. I say that because they didn’t try protecting Randy Cunningham and Bob Ney from prosecution. Will Democrats try protecting their ‘cash cow’? I’d argue that they already did when Ms. Pelosi endorsed Murtha in his quest to be House Majority Leader.

Here’s what’s posted on CBS’ website:

From the AP: ‘You’re writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?” Collyer said, adding later, “How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”

Then John Bresnahan of CBS had the audacity to write this:

Frankly, I don’t understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and House general counsel’s office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

Mr. Bresnahan, Accusing these Marines of cold-blooded murder isn’t saying “some inappropriate things”; it was a malicious and unsubstantiated smear. In fact, it’s arguable that it was nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

Likewise, I’d challenge Mr. Bresnahan ‘s statement that Murtha was “clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments.” When did it become part of a lawmaker’s job to wrongly accuse genuine war heroes of cold-blooded murder before the NCIS finished its investigation? I’m curious why Mr. Bresnahan thinks that that’s “clearly part” of Murtha’s job.

In fact, I’d challenge Mr. Bresnahan to publicly justify that particular statement. I wouldn’t bet much that he could.

I’d further argue that the Speech and Debate Clause isn’t absolute. Let’s stipulate that other constitutional privileges have exceptions, too. We hold the attorney/client privilege dear but that privilege isn’t absolute. It can’t protect a lawyer who willfully assists his client commit a crime. Lynne Stewart was convicted for assisting the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, in carrying out other crimes.

We hold the priest/penitent privilege dear, too, but that has exceptions, too. Even the First Amendment’s protections aren’t absolute. Should we then accept as absolute that the people’s representatives protections be absolute? I think not.

For me, the bottom line is that Rep. Murtha shouldn’t be allowed to make such statements with total immunity. This case screams out that either the courts or the House of Representatives deliver justice to Sgt. Wuterich, LCpl. Sharratt, Capt. Stone, Lt. Col. Chessani and all the Marines that Rep. Murtha defamed with his unsubstantiated and repeated statements.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the sarcastic answer I’d give Nancy Pelosi after reading about her latest foolish quote. Here’s what the uproar is about:

A controversial advertisement for a San Francisco festival that depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party falls within the First Amendment and is not harmful to Christianity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.

The ad for the Folsom Street Fair, to be held in Pelosi’s district on Sunday and which is partly funded by San Francisco’s Grants for the Arts program, which is funded by the city’s hotel tax, sparked outrage from Christian groups because it mirrors Leonardo Da Vinci’s famous painting of “The Last Supper” but replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys.

It’s insulting to think that Ms. Pelosi would try spinning such a disgusting thing this way. QUESTION: Why do Democrats automatically resort to “It’s a First Amendment issue” every time one of their perverts starts spewing this type of disgusting stuff? We know that people have the right to say this type of stuff. It isn’t about the First Amendment in the sense that it’s a matter of public decency.

Here’s an exchange between a CNS correspondent and Ms. Pelosi: “I’d like to get local or a second and talk about what’s going on in San Francisco. Your spokesman old the Bay Area Reporter that the Folsom Street Fair advertisement mocking the last supper would not harm Christianity. I’m wondering if you find the advertisement personally offensive.”

“And as a follow up, the city’s rants for the Arts program, funded by the city’s hotel tax, subsidizes the air. Do you think that it’s fair to tax everyone who visits San Francisco and stays in a hotel to support the fair?”

Pelosi: “Well that’s not really a local question. That’s a constitutional question. That’s a religious question. That’s as big a global question as you can ask. I’m a big believer in First Amendment and therefore, as I said in my statement, I do not believe that Christianity has been harmed by the Folsom Street Fair advertising.”

Why should Christians, who believe that Christ died a virgin, tolerate this type of thing? Would Ms. Pelosi stay silent if someone characterized gays as sexual deviants far outside the mainstream? Of course she wouldn’t. Then why shouldn’t Christians be incensed with this disgusting mischaracterization of Christ and His apostles?

This ad is the epitome of intolerance and insensitivity. Ms. Pelosi’s response is the ultimate in nonjudgmentalism. Unfortunately, neither action is surprising.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Minutes ago, CNN reported that Abu Osama al-Tunisi was killed. Al-Tunisi was a key leader in AQI. The Guardian reported that al-Tunisi was killed in a US airstrike on Tuesday:

The US military today said one of the most senior al-Qaida figures in Iraq has been killed in an air strike, describing it as a “key loss” to the terror network. Brigadier General Joseph Anderson said Abu Usama al Tunisi had been instrumental in bringing foreign fighters into Iraq.

“Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders…the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle,” he said.

Brig Gen Anderson also described al-Tunisi, a Tunisian, as a close associate of and likely successor to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Egyptian believed to head al-Qaida in Iraq.

This should silence Sen. Schumer after his foolish statements about how the surge wasn’t responsible for the Sunni sheikhs turning on AQI terrorists in al-Anbar Province:

We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

We wouldn’t be getting the high quality intelligence it takes to find and kill a major terrorist leader if the people didn’t trust Americans. This airstrike simply wouldn’t have happened if the Iraqi people didn’t trust us.

That isn’t the only good news coming from Iraq:

Addressing a Pentagon press conference from Baghdad, he said recent operations involving both Iraqi and US forces had helped halve the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq, numbers of which had been running at around 60 to 80 a month.

Brig Gen Anderson claimed the US was having “great success” in isolating pockets of foreign militants in remote areas.

“They are very broken up, very unable to mass and conducting very isolated operations,” he said.

It sounds to me like the surge has foreign terrorists in total disarray. It sounds like the extra troops are preventing terrorists from initially entering Iraq, too. I’d say that that’s pretty good results for a failed strategy that needs changing ASAP.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

That’s the best way for me to talk about French President Nicholas Sarkozy after his speech to the UN General Assembly. Based on his column, it’s apparent that that’s Charles Krauthammer’s opinion, too:

On the largest possible stage, the U.N. General Assembly, President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran’s nuclear ambitions “an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.”

His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had earlier said that the world faces two choices, successful diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the U.S. in imposing serious sanctions.

“Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace,” he warned. “They lead to war.” This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions.

Any French president with the courage to state that policy with that conviction is someone I can deal with. In fact, I wish there were more like-minded Western European leaders in the Sarkozy mold. Sarkozy’s statements have put Democrats in a bit of a box, though. For months (years really), we’ve heard about how ‘The World’ hates us because of President Bush’s reckless policies. That paradigm is losing credibility because leaders like President Sarkozy are embracing President Bush’s policies.

That’s the reason why the landscape in Washington has shifted so dramatically:

Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate Wednesday by 76-22, declaring that it is “a critical national interest of the United States” to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq, most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground. It takes time for reality to seep into a Washington debate. But after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the reality of the relative success of our new counterinsurgency strategy, and the renewed possibility of ultimate success in Iraq, became no longer deniable.

In other words, Democrats are backpedalling from their vitriolic anti-war rhetoric, a fact I’m sure isn’t lost on the inhabitants at DailyKos, and other refuges of the incoherent fringe of the Democratic Party. In fact, is up in arms about the Senate passing a resolution condemning’s “General Betray Us” ad:

Statement: I will fight back

The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war. They wanted to send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone, especially politicians, think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.
We can’t let that happen, so we’re letting Congress know that they’re not going to intimidate us. Can you sign on to this statement?
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.

As we get closer to Election Day, the Incoherent Left’s demands will become louder and more shrill. That’s going to put Mrs. Clinton in a difficult position. This isn’t unlike the situation that John Kerry found himself in in 2004. Mrs. Clinton can’t ignore the Incoherent Left but she can’t pander to them either. She needs their votes because she won’t win over independents and moderates, especially if Rudy’s the GOP nominee. She’ll also need their help with her GOTV operation.

Hillary’s problem is that she’s in big trouble if she doesn’t make a clear delineation between her policies and the Incoherent Left’s policies.

Thanks to President Sarkozy’s tough stance on Iran and his offering to send troops to Iraq, Dermocrats suddenly find themselves caught between Iraq and a difficult place. Thank You, President Sarkozy.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

This video of Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly ridiculing Dr. Boyce Watkins’ remarks is must viewing:

In my opinion, Dr. Watkins is a parasite who’s living off of the virtuous, positive movement that Dr. Martin Luther King started. Dr. Watkins doesn’t have a bit of moral standing after calling Juan Williams a “happy negro”. Dr. Watkins doesn’t have the moral right to criticize Juan Williams about anything.

Juan Williams is a man for whom the Civil Rights Movement is deeply personal. Anyone who’s paid attention to Juan Williams knows that he’s a proud man who’s been inspired by the Civil Rights Movement that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his life for. Anyone who’s paid attention to Juan Williams knows about his appreciation for Justice Thurgood Marshall.

I’d further state that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams better represent the type of ideals that Dr. King espoused. Let’s also include Rep. John Lewis in that group, too. These men are the type of men that represent the best that the Civil Rights Movement had to offer. They are the real leaders, not charlatans like Boyce Watkins.

I’d stongly recommend that everyone buy and read these books if you haven’t already done so:

Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary
Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

In another signal that she’s an open borders proponent, Speaker Pelosi criticized the border fence currently being built. She made these comments as part of her pandering to the Hispanic Engineering, Science & Technology Week conference (HESTEC).

“I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “These are communities where you have a border going through them, they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them.”

In making these comments, Ms. Pelosi is essentially saying that she’s placing a higher priority on not splitting up communities than on enforcing the law. She’s also essentially saying that ‘not splitting up communities’ is a higher priority than closing down the border so we can stop terrorists before they get here.

Ms. Pelosi’s pandering shows that Democrats put politics ahead of national security. Simply put, Ms. Pelosi’s panderfest is meant to collect votes. Based on these quotes, it’s obvious that she either doesn’t care about setting intelligent national security policy or she’s willing to deceive Hispanics with her rhetoric while practicing another thing.

That isn’t the only subject on which she pandered:

Pelosi also touted legislation known as the DREAM Act that would make it easier for some illegal immigrants to receive higher education benefits. She spoke at a conference that drew more than 5,000 students for activities designed to inspire careers in science and technology.

The DREAM Act would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing illegal immigrants with lower in-state tuition rates. It also would allow permanent residency for illegal immigrants who entered the country as children and have been admitted toan institution of higher education.

“It just isn’t fair,” Pelosi said. “Those young people who came to America one way or another…their opportunities are curtailed because of the situation. And it’s not only harmful to them; it’s harmful to the country.”

We fought against the DREAM Act here in Minnesota. In fact, conservative activists and legislators like Dan Severson got it dropped from the conference report after differing versions had passed the House and Senate. Activists pointed out that Minnesota taxpayers subsidize the lower in-state tuition rates.

Ms. Pelosi wants to talk about what’s fair? Let’s talk fair then. What’s fair about forcing parents, whose burden is stiff enough in sending their own children to college, much less burdening them with additional taxes so illegal immigrants can get the same tuition rates as their children? What’s fair about illegal immigrant children then using that college degree to compete with students who got the lower tuition rates legitimately?

I don’t think that that’s fair at all. I’d bet the ranch that most people across the nation would agree with me.

It’s our job on the Right Blogosphere to expose such duplicitousness. If we don’t expose the folly of Democrats’ policies, then we deserve to get beat next November.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative