Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Senate Democrats, Who can tell the difference?

This is the lead sentence from the Boston Globe's story on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia University, "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran yesterday criticized the United States in a speech at Columbia University saying US leaders spied on their own citizens . . . . "

So the rhetoric of a man Columbia University President, liberal extremist, Lee C. Bollinger, calls a "petty and cruel dictator" is exactly the same rhetoric as Democratic U.S. Senators.

A mature discussion about surveilling terrorist in my immediately prior post (just scroll down to read, please) juxtaposed with this observation that Ahmadinejad and Senate Democrats share the same speech writer.

An Argument Against the Pro-Terrorist Lobby

I provide the column by Mr. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Mr. Lee A. Casey from the September 24, 2007 Wall Street Journal. The column was found on page A19. The contents may help you if you come in contact with someone from the pro-terrorist lobby:

Surveillance Showdown

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 (FISA) this week. 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.

FISA, of course, is the law regulating the government's interception of "electronic communications" for foreign intelligence purposes. Earlier this year the special FISA court narrowed dramatically the National Security Agency's (NSA) ability to collect overseas intelligence under the law, so Congress passed a six-month amendment before its August recess to allow current surveillance programs to continue. That amendment should be made permanent.

When FISA was enacted in 1978, most of this foreign intelligence collection was accomplished by NSA satellites and "listening posts" located outside of the United States. That enabled that agency to acquire, without any judicial involvement, vast quantities of global communications. The fact that foreign targets contacted Americans was of no legal consequence. Even the strongest congressional proponents of FISA's regulation of surveillance activities recognized that intelligence gathering was a key executive function, and the U.S. needed as much foreign intelligence as possible. This bipartisan consensus -- that FISA compliance should not impede foreign intelligence collection -- was all the more notable coming amidst the congressional reaction to Watergate and at a time when the Cold War threats to national security, while formidable, did not require real-time surveillance of numerous nonstate actors.

Today, primarily because of the communications technology revolution, much of the same foreign intelligence information, focused on non-U.S. persons overseas, passes along U.S.-based fiber optics systems. Unfortunately, much of the Democratic congressional leadership says this new world requires more stringent regulation than in the past because of the risk to the privacy of innocent Americans. But this problem is one inherent in all surveillance schemes whether they're overseen by courts or not.

All suspects, whether garden-variety criminals or terrorists, whether surveilled with or without a warrant, invariably contact numerous innocents. Requiring the government to obtain a judicial order for all overseas surveillance whenever an American's communications might be intercepted will not solve this problem.

The government does utilize a series of "minimization" procedures governing how foreign intelligence information is handled to prevent its inappropriate use or disclosure. As explained by CIA Director Michael Hayden in 2006, referring to the post-Sept. 11 terrorist surveillance program before it was subjected to FISA: "if the U.S. person information isn't relevant [without foreign intelligence value], the data is suppressed." The fact that senior U.S. government officials (unlike their counterparts in other countries) do not routinely have access to the unredacted surveillance-generated information about American citizens, and that the system is operated largely by career civil servants, provides an additional layer of privacy protection.

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.

The key in such cases has generally been the presence or absence of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy associated with a particular location or activity, then a warrantless search is not unreasonable. Whether Americans have a reasonable expectation that their international communications -- which may be routed through any number of foreign countries and are routinely subject to capture by foreign intelligence services -- will not be incidentally intercepted by the U.S. government is debatable. But foreign nationals communicating abroad have no reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis the NSA simply because their conversations are electronically transmitted through American switching stations.

On the other side of the scale, of course, is the government's obligation to protect the American people. Because the U.S. faces a dispersed, shadowy, and ideologically committed enemy -- in circumstances where defectors are rare and the CIA's ability to penetrate the hostile networks is extremely limited -- the most proactive electronic surveillance operations are essential.

Requiring judicial orders for the collection of foreign intelligence anytime an innocent American's communications may also be intercepted would cripple U.S. intelligence gathering. Obtaining orders against many foreign targets about which comparatively little may be known, including their true identities or the precise modalities of their involvement with jihadist entities, would be impossible.

The privacy advocates claim that surveilling without traditional warrants, albeit still with substantial judicial involvement, "purely" foreign-to-foreign communications is enough. But many of the NSA's most valuable overseas targets routinely contact Americans. Moreover, if the Democratic-leadership authored FISA reform -- which requires judicial involvement once a foreign surveillance target reaches a certain number of communications with the U.S. -- were to pass, every foreign terrorist and spymaster would communicate with the U.S. enough to be enrolled in the warrant-driven surveillance program. As a result, the only people overseas who could still be surveilled warrantlessly would be the ones with the least intelligence value.

The privacy advocates also criticize the NSA's efforts to collect vast quantities of information, claiming that more targeted, individual-specific surveillance is both more privacy-friendly and better protects America's safety. However, unlike the Cold War-era -- when the NSA was focused largely on a few state entities, and had a pretty good idea of who the targets were -- today targeted surveillance alone is not enough. Thousands of individuals participate in various ways in jihadist activities, and even more individuals possess valuable information about them. All of them seek to blend into society, benefiting from the anonymity of modern life and ease of travel and communications. Because their behavior differs in subtle ways from the conduct of law-abiding citizens around them, NSA-led broad surveillance, backed up by various pattern-recognition programs, can identify the right targets.

Indeed, privacy advocates seek to ban the NSA's overseas-focused broad surveillance programs -- and require warrants whenever overseas targets have a number of contacts with the U.S. -- precisely to decrease dramatically the total number of foreigners tracked by the NSA. Their logic is unimpeachable -- the fewer foreign targets are reached by the NSA, the fewer innocent Americans would be caught up in the surveillance net. But this fervent commitment to protecting the privacy of Americans from all intrusions comes at a very high cost; for the first time in history, the U.S. is asked to collect less intelligence about the enemy while prosecuting a war.

Those who want to subject all government surveillance activities to a warrant requirement should honestly acknowledge that this approach would dramatically shrink the stream of foreign intelligence available.

Let's be clear here: Privacy is an important value. American society cannot afford, however, to elevate privacy concerns beyond all other considerations. Being suspicious about governmental power is consistent with our constitutional values -- the Framers certainly were so inclined -- but being paranoid about one's own government is not. (End of column.)

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the U.S. Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

The Great Equivocator is such a Coward

No set-up or background required:

Editor,

As a conservative, I'm not pleased that Sen. James Webb (D, VA) was elected as the result of an "unscripted" and "botched" joke by Sen. George Allen (R, VA).

However, Massachusetts Democrats must be outraged that Sen. Webb had the courage to sponsor a bill trying to force troop reductions in Iraq while Sen. John F. Kerry continues to be the least accomplished United States Senator in the history of the Senate (Senate rejects limits on tours in Iraq, September 20, A2). Honestly, has anyone done less in 20+ years in the United States Senate than Sen. Kerry?

On January 23, 2007, Sen. Kerry announced he would not run for President saying, "It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate, to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security (Kerry won't run for President in '08, Boston Globe, January 24, 2007)

On January 26, 2007 at 9:15 am, Senator Kerry "missed" the vote to confirm General David Petraeus for his post in Iraq though Sen. Kerry did make a vote at 6:15 pm the night before. I'm sure the Senator has an unimpeachable reason for missing the Petraeus vote; he is the Great Equivocator, after all.

On August 3, 2007, Senator Kerry "missed" the vote on the Protect America Act of 2007 though he did make votes earlier in the day. Again, he's the Great Equivocator, I'm sure he would have an explanation if anyone in the liberal media, daring to get tasered, had the courage to ask him.

Love that energy, Senator!

As a conservative, I could not be more pleased that if my Senator had to be a Democrat that my Senator is the ineffective, yellow-bellied, John F. Kerry. (End of letter.)

Democratic Senators Betray Us

On Thursday, September 20, 2007, the United States passed an Amendment to legislation that had the following purpose (as copied from senate.gov): To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

The vote was 72 – 25; The 25 United States Senators that do not think the commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, who commands soldiers being bombed and shot at, deserves the support of the Senate and could not condemn personal attacks on the commanding general, who commands soldiers being bombed and shot at, are:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV) – formerly of the Ku Klux Klan
Clinton (D-NY) - who is running for President; uh, Commander-in-Chief of people she does not think the Senate should support!
Dodd (D-CT) - who is also running for President!
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Senators Biden and Obama were conveniently campaigning for President so they conveniently missed the vote.

Idiotic Phrase IV and V

It's been a very slow news week, so, continuing with a series I started not too long ago, I comment on two more idiotic phrases.

Idiotic Phrase IV – “home-grown terrorist”

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this but this phrase is almost universally used by yellow journalists (who probably have accused President Bush of hyping the war against terrorist, by the way) to sensationalize an already terrifying story.

Yellow journalists use the phrase to describe a national who commits, or was about to commit (in the case of great anti-terrorism work by anti-terrorism forces that have been given the tools to fight terrorists), an act of terror against her/his own birth-country. It was most recently used to describe the German terrorists arrested late this summer.

Well, when I hear “home-grown”, I think “indoctrinated at an early age maybe even since birth”. And this is precisely what the yellow journalists want me and everyone else to think. Except, this is not the case. So far, I don’t know that any “home-grown” terrorist was born, lived a short life of indoctrination, and who, then, decided to commit an act of terror. Rather, an otherwise non-radical individual has converted to a particular religious belief and shortly thereafter decides he wants to murder innocents in his birth country. This does not represent a “home-grown terrorist” to me.

I’d love to hear the argument to justify the phrase even if from Hillary's advocate.

Idiotic Phrase V – “lack of political reconciliation”

al Fedaban-Americans now repeat, ad nauseam, that the “lack of political reconciliation” in Iraq is the reason we should surrender to the terrorists. I should say it’s today’s reason, when it no longer suits them, they’ll find another reason.

The idiot trying to impress in your next conversation on Iraq will be the first person that says “lack of political reconciliation”.

Liberals: Love al Qaeda

I had a busy weekend, four letters to the Boston Globe, all pretty short, three serious, to the extent you can take liberal extremists seriously, and one attempting some humor.

The first letter requires the following intro: A Swedish cartoonist portrayed the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog. Al Qaeda placed a $100,000 bounty on his head and a $50,000 bounty on the head of the editor of the newspaper that published the cartoon. Last Tuesday, at a ceremony remembering 9/11, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, actually said that the attack we suffered 6 years ago was “a failure of human beings to understand each other, to learn to love each other.”

Editor,

Al Qaeda has announced a $100,000 bounty to kill Mr. Lars Vilks (Qaeda calls for killing of Swedish cartoonist, September 16, A20).

Al Qaeda added, "The award will be increased to $150,000 if (Mr. Vilks) were to be slaughtered like a lamb."

More evidence, I suppose, to support the argument by Gov. Patrick, and those in the pro-terrorist lobby, that we just don't "understand" and "love" al Qaeda enough. (End of first letter.)

The second letter was just my observation about a quote the Boston Globe chose to include in an article on the 2008 elections.

Editor,

Anti-victory military analyst, Mr. Loren Thompson, from the Lexington Institute, a (don't) think (so much) tank in Northern Virginia, said, "The Democratic base wants out of Iraq as soon as possible, and the Republican base wants to fight and win the war. Frankly, most of America is between these two extremes (Iraq war to be defining issue in races, September 15, A2)."

Excuse me? The position of wanting to win the war against terrorists is an extreme position?

And, I hardly think "most" Americans want some kind of tie, the only thing between wanting to win and wanting to lose.

I wonder, were the Americans that wanted to win World War II extremists, also? (End of second letter.)

And, yes, there was an attempt at humor in the second letter when I tried to better describe the tank in which Mr. Thompson thinks (or doesn't).

The third letter needs no set-up.

Editor,

A big “thank you” to national Democrats' for the concept of “too late”; as in, according to Sen. Hillary Clinton, the recent U.S. military victories over al Qaeda occurred "too late (Democrats urge faster troop withdrawal, September 13, A2)".

After leading 7 - 2, the Boston Red Sox did not lose to the New York Yankees 8 - 7 on Friday night (September 14). The six runs the Yankees scored in the top of the eighth inning were scored "too late".

And, certainly the Red Sox have already won the American League East; they're up by 4 1/2 games going into Saturday's game (September 15). Surely any ground the Yankees make up now would come "too late".

The list is endless of the ways I can apply the "too late" (il)logic, now embraced by national Democrats, to improve my life.

Or, as President Bush said, "it's never too late" for a military victory over al Qaeda. (End of the third letter.)

(Blogger’s Note: I am a Yankee fan and to have pretended to be a Red Sox fan for the purpose of improving the chances of getting my letter published was terribly distasteful.)

Finally, the Boston Sunday Globe did a story on the intelligence of birds. The story was loaded with examples of smart and ingenious things birds do. I simply shared the story of something I observed a long time ago.

Editor,

Years (and years!) ago, while making a long drive home from college on Interstate 80, I noticed a crow, feasting on road-kill in the right-hand lane, hop-hop to the shoulder as I approached, also in the right-hand lane, at 65 miles per hour. I passed and it hopped-hopped back to the road-kill. The crow recognized the white lane line separating the right-lane from the shoulder and it counted on me recognizing the same (Eggheads, How bird brains are shaking up science, Ideas, September 16, D1)!

I'm sure there's a great joke about a female driver on a cell-phone and a crows demise related to my story but let's just marvel about the intelligence of birds instead. (End of the fourth letter.)

President Bush: God Bless America

It must enrage the liberal extremists that President Bush always ends his addresses to the Nation with “God bless America”. How offended by the phrase they must be. President Bush is known for his fantastic sense of humor, I wonder if he does this just to aggravate the radicals.

Sen. Jack Reed (D, RI) ended his response to the President’s address last night with “Thank you”.

Rather than cut and paste the President’s address and Sen. Reed’s response, I provide the “links” below; please read both. Then, please let us know who you think proposed the best strategy to protect the United States of America and Americans.

President Bush’s address:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296743,00.html

Sen. Reed’s response:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296744,00.html

For those that do not read both of these statements, please know President Bush announced troop withdrawals from Iraq and Sen. Reed's new complaint is that the withdrawals are not rapid enough. Please also know President Bush conceded, several times, the lack of progress on several fronts in the war against terrorists and Sen. Reed noted no successes. Finally, know President Bush said, "As . . . transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces." Sen. Reed said, "That's why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army."

I thought I was done, but one more thing, Sen. Reed opened his address with " . . . I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years." Now, as frequent readers of this space know, I've noted Sen. Reed's service many times. I've also acknowledged his acknowledgment that the terrorists at Guantanamo are some "very bad guys". However, a quick read of his bio shows he was at West Point from 1967 - 1971, commissioned and on active duty from 1971 - 1979, and in the Army Reserves from 1979 - 1991. Now, where I'd give the Senator credit for 20 years of service in the "United States Army", he's only taking credit for 12. He's obviously not taking credit for the Reserves and I'm sure he's not doing so because he knows (though I don't) that it would not be proper. But, he is taking credit for being a cadet at West Point. Come down hard on me if you think I'm being picky of a retired Army Captain, but this seems disingenuous. It looks to me like the Senator embellished his record to Americans. I'd love to hear from someone in the military if the Senator was okay taking credit for his West Point years. Eight years active Army (Ranger, 82nd Airborne!) is extremely noble; I don't know why Sen. Reed doesn't think so.

A Victory for al Fedaban-Americans (aFA)

BREAKING NEWS (10:47 am) - The Associated Press is reporting that the most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday in an explosion near his home in Anbar province. Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was leader of the Anbar Salvation Council, also known as the Anbar Awakening -- an alliance of clans backing the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.

No doubt this is great news for the al Fedaban-Americans rooting against U.S. success in Iraq.

The expressed resolve by Mr. Abu Risha's council members to continue their fight for freedom will surely be lost amid the gloating by the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (aFA, NV) and Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi (aFA, CA).

Defending Generals, Vietnam Vets and the Integrity of a Race-Relations Issue

I’m on a roll with three posts in three days. If you have not been here in a couple of days, please scroll down the screen to September 11, 2007 and read the piece by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John McCain.

Now to today’s business: The only set-up to the first letter is that Mr. Feaver wrote an op-ed column denouncing MoveOn.org’s disgraceful attack on General David Petraeus.

Editor,

The Boston Globe published a letter from a delusional letter writer who wrote, in part, “. . . MoveOn did not invent nastiness. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were no less nasty . . . creating parallels between the MoveOn rant and McCarthyism is ludicrous, and I think that Mr. Feaver knows it (Letters, September 12).”

More ludicrous than creating parallels between MoveOn.org and Sen. Joseph McCarthy is creating parallels between decorated Vietnam veterans who chose to express an opinion during the 2004 Presidential campaign and the political assassins at MoveOn.org.

I think the delusional letter writer does not know this and that’s what makes the delusional letter writer, and all who agree with him, well . . . delusional. (End of first letter.)

And, as frequent visitors to this space know, I’m a white guy perfectly comfortable writing about race and race-relations issues. Militant blacks and guilty white liberals may not be comfortable reading my material because I try to deal with race and race issues honestly. My letter to the Boston Globe this week in response to another guilty, white, liberal article (please go look at all the white faces of the Boston Globe editorial board at boston.com, Today’s Paper, Opinion):

Editor,

No study on traffic-stop, racial-profiling approaches the value of the paper it is printed on unless the study contemplates the race of the police officers involved in all the stops (Study of traffic stops is derailed, Police lagging on racial data collection; September 9).

In July 2003, the Boston Globe published, "When police departments are accused of racial profiling, white officers are generally the ones facing scrutiny. But a Boston Globe analysis of 20,000 Boston police tickets and warnings tells a different story: Minority officers here are at least as tough as whites on minority drivers, and sometimes tougher . . . minority officers were less lenient overall, issuing fewer warnings to all drivers . . . and the racial gap was wider, with minority officers ticketing 43 percent of whites and 54 percent of minorities at the same speeds, the Globe found . . . further, the records show that black officers were toughest on Latino drivers, ticketing 67 percent of Latinos, but just 47 percent of blacks (Minority officers are stricter on minorities, July 20, 2003)."

Contrary to the Boston Globe's suggestion, I don't know if minority officers racially profile more than white officers. I'm certainly not going to draw any conclusions from just one Boston Globe study.

I do know that we need to be sure we properly identify the problems before we try to fix them, though. (End of second letter.)

On-going, Ever-widening Democratic Party Fund-Raiser Scandal

(Please read the column by Sens. McCain and Lieberman reproduced in its entirety in yesterday's post.)

Before I get to the ongoing, ever-widening Democratic Party fund-raiser scandal, I share a letter I wrote to the Boston Globe in response to their September 11 editorial. The Boston Globe and other liberal extremists cannot shake their obsession that President Bush loves to spy on law-abiding Americans. Rather than divisive rhetoric, can a liberal extremist complete the picture? The President orders subordinates to record the conversations of who discussing what exactly? And then they all sit in the Oval Office and listen to the recordings? You have to be an idiot to believe this or so consumed by hate that logic and common sense have long left (no pun intended) you.

This President has sought and has been given by Congress expanded Presidential powers. All of it to protect the United States of America and Americans. There has never been one charge by the liberal extremists that President Bush has ever benefited personally from all of the "horrible", "monstrous" things he's done . . . to protect us. He didn't receive oral sex in the Oval Office from a 20 year old intern. He didn't shakedown campaign donors (no, this is not a reference to the current on-going and ever-widening Democratic Party fund-raiser scandal). He didn't sell the Lincoln Bedroom for personal gain (nope, still not referring to the current on-going and ever-widening Democratic Party fund-raiser scandal). He didn't have friends fix a commodities trade for personal gain. Rather, President Bush fought to expand Presidential powers. Ooh, the scoundrel! It cannot be denied that the current FISA program has saved American lives. Rather than celebrate this, the liberal extremists cry crocodile tears for the civil liberties of terrorists. Mind you, these are the same liberal extremists who do not marvel that two jet airliners did not knock down either of the Twin Towers on impact but are convinced the Bush Administration planted accelerants in the buildings because the buildings did eventually fall. The buildings were hit by a gazillion ton airplane at 150 mph and loaded with jet fuel! It's a tribute to American ingenuity and quality that the buildings stood for as long as they did so that so many people were able to escape.

The letter:

Editor,

The Boston Globe has it bass ackwards.

From “Toughness after Sept 11 (editorial, September 11)” the Boston Globe appears to argue that President Bush’s desire to read “I hate George Bush” email exchanges between radical liberals required expanded presidential powers and the September 11 attacks provided the needed pretext for expanded presidential powers.

Of course, those of us living in the real world know that six years ago 19 terrorists killed 2,700 Americans, then Congress expanded presidential powers to help combat terrorists and, finally, maybe there has been an erosion of terrorists’ civil liberties (now there’s an oxymoron!).

And, I’m sure the civil liberties of terrorists have not been “over-eroded” since a filibuster-proof majority in the United States Senate supported the most recent expansion of presidential powers, The Protect America Act of 2007 (the Act). The Act was supported by 15 Democrats, most notably liberal extremist Dianne Feinstein (CA) and infamous Presidential Insulter, James Webb (VA). (End of first letter.)

Now, with regard to the on-going and ever-widening Democratic Party fund-raiser scandal, I give you just the letter, there is no need for any background or set-up:

Editor,

Reacting to the on-going and ever-widening Democratic Party fund-raiser scandal, Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said, “An estimated 260 donors this week will receive funds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign (FBI reportedly examining fund-raiser’s investment venture, September 11, A6).”

Of course, the returned funds will be a surprise to 260 “donors” who didn’t know they supported the Clinton campaign in the first place. (End of second letter.)

Listening to Petraeus

If I thought I could say it better than the Democratic Party's 2000 Vice Presidential candidate and a current 2008 Republican Presidential candidate who is also a Vietnam War veteran and former POW, I would . . . but I can't.

Anyway, I know two United States Senators, who get intelligence reports and have the ability to directly question people who actually know things, may not know as much as the hateful, liberal extremists at MoveOn.org but I'm asking you to give Sens. Joe Lieberman and John McCain a read.

This appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, September 10.

Listening to Petraeus
The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?
By John McCain and Joe Lieberman

Gen. David Petraeus--commander of our forces in Iraq--returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.

As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."

Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy.

This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.

First, whatever you think of the performance of Iraq's national leaders, the notion that withdrawing U.S. troops will "shock" them into reconciliation is unsupported by evidence or experience. On the contrary, ordering a retreat will only serve to unravel the hard-fought gains we have won.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was unequivocal on this point: "Changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role"--the Petraeus strategy--"to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations"--which most congressional Democrats have been pressing for--"would erode security gains achieved thus far."

This judgment is echoed by our commanders on the ground. Consider the words of Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, who is leading the fight in central Iraq: "In my battlespace right now, if soldiers were to leave . . . having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what happens is, the enemy would come back."

In addition, while critics are right that improved security has not yet translated into sufficient political progress at the national level, the increased presence of our soldiers is having a seismic effect on Iraq's politics at the local level.

In the neighborhoods and villages where U.S. forces have moved in, extremists have been marginalized, and moderates empowered. Thanks to this changed security calculus, the Sunni Arab community--which was largely synonymous with the insurgency a year ago--has been turning against al Qaeda from the bottom-up, and beginning to negotiate an accommodation with the emerging political order. Sustaining this political shift depends on staying the offensive against al Qaeda--which in turn depends on not stripping Gen. Petraeus of the manpower he and his commanders say they need.

We must also recognize that the choice we face in Iraq is not between the current Iraqi government and a perfect Iraqi government. Rather, it is a choice between a young, imperfect, struggling democracy that we have helped midwife into existence, and the fanatical, al Qaeda suicide bombers and Iranian-sponsored terrorists who are trying to destroy it. If Washington politicians succeed in forcing a premature troop withdrawal in Iraq, the result will be a more dangerous world with our enemies emboldened. As Iran's president recently crowed, "soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region . . . [and] we are prepared to fill the gap."

Whatever the shortcomings of our friends in Iraq, they are no excuse for us to retreat from our enemies like al Qaeda and Iran, who pose a mortal threat to our vital national interests. We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11. As al Qaeda in Iraq continues to be hunted down and rooted out, and the Iraqi Army continues to improve, the U.S. footprint will no doubt adjust. But these adjustments should be left to the discretion of Gen. Petraeus, not forced on our troops by politicians in Washington with a 6,000-mile congressional screwdriver, and, perhaps, an eye on the 2008 election.

The Bush administration clung for too long to a flawed strategy in this war, despite growing evidence of its failure. Now advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake, by refusing to re-examine their own conviction that Gen. Petraeus's strategy cannot succeed and that the war is "lost," despite rising evidence to the contrary.

The Bush administration finally had the courage to change course in Iraq earlier this year. After hearing from Gen. Petraeus today, we hope congressional opponents of the war will do the same. (End of Wall Street Journal article.)

The Measure of a National Political Party

I don’t know if Sen. Larry Craig committed a crime. I think on September 30, 2007, he will no longer be in the United States Senate.

Simply, I think the warm, loving embrace Democrats give Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, his racist past documented here many times, and Rep. William Jefferson, to list just a few, and the warm, loving embrace Democrats gave Rep. Gerry Studds, who actually had sex with a U.S. House of Representative page, say waaayyyy more about the Democratic Party than whatever Sen. Larry Craig did in an airport men’s restroom says about the Republican Party.

And, unrelated to the depravity of the national Democratic Party, am I the only guy concerned that the arresting officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, in the Craig incident said the following during the post-arrest interrogation, “I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood”? Wow, this comment smacks of racism but since he’s arresting a Republican what does the liberal media care about his possible bigotry? Or, maybe I’m just reading too much into the word “hood”.

Related to the depravity of the national Democratic Party, I think the Clinton/Hsu Campaign scandal is not going to disappear as quietly and quickly as the liberal media desire. Though I can find no mention of this scandal in my (news)paper over the last few days, more inquisitive people than those at the Boston Globe are investigating this so I think we will be reading more about this scandal in the future. And, when the U.S. Justice Department finally indicts people in this scandal, look for the national Democrats and their friends in the liberal media to talk about a “politicized” Justice Department, the reputations of career prosecutors be damned.

Oh, Those Fear-Mongering Germans!
(They're so cute.)

“Three suspects allegedly trained in Pakistan by an al-Qaeda-linked group have been arrested for plotting massive car bomb attacks on US troops and other Americans near US military bases and German airports, authorities said yesterday.” – Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2007.

“There was an imminent threat.” - German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung.

“We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings . . . (it is) a good day for security in Germany.” - German Federal prosecutor, Monika Harms. (Blogger’s Note: The self-congratulatory language is so unbecoming. Okay, over-hype the seizure of 1,500 lbs of hydrogen peroxide if you must but don’t praise yourself in the same thought.)

“This (the massive amount of alleged bomb-making materials seized) would have enabled them to make bombs with more explosive power than the ones used in the London and Madrid bombings . . . in my opinion, a high number of casualties was the main objective . . .” - Chief of the Federal Police Jorge Ziercke.

And, my favorite:

“This shows that terrorist dangers in our country as well are not abstract but are real.” - German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Also (I can’t believe I have to type this; it’s so embarrassing to the German national security forces), it appears over 600 members of various German law enforcement agencies were involved in the arrests and 20! (omigosh! the excess!) officers of Germany’s elite GSG9, the counter-terrorism unit of the German Federal Police, led the charge into the home where the alleged terrorists were hiding. The elite GSG9 must have needed some practice – small house in the country against three misguided youths who couldn’t bomb straight.

How long until the liberal extremists claim “dumb” President Bush now has the entire German government hyping his war against terrorists?

Or, can we all recall that Germany was a no-show in Iraq? Isn’t that crystal clear from Chancellor Merkel’s use of the words “as well"?

Destruction in black America is self-inflicted

Ouch!

The above is the title of a column from the September 5, 2007 Boston Globe by Mr. Jeff Jacoby.

Sure I had some original material but this column was just too important to not reproduce. And, as loyal readers of this space know, I'm perfectly comfortable writing about race-relations. So, without further ado and with proper credit given:

Destruction in black America is self-inflicted
Boston Globe, September 5, 2007
by Mr. Jeff Jacoby:

Debating capital punishment at an Ivy League university a few years ago, I was confronted with the claim that since death sentences are more often meted out in cases where the victim is white, the death penalty must be racially biased. It's a spurious argument, I replied. Whites commit fewer than half of all murders in the United States, yet more whites than blacks are sentenced to death and more whites than blacks are executed each year. If there is racial bias in the system, it clearly isn't in favor of whites.

But if you choose to focus on the race of victims, I added, remember that nearly all black homicide is intraracial - more than nine out of 10 black murder victims in the United States are killed by black murderers. So applying the death penalty in more cases where the victim is black would mean sending more black men to death row.

After the debate, a young black woman accosted me indignantly. Ninety-plus percent of black blood is shed by black hands? What about all the victims of white supremacists? Hadn't I heard of lynching? Hadn't I heard of James Byrd, who died so horribly in Jasper, Texas? When I assured her that Byrd's murder by whites was utterly untypical of most black homicide, she was dubious.

I thought of that young woman when I read recently about James Ford Seale, the former Mississippi Klansman sentenced last month to three life terms in prison for his role in murdering two black teenagers 43 years ago. The killing of Charles Moore and Henry Dee in 1964 was one of several unsolved civil-rights-era crimes that prosecutors in the South have reopened in recent years. Seale's trial was a vivid reminder of the days when racial contempt was a deadly fact of life in much of the country. His sentence proclaims even more vividly the transformation of America since then. White racism, once such a murderous force, is now associated mostly with feeble has-beens.

Yet many Americans, like the woman at my debate, still seem to view racial questions through an antediluvian haze. To them, white bigotry remains a clear and present danger, and the reason so many black Americans die before their time.

But the data aren't in dispute. Though outrage over "racism" is ever fashionable, African-Americans have long had far less to fear from the violence of racist whites than from the mayhem of the black underclass.

"Do you realize that the leading killer of young black males is young black males?" asked Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan 16 years ago. "As a black man and a father of three, this really shakes me to the core of my being."

From Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a veteran of the civil rights movement, came a similar cry of anguish. "Nothing in the long history of blacks in America," he lamented in 1994, "suggests the terrible destruction blacks are visiting upon each other today."

Happily, crime rates have declined from their 1990s peak. But it remains that the worst destruction in black America is self-inflicted.

In a new study, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) confirms once again that almost half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, and 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by someone of their own race. (For white homicide victims, the figure is 85 percent.) In other words, of the estimated 8,000 African-Americans murdered in 2005, more than 7,400 were cut down by other African-Americans. Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, the BJS reports, they are six times more likely than whites to be victimized by homicide -- and seven times more likely to commit homicide.

Such huge disproportions don't just happen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned 40 years ago that the collapse of black family life would mean rising chaos and crime in the black community. Today, as many as 70 percent of black children born out of wedlock or are raised in fatherless households. And as reams of research confirm, children raised without married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.

High rates of black violent crime are a national tragedy, but it is the law-abiding black majority that suffers from them most. "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life," Jesse Jackson said in 1993, "than to walk down the street and hear footsteps . . . then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

It isn't an insoluble problem. Americans overcame white racism; they can overcome black crime. But the first step, as always, is to face the facts. (End of column.)

Also on the front page of the Boston Globe today was an above-the-fold article announcing Democrats have created a website dedicated to smearing Gov. Mitt Romney. The "research director (read: hate purveyor)" of the site is Mr. David Stone who worked for Sen. John F. Kerry's failed Presidential campaign (see, hate doesn't work!). Recall, the Kerry campaign fed the bogus National Guard records to Dan Rather in an attempt to smear George W. Bush so this website is perfectly in-line with how national Democrats operate.

Anyway, my letter in response to the article was sent under the caption, "Democrats' hate site; they must be so proud":

Editor,

And the hate from the national Democrats keeps on rolling.

Consistent with Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA) denigrating cancer survivor, White House Spokesman Tony Snow by calling him a "stuffed-suited . . . mouthpiece" and Sen. Harry Reid (D, NV) recently claiming U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lacked "spine", it is no surprise that Democrats have created a website dedicated to smearing Gov. Mitt Romney (Democrats unveil a file on Romney, Tout exhaustive site as online weapon, September 5, A1)?

Tout? Weapon? Democrats must be so proud.

Sens. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D, NY) and Paul Wellstone (D, MN) are turning over in their graves at the hateful vehicle their Democratic Party has become. (End of letter.)

Back On-Line!

After almost a month without a computer in the house, yes, I had the dreaded “Disk Boot Failure, Insert System Disk and Press Enter” message, I’m back on-line at home. And, yes, maintaining a blog from my local public library for a few weeks was annoying - to say the least.

Anyway, these were my last three letters submitted to the Boston Globe. Naturally, since I don’t hate America or President Bush or any of President Bush's aides, none of these were published.

The letter below could have appeared opposite 4 letters attacking Judge Alberto Gonzales. But, then, the Boston Globe is not interested in providing an alternative view. Imagine the Republican Presidential candidates refusing to answer a question from a Boston Globe “reporter” or to agree to an interview with anyone from the Globe's editorial page. Now consider that none of the leading Democratic Presidential candidates will appear on Fox News or attend a debate sponsored by Fox News. And these Democratic cowards are tough enough to protect Americans and the United States of America?

Under the caption, “Good, Better, Best”:

Editor,

It's hard to know exactly what another man is thinking when he invokes his father, but certainly Judge Alberto Gonzales was using his father’s “best days” as an elevated point of reference to convey how fulfilling it is to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

As in, even the days (every day?!) when General Gonzales was subjected to raw, delusional, hatred, days he may have meant were his "worst days" as Attorney General, were "better" days because he was still taking child-molesters off the street and disrupting terrorist cells intent on killing Americans.

It is no surprise that the Boston Globe and hate-filled, liberal, extremists did not and do not understand this, or at the very least, consider this (Alberto Gonzales on a bad day, letters, August 28). (End of first letter.)

The letter below could have appeared opposite hate-Bush letters referencing Mr. Karl Rove.

Under the caption, “Praise Rove; Explode the Heads of Liberal Extremists”:

Editor,

No doubt nearby are letters from hysterical, liberal extremists reacting to Michael Gerson's column praising Mr. Karl Rove (Karl Rove, political guru extraordinaire, August 17, A11).

No doubt all the letters contain name-calling, invective bordering on hate, empty rhetoric, and/or absolutely no facts.

And, no doubt, these were the only letters responding to the column from which to choose, other than mine, of course.

The proof of all three of my points is that my letter was also published. (End of second letter.)

Finally, the letter below could have appeared opposite two letters critical of President Bush and supportive of enemy combatants being detained (but allowed to write poetry!) in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under the caption, “Roses are Black, Violets are Black”:

Editor,

Roses are black,
Violets are black.
On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists murdered 2,700 Americans and 300 non-Americans.
On September 11, 2001, more than 10,000 American children lost a parent (Poems from Guantanamo, August 5). (End of third letter.)

Anyway, since I'm back on-line at home, I expect to have more frequent posts than I've had over the last few weeks as well as more original, ZACKlyRight, material. The copy-and-paste articles certainly helped me through the aggravating, computerless, time.