Senate Votes to Surrender 50- 48

The Senate voted yesterday to surrender the war if we still have troops in Iraq in March 2008. It was phrased as a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days with 100% of troops out of Iraq by March, 2008. If our forces leave the field without any consideration for how the war is going at the time, I can only interpret this as an Unconditional Surrender. I simply can’t see any way another nation would look at this and not view it as a failure in Iraq and a surrender by the United States.


Many of the Democrats have said they want this surrender date in the bill to send a message to the President. The Congress (both House and Senate) have spent a lot of time sending and phrasing messages to the President. These messages are viewed by a much wider audience than just the President. What do our troops thing about this? What about our enemies? What about our Allies?


The message the Democrats are sending to our troops is, “Regardless of what is happening in Iraq, we are going to remove you from the field.” The Democrats don’t care if we are winning in Iraq, and they don’t care if we can win in Iraq. They simply insist that we can’t fight any longer. They have decided that any war can only last “x” number of days, and we can only continue to engage if we take less than “x” number of casualties. It doesn’t matter what is happening, what the military leaders think, or what casualties our enemies are taking.


Our enemies must view this as a victory. The politicians behind the forces they are facing have said that if our enemies are still in Iraq in March of 2008, they can have Iraq. The Democrats have said we can fight until then, but after that, we just don’t have it in us. The last thing any general wants is to give his enemy hope. However, the Democrats are sending Al-Queda and Iran vast quantities of hope.


Finally, what does this message say to our Allies? Many Democrats criticize the Iraqi government for not quelling Sunni-Shia violence. Now we have told the democratically elected government of Iraq that they have until March to get things in order and then we are going to leave them to fight their enemies, and the enemies of Democracy. Iraq has had the first transparent and free elections in the Middle East in a long, long time. The Democrats have said, “We don’t really care what you do between now and March, but we are leaving in March.” They have decided Democracy in the Middle East simply isn’t worth protecting.


If Al-Queda released a press statement saying they were going to withdraw from Iraq if America was still fighting in March, how would we view that? Would we see it as a sign of things going in our favor? Would that message be enough to give the Democrats the will to push on with the surge? Would we see it as a sign that Bin Laden was simply trying to send a message to his cell leaders, and we shouldn’t read anything into it? What message are the Democrats really sending? No one believes the Democrats agree with the President on anything right now. As I view the House and the Senate debate surrender, I wonder which the Democrats think is worse: George Bush succeeding in Iraq, or a loss by America’s military?

A Democrat in Favor of the 2nd Amendment

I thought with the weight of some of the topics discussed on here lately, and with the ongoing quest for the “magical 20^th comment”, perhaps it was time for something a little more entertaining. I must warn my liberal friends and readers ahead of time, this information comes from Fox News.

An Aid to Senator Jim Webb (D-Virgina) was arrested today for taking a gun into a Senate building in Washington, DC. The aide, Phillip Thompson, was described as a long time aide and friend of the Senators. He was arrested trying to bring a loaded gun with two extra magazines (both loaded) into the Russell Senate Office Building. Thompson was stopped when the weapons were discovered at an x-ray machine. Webb's office said the Senator had given Thompson the gun earlier in the day as he left for the airport. Thompson then simply forgot he had it before he attempted to enter the Senate building.

I am pleased to see a Democrat who is openly in favor of 2^nd Amendment rights. This is just a strange, strange story.

House Democrats Try to Bribe Their Members

The House passed a bill yesterday giving the President the emergency funds he needed for the war in Iraq. The bill, HR 1591, is entitled The US Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq Accountability Act 2007. The bill comes with more strings than the most complicated puppet.

Some conservative Democrats have been against placing arbitrary time tables on the war. In order to get them to vote with the rest of the Democratic Party, this bill was loaded with many, many pork barrel spending projects. I leave it to the reader to distinguish between a “pork barrel project” and an open bribe for a vote. Some of the pork in this bill shows up as follows (remember, this bill is for troop readiness, veteran’s health, and Iraq accountability):

• $25 Million for Spinach

• $20 Million for US Farmland damaged by freezing temperatures.

• $283 Million to continue funding the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

• $24 Million for the 2007 crop of peanuts

• $5 Million to offset losses from last years health advisory regarding imported fish

• $60.4 Million to go to the operations, research, & facilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service
  

• $100 Million for Citrus Crop relief from Hurricane Katrina and Rita

In all, there were around $20 Billion in pork projects added to the bill in order to buy conservative Democrat’s votes. These conservative Democrats have been against setting a timetable for Iraq. Now, they have put there reservations aside in order to bring pork projects back to their districts.

There will be supporters of the Democratic Party that will paint this as a step in the right direction. They will say that the Democrats are correct and that we have already lost in Iraq, or we are in the middle of a civil war we can’t hope to win. There is an excellent article today in the Weekly Standard looking at the arguments the Democrats have laid out for why we should get out of Iraq. The main arguments the Democrats have put forth just don’t hold water.

If the American people as a whole thought we should get out of Iraq, Congress would be able to simply cut funding to the war. Instead, they are forced to add $20 Billion in pork to get conservative Democrats to agree to timetables around the war. The President accused the Democrats of “Political theatrics”. When the Congress puts $20 Billion into a bill that the President has vowed to veto, and probably won’t survive intact in the Senate, I am afraid the President is correct. House Democrats have decided to stage a tragedy, and they are using money the troops need as a simple prop in their play.

The President picks a fight with Dems ?

For most of President Bush’s term, I have been a supporter of his foreign policy. I have agreed with his decision to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. On the domestic side, I have found some issues I supported him in, and others I thought he was wrong in. One issue I have been sorely disappointed with is his lack of an apparent fighting spirit against the Democrats.

Too many times over the Bush Presidency I wanted the President to be very vocal about problems I felt the Democrats were the root cause of. Too many times I thought Democrats said things that the President could easily refute that he wouldn’t talk about. I think one thing that contributed to the loss in November was the fact that the President didn’t go on the offensive enough when he had a Republican majority.

Drudge has a large headline on his site currently proclaiming, “Bush Vows to Block Subpoenas; Warns Dems No ‘Show Trials’”. The link is to a story on Breitbart from the AP. I want to quote the first paragraph from the story:

“WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.”

I hope the President is really willing to see this one all the way through. It looks like there is now no way to avoid prolonged exposure to this story. I think many of the issues that Brandon, Familyman, and Matthew brought out in previous comments will be answered one way or the other in the coming weeks.

Scandal? What Scandal?

All reports seem to indicate that things are improving in Iraq. The on the ground reports and many of the media seem to think there are initial victories. A poll released in the Times UK on the 18^th says that most Iraqis now believe that life is better in Iraq under Prime Minister al-Maliki than under Saddam. While a lasting victory is probably still a long ways away, these early signs show every reason to hope for success.

However, the Democrats have placed their party on the side of failure in Iraq. If we win the war, they will be the party that has fought tooth and nail against any sort of victory in Iraq. They will be on the record fighting every suggestion the President has made in the war. They demanded the President change course in Iraq. President Bush outlined a new way forward. It wasn’t withdrawal, so the Democratic Party wasn’t happy with it.

As things improve in Iraq, the Democrats will become more and more desperate for political cover. They know that any victory in Iraq doesn’t look good for their party. They will do anything in their power to divert voter attention away from victories in Iraq, even if it means manufacturing scandals.

The latest attempt to fool the voters has come with the “US Attorney Scandal”. The Democrats claim to be mystified that the President would fire any US Attorney. As Newsweek and many other news sources have reported, every US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. Politicians have traditionally cleaned house when they come to office. In the President’s case, he didn’t do that with the US Attorneys. However, it looks like he decided it might be worth considering at some point after he was in office.

What the Democrats don’t want the average citizen to know is that President Bush can fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason. President Clinton fired every US Attorney out there when he was President. All 93 were given a pink slip and sent packing. In this case, the Democrats were angry that President Bush fired less than ten US Attorneys.

President Clinton’s had the ability to fire any US Attorney he saw fit to, and as President, President Bush has the same ability. Our new President may fire some, all, or none of the US Attorneys when he or she comes into office in January of 2009. The President gets to decide who works for him or her. The President may decide to fire the Attorney’s for poor job performance or just to get some political allies in office. Regardless, it’s the Presidents decision to make. Anything else is simply an attempt to trick the public.

2007: The High-Water Mark of Global Warming

Could 2007 be the last year we are bombarded with articles on the coming Global Warming Apocalypse? Prominent scientists have questioned the man made global warming “consensus” for some time now. This year seems to have changed in that these scientists are beginning to be heard in main stream media, and no one is threatening to burn them at the stake.

Vice President Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was released last year to praise and accolades by many in the press. It seemed impossible to find a media personality who didn’t think the movie was the most important work of our time. The media reported that the Vice President was more popular now than he was as Vice President. Mr. Gore seemed set to take in awards, and maybe even a Presidential nomination. In February, the Boston Globe compared global warming deniers with holocaust deniers. Since them, it would appear that the climate is changing, but not as Mr. Gore or the Boston Globe might have predicted.

Channel 4 in the UK recently aired a special entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” In it, Channel 4 shows a group of prominent scientist condemning the Global Warming theories. The program features nine scientists that are prominent experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography, and paleoclimatology. To the best of my knowledge, the program has not aired in the US yet, but with the talk it has generated, it probably won’t be long before it is available outside of the UK.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article quoting many of Al Gore’s critics and their complaints with “An Inconvenient Truth”. For Example, Don Easterbrook specifically pointed out that Mr. Gore’s movie has some inaccuracies. The emeritus professor said, “…there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” Mr. Gore’s response to his critics for the Times article stated that while some of the “nuances and distinctions” were missing from his movie, it conveyed the “…most important points”.

As the New York Times and other media outlets began showcasing respected critics of man made global warming, the current “consensus” will change. While a debate on the points of global warming has been long overdue, I believe 2007 will show just how little we as humans really understand about the Earth and its climate.

Into the Belly of the Beast

David Scott, Democratic Representative from Georgia, had a town hall meeting this past Saturday. Representative Scott is also my representative in Congress. I have called my representative before, and decided to attend the Town Hall meeting.

I went to the meeting with a few ideas in my head of what I might face. I expected a very high percentage of Democrats at the meeting, and I wasn’t disappointed in that regards. I also expected a lot of talk about Iraq and President Bush. I was wrong in that regard.

The meeting was very heavily Democratic in its turn out. The Representative spent a few minutes welcoming everyone to the meeting and then opened the floor for questions. I grouped the number of questions into a few very broad categories below:

Topic	Number of Questions
Healthcare	4
Taxes	4
Iraq	4
Iran	2
Illegal Immigration	2
Others	11

The eleven questions on “other” topics were so diverse I couldn’t group them into any unifying topic. The number of questions is also not directly related to the amount of time spent on each topic. The Representative spent the vast majority of his time talking about the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) and Illegal Immigration. There was actually only a little time spent on the war in Iraq. About half the people present were for the war, and half were against the war.

Representative Scott is a supporter of the Fair Tax Act. He stated he is working on getting the bill a hearing in Congress so that some of the fine points of the bill could be worked out. Mr. Scott believes that our tax system is incredibly flawed and must be replaced. As I said, most of the people at this meeting were Democrats, but a lot of them were talking about the Fair Tax Act as well. A lot of the questions would end with something along the lines of, “…and I am also a supporter of the Fair Tax.” At one point Rep. Scott stopped the discussion and said that he can’t do a town hall meeting without talking about the Fair Tax Act.

Mr. Scott also wants to control Illegal Immigration by immediately moving 25,000 troops to the borders. Once the borders are secure he would next go after businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

I would encourage anyone reading this article to get in touch with your representative regardless of their political party. While you may not agree with your elected official, they are still there to represent you. The one thing I took from this meeting is that many of my neighbors feel the same way I do, even with a Democratic Representative.

Iraq the Model

I wanted to drop a quick note in here about a new blog I stumbled across. I saw an article from a site called Iraq the Model on Real Clear Politics. This blog is run by two brothers from Baghdad. In addition to numerous articles, the site contains many links to other Iraqi and Middle Eastern blogs. I have found the blog very interesting because it contains well thought out articles written about Iraq from the Iraqi point of view. Anyone interested in how the Iraqi’s view what is happening in Iraq, or want an unfiltered opinion of what is really happening in Iraq should check out Iraq the Model.

Rape Victim to be Punished under Islamic Law

Fox News is reporting that a rape victim in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man that wasn’t related to her. MSNBC and a few other sites have also run this article. The 19 year old girl is referred to as “G” in most of the articles to protect her identity. According to her story, she was seeing a man without her parent’s knowledge. The man threatened to reveal this to her parents unless she met him somewhere. Once she agreed to meet him, he convinced her to ride in his car with him where they were forced to the side of the road by another car with additional men.

Over the next several hours, she was abducted and raped 14 times by multiple people. One of the rapists took pictures of her naked and used that to keep her quiet. She stayed quiet, and even tried to commit suicide. At some point, the police found out, and quickly arrested the guys involved. The rapists were sentenced to between 10 months and 5 years of jail time, while the victim and her original companion were each sentenced to 90 lashes. The rape victim has appealed to the King of Saudi Arabia to intervene.

The Saudi ministry said the rape could not be proven under Islamic law. In order for rape to be proven, there must be two male witnesses who testify that they saw the actual rape. Because the victim had also broken Islamic law, she was sentenced to 90 lashes that will most likely be administered over two days.

This is not the first story I have seen like this. Unfortunately, I don’t believe it is the last I will see either. I have taken some criticism on this site and others for being critical of Islam. This story is an example as to why I am so critical. I have trouble believing a “Religion of Peace” would allow a young girl who was raped 14 times to be punished for it. If Islam is as progressive as its defenders say it is, why does a rape have to be witnessed by two men before it can be called a rape? In today’s world, rape can be proven without eye witnesses. According to Islamic law, not even the testimony of a woman who may have witnessed the event is suitable for a conviction. Why would any civilized society punish the victim of a terrible crime like this? The answer is simple: Islam, as practiced by many people all over the world, is not the religion of peace it claims to be. I challenge anyone who believes differently to justify the punishment “G” will be forced to endure after already being raped 14 times.

Should States Require HPV Vaccine?

Over the last few weeks many State Governments have debated if girls entering the sixth grade should be vaccinated against a particular sexually transmitted disease. The specific STD in this case is the human papiloma virus, or HPV. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HPV can lead to cervical cancer in some women. Gardasil is a new vaccine designed to protect against four of the HPV strains that account for 70 % of cervical cancer cases and 90 % of genital warts.

There are eight states currently debating if the state should require girls 11-12 years old get vaccinated for HPV before they can enter the sixth grade. The states are California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. Over the last few years, Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has tested the vaccine in girls 9-26 years in age and have not noted any harmful side effects. However, this debate has led some to question if these state governments are overstepping their authority.

Many critics of the HPV vaccine question the wisdom of having an 11 year old girl vaccinated for a STD. The American College of Pediatricians has commended Merck for its ground breaking research, but is against any legislation requiring the vaccine. The organization believes the vaccine should be made available, but that patients and their parents (in the case of young girls) should be made aware of the limits of the knowledge of this vaccine. While there are no known harmful side effects from the vaccine, no one is certain how long the vaccine is good for. There is the possibility that booster shots could be required after the initial three shot series. The American College of Pediatricians argues that it makes more sense to give the vaccine when a girl is closer to sexual activity. When is that? For each girl that is a unique age that should be taken into account. The vaccine appears to work best in subjects within the first two years after receiving it. If a girl decides not to be sexually active until later in life, she might want to wait to get the vaccine until then when it can be most effective.

Because HPV is not a communicable disease, I don’t think the states have the right to force all girls to get this shot. If there is a compelling reason to protect the other students in the class, then I could be convinced to side with the states that want to require the shot. Currently, many kids are required to be vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and other highly communicable diseases. However, HPV is only transmitted though sex. For states to require a STD vaccine prior to entering the sixth grade or any other grade would be a precedent setting decision. If a state requires the STD vaccine, should it require other vaccines, such as Hepatitis? Will states start requiring children submit to a STD screening process before they can attend school each year?

I think this decision is best left to the individual doctors, parents, and girls. There are risks with any vaccine, and there is still more research that needs to be done on this one. Parents should have the flexibility to evaluate their children and decide when it is appropriate to give this shot to their children. I have a three year old daughter. One day, she will probably be vaccinated for HPV. But that should be at a time that my wife and I decide to have her vaccinated based on her doctors recommendation and her own maturity. Girls mature differently and families have different values. To require this “one size fits all” solution doesn’t accommodate different families with different values.

Democrats in a Quagmire

CNN has an interesting article on their website entitled Democrats struggle with next step on Iraq. After passing a non-binding resolution in the House, and working the following weekend in the Senate without passing the resolution, the Democrats seem to be a little confused on how to proceed.

This week, Rep Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania began discussing legislation he would like to use to prevent any reinforcements from going to Iraq. He has said he will tie readiness requirements to funding bills for troop deployments. At face value this might not be a bad idea. Murtha would put requirements on how much training, equipment, and time away from Iraq any particular unit needed before it could be deployed to Iraq. Murtha has said the limits he has sent are unachievable, and would prevent any troops from being deployed to Iraq. Murtha’s message would be loud and clear: Troops, you are on your own.

However, the Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are unsure how they want to proceed. Speaker Pelosi has been non-committal on Murtha’s proposal, but is quoted in the AP article as saying, “Let me be very clear: Congress will fund our troops.” Senate Majority Leader Reid wishes to table the discussion on Iraq entirely. He plans on taking up debate on the 9/11 commission. Discussing when the Senate might pick up the debate on Iraq, Reid said, “Iraq is going to be there – it’s just a question of when we get back to it.” The article also quotes him as saying it would be days and not weeks before the Senate came back to the issue. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) stated that he understood there were some that thought the Senate should continue the debate on Iraq. However, both Durbin and Reid think they can implement all of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations quickly. Because of the emotional nature of some of the recommendations, and the fact that they haven’t been implemented yet, it might take some time before the Senate could agree on what recommendations to implement.

The article illustrates that the Democratic leadership is confused and unsure when it comes to the Iraq debate. The Senate is moving on to other things. Pelosi and Reid seem to be on different pages on what to do next. All of this illustrates one point: The Founding Fathers were right to give power to carry out a war to the Commander in Chief and not to the Congress. If the Congress can’t even make up its collective minds on how to proceed with the debate, how are they possibly going to manage a war requiring quick decisions? Reid and Pelosi may want to direct how we proceed in Iraq, but the Constitution says only Bush gets to make that decision. I think the way Congress has acted over the last few weeks illustrates why the Constitution decided one person could make decisions quicker than a collection of hundreds.

What if we win?

Could the President’s new path forward be working? There are some early signs of success, but it is still too early to tell. There have been some significant clashes between US forces and insurgents, militia leaders have fled or gone underground, and the Iraqi government is saying that there has been a decline in the number of dead bodies the police forces are finding each day. At the same time, the terrorist are now using their own form of a dirty bomb.

I think whether you believe in the surge or not, most people hope and pray it works. Americans want success in Iraq. Americans don’t like to loose. Based on the comments from many Democrats, I wonder if the Democratic Party wants success, or is hoping for a defeat. The Democrats have announced they are going to try to prevent reinforcements from going to Iraq; and they are going to try to prevent the President from doing what he thinks he needs to do to win. To me, that doesn’t sound like the Democrats want a victory in Iraq. They either want defeat, or at best, just want us to leave. Which brings the question, what happens to those Democrats and Republicans who are against the war right now, and against the President’s new path, if we do win?

Most Democrats and a few Republicans seem to be betting their political career on a failed war in Iraq. I believe these elected officials are doing everything in their power (knowingly or not) to bring about the same end to this war that Vietnam suffered from. The US didn’t loose in Vietnam, we gave up. In Iraq, we can win, but we will have to stay with it, probably into the next presidency.

If the President’s policy works, then those Democrats like Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi who are doing everything they can to try and bleed our forces dry will be in a tough spot. In an interview this week, Vice President Cheney pointed out we have had successes in Iraq. We have removed Saddam from power. We have had elections in Iraq. There is a constitution written in Iraq. Saddam had his day in court, and was executed. If we are able to defeat the terrorist and insurgents now battling us in Iraq, and leave Iraq with the democratically elected government able to handle its own affairs, then we will have done something incredible in Iraq. The Democrats (and some Republicans) will be on the record saying there is no way for the surge to work. They will be on the record saying we should run away from Iraq. Will that affect their re-election chances? Will it affect the chances of a Democratic Nominee winning the White House in 2008 or even in 2012?

A World Without America

This is from a British website that is trying to remind the world of the great things America has done. Enjoy:

Book Review: Because They Hate

I have seen many reports and specials on the Middle East that feature commentary by Brigitte Gabriel. When I heard about her book Because They Hate, I wanted to read it for two reasons. First, I have always been impressed with her knowledge of the Middle East and her understanding of militant Islam. Second, I wanted to hear the story of someone who grew up in the Middle East and I was curious how that might affect her thoughts on what is happening in the Middle East today.

Because they Hate is an incredible account of a Christian growing up in Lebanon. She describes her life before Militant Islamic Fanatics came to her country and started killing Christians in the mid 1970’s. The first attack on her city destroyed her home and almost killed her. She describes how her family was able to survive the constant attacks by Muslims and some of the ordeals her family survived.

One of the tactics Mrs. Gabriel describes was designed to kill Jews in Israel and Christians in Lebanon. The Muslims would set up weapons in a Christian area, fire at Israel and leave. Once their rockets hit Israel, Israel would return fire, hitting the Christian area. She also described what life was like hiding from snipers, and trying to dodge bombs while hoping the Americans would come to their rescue. When a UN peace force was later placed in Lebanon to secure peace, she didn’t feel there was any difference from before the UN force arrived.

Mrs. Gabriel would survive the war in Lebanon and go on to anchor a prominent news show in the Middle East. She details how that changed her life. She was given access to news stories from around the world, without any Arabic spin put on the stories. She would compare the information she was given with what was being reported throughout the Middle East. Sometimes the difference was like night and day.

Because They Hate is also a warning to the United States and the West. Mrs. Gabriel warns that terrorist and Islamic religious authorities say they want to destroy our country and they will succeed if we don’t start taking them seriously and act accordingly. She argues that many Islamic Scholars are teaching hate towards Israel and the United States. Some of this teaching is even occurring on our campuses here in the United States.

As cliché as it may sound, I think all Americans need to read this book. This is an account of a woman who has seen first hand the terrible face of Islamic fundamentalist. Her native country was destroyed by the same people who would like to attack us. She wrote this book as a warning to the United States. She is now an American citizen and doesn’t want the same fate to happen to our country as it did to her native country.

Was Islam involved in the Utah shootings?

As authorities, the media, and family members search for a reason for the brutal murders at a mall on Monday, Robert Spencer points out a fact I haven’t heard covered anywhere else. Sulejmen Talovic killed five people and wounded four in a Salt Lake City mall before police shot and killed him. The new piece of information is that Sulejmen was also a Bosnian Muslim.

We may never know what caused Sulejmen to do what he did. However, if we can understand what led to it, maybe we can prevent it from happening again. Does it matter that he was Muslim? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. However, Robert Spencer reminds us of a few things that have happened recently in the United States:

Ismail Yassin Mohamed stole a car in Minneapolis and, after he rammed the car into other cars, he stole a van and continued to hit random cars. Reportedly he said, “Allah made me do it.”

Ommed Aziz Popal killed one and injured fourteen during a drive through San Francisco in August of 2006. He targeted people in crosswalks and sidewalks. He initially identified himself as a terrorist.

Naveed Afzal Haq killed one and injured five more in July of 2006 at a Jewish Center in Seattle. Before he started shooting people, he said, “I’m a Muslim American; I’m angry at Israel.”

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drove an SUV onto the University of North Carolina campus trying to kill people but instead injured nine. At a court appearance he said he was, “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.”

From what I have seen, the authorities are not labeling these as terrorist incidents. However, all five incidents involved Muslims killing or trying to kill people here in the United States. In some of the cases, these people even invoked Allah. Does it matter that these people were Muslim or is it a freak coincidence? The authorities should be looking into the Muslim connection. What was being taught at the Mosque where these individuals were attending before they started their rampages? These incidents alone don’t mean that Islam is involved, but we would be foolish to dismiss the connection out of some sort of political correctness fear.

Congress helping our Enemies?

As the Democrats continue to push the definition of “treason”, al-Zawahiri released a video tape message proving what critics of the Democrat Party have been saying. Republicans, General Petraeus, and many others, have said that passing a resolution condemning the Presidents new way forward would do nothing to change our Presidents policy but would give hope to our enemies. I wrote a few weeks ago about the dangers of this discussion. Now we are starting to see the results of just the discussion.

Under questing by the Senate, General Petraeus said that a move to condemn the President would give hope and support to our enemies. Just the continue talk of this debate is giving Al-Queda more ammunition, and is hurting our allies. Quoting CNN: “Calling the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, allied with the United States, ‘traitors,’ al-Zawahiri warned that the United States ‘is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.”

Giving our enemies “aid and comfort” is treason. Democrats and Republicans in Congress need to realize that their words are being reported in the Middle East. Our enemies our praying to Allah for an end to the Iraqi War similar to the end of the Vietnam War. We didn’t loose in Vietnam, we beat ourselves. Iran, Syria, Al-Queda, Hezbollah and many others are eager to see an American Helicopter pulling off a crowded embassy in Baghdad. Our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are wondering if that will be the last images they see as the armies of our enemies sweep in and take control.

The Democrats in Congress and the Republicans helping them are acting like children. Congress is rushing to condemn a plan that hasn’t fully been implemented yet. Some would argue we are already seeing some results of this plan. Muqtada Al-Sadr has reportedly fled the country. Today, US troops went house to house in Baghdad grapping insurgents and weapons as they went. The Statesman of both parties must come forward and end this debate before it provides more help to our enemies. We are in a war for the existence of America. Those who would vote for a “non-binding resolution” need to take a step back and realize the damage they have already caused.

Its time for the US to tell Iran how we feel.

The United States has found explosives, rocket propelled grenades, high-tech rifles, and personnel supplied to the Iraqi insurgents by Iran. Iran has had an active roll in killing American service men and women. A report from the European Union today says it believes the only thing preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is technical limits. The EU now believes that economic sanctions and diplomacy will not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has been at war with the United States since the early 1980’s. Hezbollah was founded by Iran. Iran continues to direct the “Party of God” today and provide it with support and funding.

Iran through Hezbollah has been responsible for some of the worst terrorist attacks against the United State. Before September 11, 2001, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. Perhaps one of the worst Hezbollah attacks was at the Marine Barracks in Beirut in October of 1983. 241 American Military were killed in the attack. Our forces were part of a peace-keeping force during that attack.

What would Iran or Hezbollah do with a nuclear weapon? Is there anyone who doubts they would try to use it? If the EU believes diplomacy will no longer work, then there is very little chance of Iran negotiating with the “Great Satan”.

This leaves us with the question, “What should we do about Iran?” There are very few people out there who would argue for a land invasion of Iran. Realistically, I feel we must strengthen the boarders with Iran. It is also time to consider air strikes on Iranian locations. I have seen reports that a third carrier group is en route that theatre. This should give us plenty of Air power to keep Iran busy and out of Iraq.

Iran must be made to feel that their best interest lies in staying out of Iraq. Iranian officials may enjoy seeing the debate between different political groups within the United States. Iran needs to understand that if they want to provide weapons, training, and men to our enemies, then they will be treated as our enemies.

UPDATE:

After posting this I saw a story on Fox News saying that the Iraqi borders with Iran and with Syria are going to be closed for 72 hours. Curfews are going to be extended as well. I think this is a good step in the right direction, I truly believe this looks like a new strategy in Iraq.

Did the Holocaust cause Global Warming?

The “scientific debate” surrounding Global Warming has reared its ugly head again this week. The worst of the debate appeared in The Boston Globe yesterday. In an article entitled “No change in political climate”, Mrs. Ellen Goodman says people who question the science behind mankind’s role in global warming are the same as those who deny the Holocaust happened. Mrs. Goodman states, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

Mrs. Goodman would have us believe that those who question whether or not Global Warming is a product of our own practices are on a par with a brutal regime that killed around 5.1 million Jews. I cannot overstate the viscous brutality of the Nazi’s that tried to wipe out an entire race of people. I have a friend whose Grandfather survived the holocaust. Listening to his Grandfather speak of the family members he lost is something that cannot be put into words. Those who question the Holocaust do so for political reasons, typically with the agenda of wanting to continue the destruction of the Jewish people.

Mrs. Goodman irresponsibly compares the Nazi’s with individuals, politicians, and scientist who question the science behind manmade global warming. Scientist have questioned the work of their peers for as long as there have been scientist. It is part of the process. In the case of manmade global warming, there is science that refutes the global warming position.

Regardless of your position on the debate, this kind of rhetoric doesn’t help the process, and insults those who have been a victim of one of the worst human tragedies in our history.

Book Review : American Islam

American Islam by Paul M. Barrett is the story of Muslims in America before and after September 11, 2001. The book follows the lives of seven different individuals and how their lives are affected by Islam and the United States.

Mr. Barrett’s book is divided into eight chapters. Each of the individuals he follows gets their own chapter. They come from a diverse spectrum as one can tell from reading the Chapter Titles: The Publisher, The Scholar, The Iman, The Feminist, The Mystics, The Webmaster, and The Activist. His last chapter presents his conclusions from the book, and to some degree, outlines a way forward for Islam in America.

Each of the stories contained in American Islam are very well written. Some of the individuals I agreed with, some I didn’t. Regardless, I found myself caught up in the story of each of the Muslim’s in this book. The only exception is the chapter entitled The Webmaster. This chapter chronicles Sami Omar al-Hussayen who was tried under the Patriot Act. Mr. Barrett does a good job of presenting a balanced view of each of these people, again with the exception of al-Hussayen. This one chapter I found to be frustrating as it jumps around, and doesn’t seem to have any real flow to it. This doesn’t help the overall feel of the book because this is the longest chapter of the book and it is towards the end.

Of all the individuals, I found The Feminist the most interesting. This is the story of a Muslim woman in West Virginia who is fighting for equal rights for women within Islam. I was truly fascinated by her story and the trials she and her family have gone through in order to get where they are today. Ms. Asra Nomani has been able to make giant leaps at her local Mosque. It remains to be seen how the rest of the Muslim Society within America will respond to her desire for change.

I was very disappointed by the Conclusions section of Mr. Barrett’s book. According to Mr. Barrett, if Islam is to become more moderate in America, there are things that the American Government and Israel will need to do and sacrifice. Are there actions Muslims should take within Islam, like Ms Nomani? Are there organizations, actions, and sects that are trying to perverse and corrupt Islam that should be condemned? Are there Muslim groups within the US that should be condemned, and groups that should be protected? Mr. Barrett doesn’t talk about those issues.

In order for our Country to continue to survive, these questions need to be answered. Our government must protect all its citizens, regardless of faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others are all the target of those who would kill in the name of Islam. Mr. Barrett’s book gave me a greater understanding of the diversity of Islam within our country. But there are tough questions that many Muslims must answer. After reading American Islam, I was left with the impression that many Muslims and Mr. Barrett aren’t ready to address those questions.

Senate Needs to Put-Up or Shut-Up

This week the Senate continued to waste time discussing non-binding resolutions in a hope that the President would change his mind about Iraq. President Bush knows that he doesn’t have the backing of Congress and he is aware the war in Iraq is unpopular. However, many of the same Senators that want to pass a non-binding resolution were wishing “God’s Speed” to General Petraeus after confirming him unanimously a week ago. Now they don’t want the General to have the tools he told them he needed to win the war.

Months ago these Senators were telling the President, “Stay the course is not an option!” The President changed his cabinet, changed commanders in Iraq, is sending more troops to Iraq, and is providing economic and political answers for problems in the Middle East. That isn’t “stay the course”. However, because the President’s last name is Bush, the Senate wants him to abandon Iraq. They want our troops to leave. If our troops leave, the United States will be forced to face a military loss and will have to question its standing as the world’s lone superpower.

If the Senate truly believes the President is doing the wrong thing, the only constitutional power they have is budgetary. They can basically “de-fund” the troops. This would definitely bring a close to the Iraq war, though probably not an end most Americans would want. There would be catastrophic consequences, but if the Senate believes this is the way to go, then they should do the job they were elected to do.

If this is a political stunt, then the Senate is simply giving ammunition to our enemy. Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations have shown time and time again they pay close attention to our news and politics. They have also shown they know how to use the internet as a weapon. A resolution telling the President he doesn’t have the support of the country will play over and over and over in the Middle East. It will also appear on numerous jihad websites within minute of the Senate passing it.

The Senate needs to make an important decision: Are they willing to risk the future of the country in order to make a President look bad? If they are, then they can pursue the non-binding resolution and tell the troops they are on their own. If they aren’t, then they need to put this behind them and get on with doing the jobs they were elected to do.