GINA COBB

The Line Between Pandering and Lying

Barack Obama seems not to know where that line is.  Powerline explains.

"Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s"

“Um, let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

Whose gaffe was it?

Answer here.

Breeding Evil

Absolutely recommended reading:  Breeding Evil: Hezb'allah's Children, by Lance Fairchok at American Thinker.  An excerpt:

In 1979, Samir Kantar was 16 years old when he pulled Danny Haran and his young daughter from their apartment in the Israeli town of Nahariya. He shot to death the father and smashed the little girl's skull against a rock with an AK-47. After 29 years in prison, he was welcomed back to Lebanon as a hero last week.

In an UN-brokered and decidedly unbalanced trade, Israel turned over the remains of 199 terrorists, the living Kantar and four others in exchange for the mutilated bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Captured by Hezb'allah inside Israel in 2006, the young Israelis did not long survive capture by Hezb'allah, certainly not long enough to be exchanged. Kantar, however, was healthy, even portly as he received a red carpet welcome, with speeches and songs of victory. A large photo of a weeping Israeli woman was featured on the stage; there are no innocents in the ideology of Hezb'allah. All Jews must die, even four-year-old little girls. Katyusha rockets are gleefully aimed at Israeli schools, hospitals and apartment buildings.

Kantar was embraced and applauded; afterwards he gave a stiff-armed Nazi salute. It is the common salute of Hezb'allah. Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Muslim world.

We have all seen the pictures of children dressed as suicide bombers, the toddlers holding Kalashnikovs, the grade school students happily reciting poems glorifying genocide. The masked gunmen strutting for the cameras are teenagers, the fighters who launch rockets are in their early twenties. Whole generations have come of age without education, indoctrinated in an ideology of Islamic fanaticism and blind hatred, kept destitute and embittered, the most efficient way to breed terrorists. With the help of Syria and Iran, funding from Islamic nations and charities, and aid from the ever-gullible West, the perpetual "refugees" never build schools and hospitals, but arsenals that become ever more sophisticated.

Common Western perception does not match the evidence, however; we have been the victims of years of disinformation, staged atrocities, altered news and photos, all the propaganda of brutal terrorists carried by a credulous and complicit press. The truth has been denied us.

John McCain's Op-Ed on Iraq the New York Times Is Afraid to Publish

The New York Times has just refused to publish this op-ed piece by McCain, after having published an op-ed by Barack Obama on Iraq less than a week ago.  Here it is (via Drudge Report and LGF):

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Readers of this website may note similarities between what John McCain says about Iraq policy today and what McCain said in a speech almost exactly one year ago, when America's battle was still very uphill in Iraq.  Below is the full text of what John McCain said a year ago when Democratic Senators held a "sleep-over" to protest the war in Iraq.  Compare and contrast John McCain's consistency of tone and purpose over the course of a year with Barack Obama's quivering-leaf-in-the-wind approach to foreign policy:

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

John McCain is on the right side of history and common sense when it comes to Iraq.  The New York Times is not, and that is why it is trying to sweep McCain's opinion piece under the rug.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Palestinians Continue Their Attempted Genocide in Haifa

Originally published July 21, 2006:  Palestinians Continue Their Attempted Genocide in Haifa

Genocide is a word that you don't hear often in relation to Palestinians, except when they are portrayed as victims rather than perpetrators of genocide.  But Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians are committed to just that:  Killing Jews simply because they are Jews.  That's why even a suicide bomb detonation in a pizza parlor that kills nothing but innocent, non-combatant Jewish men, women and children is considered "progress" in the warped minds of the Palestinians. 

Today the Palestinians tried again with another barrange of deadly rocket launches on Haifa:

On Friday, a missile hit the roof of a two-story post office at 1:10 p.m. and landed on its staircase out front. The attack in central Haifa blew out windows in offices and shops up to 100 yards away.

Rescue workers raced to the scene and took the wounded away in ambulances, including a middle-aged woman who was bleeding from both legs.

At the Russian-language bookstore next to the post office, the windows were blown out and blood stained the floor.

Six people were wounded, one seriously, and 22 others were treated for shock, police said.

Mutlak Michlof, who owns a hair salon near the post office, said: "I sat by the window and suddenly there was a siren. So my customers went farther inside and I stood there. Then there was a boom and everything fell on me. This is a huge mess."

Another rocket exploded in a northern suburb of Haifa just after 2:45 p.m., hitting a compound of temporary housing for 450 Ethiopian immigrants, 230 of them children.

The missile struck the ground near the main building used by the government agency that manages the compound, and caused no casualties despite spraying shrapnel and dirt over a nearby soccer court.

Shlomo Mola, 40, who works for the agency, said that when the air raid sirens sounded, he moved a group of children toward the center of the building.

"We knew it was close. People were screaming and crying. Suddenly everything was smoky and hazy," he said.

In all, air raid sirens sounded five times in Haifa on Friday, and seven rockets hit the city, five of them landing in open areas and causing no casualties, police said.

Because Israel is a prosperous democracy that values life (the two go hand in hand), many Israeli citizens in the affected areas were in bomb shelters, minimizing the loss of life.  But make no mistake:  Hezbollah is deadly serious about killing Jews.  It is Hezbollah's entire reason for being.  And if the international community forces Israel to stand down before Hezbollah is eliminated, then there will indeed be a full-scale genocide against the Jews in Israel, sooner or later.

If you consider it acceptable for Israel's Jews to be exterminated by terrorists, simply because they are Jews, then I have nothing to say to you.  But if you recognize the right of Israeli citizens to defend themselves and their children from deadly attacks, then you know that the last thing Israel needs is for the international community to halt Israel's attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere before Israel has won the war.

Genocide is a word that you don't hear often in relation to Palestinians, except when they are portrayed as victims rather than perpetrators of genocide.  But Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians are committed to just that:  Killing Jews simply because they are Jews.  That's why even a suicide bomb detonation in a pizza parlor that kills nothing but innocent, non-combatant Jewish men, women and children is considered "progress" in the warped minds of the Palestinians. 

Today the Palestinians tried again with another barrange of deadly rocket launches on Haifa:

On Friday, a missile hit the roof of a two-story post office at 1:10 p.m. and landed on its staircase out front. The attack in central Haifa blew out windows in offices and shops up to 100 yards away.

Rescue workers raced to the scene and took the wounded away in ambulances, including a middle-aged woman who was bleeding from both legs.

At the Russian-language bookstore next to the post office, the windows were blown out and blood stained the floor.

Six people were wounded, one seriously, and 22 others were treated for shock, police said.

Mutlak Michlof, who owns a hair salon near the post office, said: "I sat by the window and suddenly there was a siren. So my customers went farther inside and I stood there. Then there was a boom and everything fell on me. This is a huge mess."

Another rocket exploded in a northern suburb of Haifa just after 2:45 p.m., hitting a compound of temporary housing for 450 Ethiopian immigrants, 230 of them children.

The missile struck the ground near the main building used by the government agency that manages the compound, and caused no casualties despite spraying shrapnel and dirt over a nearby soccer court.

Shlomo Mola, 40, who works for the agency, said that when the air raid sirens sounded, he moved a group of children toward the center of the building.

"We knew it was close. People were screaming and crying. Suddenly everything was smoky and hazy," he said.

In all, air raid sirens sounded five times in Haifa on Friday, and seven rockets hit the city, five of them landing in open areas and causing no casualties, police said.

Because Israel is a prosperous democracy that values life (the two go hand in hand), many Israeli citizens in the affected areas were in bomb shelters, minimizing the loss of life.  But make no mistake:  Hezbollah is deadly serious about killing Jews.  It is Hezbollah's entire reason for being.  And if the international community forces Israel to stand down before Hezbollah is eliminated, then there will indeed be a full-scale genocide against the Jews in Israel, sooner or later.

If you consider it acceptable for Israel's Jews to be exterminated by terrorists, simply because they are Jews, then I have nothing to say to you.  But if you recognize the right of Israeli citizens to defend themselves and their children from deadly attacks, then you know that the last thing Israel needs is for the international community to halt Israel's attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere before Israel has won the war.

Website of the Day: Weasel Zippers

The website of the day is Weasel Zippers.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: This Could Save Your Life Someday

Originally published on July 20, 2006: This Could Save Your Life Someday

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- The Air Force successfully launched an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile early Thursday.

The Minuteman III dummy warheads were fired at 3:14 a.m. and traveled about 4,200 miles before hitting a water target in the Marshall Islands.

The launch was delayed by a day because of a power outage at a radar facility that handles flights in and out of Southern California. The purpose is to test the defense system's reliability and accuracy.

Earlier this month, North Korea shook up the world by firing several missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a failed long-range missile.

Now that nuclear proliferation is becoming a reality, missile defense is the only defense to nuclear armageddon at the hands of rogue states, terrorists, and madmen.

A missile like this could save your life someday.

Is the system fully functional yet?  Of course not.  Is it foolproof?  No.  It's brand new technology, still in the process of development.

But even the limited capability the United States has at this early date must give pause to North Korea and other rogue states.  If anyone were to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at the United States, it could not be certain that the missile would not be intercepted.  The first strike opportunity would be lost, and the wrath and military might of the United States would rain down on the perpetrator.

So even the very limited missile defense capability we have now is already serving as an important part of our national defense.  We need to advance this program further and develop a fully functional capability

Will it be difficult to perfect a reasonably well functioning missile defense program?  Yes. 

Will it be next to impossible?  Yes. 

But the nuclear bomb was also impossible -- before it was invented.  So was space travel.  And so was open heart surgery.

Here are some fearless predictions:

• There will likely be one or more nuclear missile attacks in the world within the next 75 years.  There are too many hate-crazed regimes and terrorist groups in the world right now, and they are not being fought hard enough.  Some who enjoy the luxury of living in decent, civilized nations are foolish enough to serve as apologists for such groups, or cling to the naive notion that they can buy peace by appeasing the rogue states and terrorists.
• Missile defense technology will continue to advance and will eventually become a viable, if imperfect, form of defense against nuclear missile attack.
• Some rogue states will eventually develop their own nuclear missile defense programs so that they can launch nuclear missiles without fear of an effective nuclear response (they hope)
• Terrorists and rogue states will try to launch sneak attacks anonymously in an effort to avoid devastating reprisals.
• Missile defenses will not always work perfectly and will frequently fail; nuclear missiles will sometimes reach their targets.
• Nuclear weapons will cause regional environmental damage that is long-lasting but not permanent.
• Detonation of nuclear weapons will cause severe economic damage to nations on the receiving end.

Is this a happy view of the world?  Not with respect to nuclear proliferation -- that battle is all but lost.  (Exhibit A: North Korea.  Exhibit B: Iran.)

Yet in spite of all this, life will go on.  Many lucky souls around the world will live out their lives in peace.  Terrorists can't be everywhere at once, and fortunately there will always be decent people and decent nations with the courage to fight the terrorists. 

So all is not lost.  It never will be.  But we need to take nuclear missile defense seriously and give it the support and funding it needs to succeed as soon as possible. 

To return to where we began, this is the missile that may save your life. 

It's no less important than the cop down the street who is there to help if you are the target of a crime.  In fact, this missile, and the people who built it and tested it, are more important in the long run than any cop.

So give peace a chance.  But while you're at it, give national defense a chance too.  They go hand in hand.

_______________

Update 7/23/06:  Thanks for the link and kind words from Joe Noory at No Pasaran!, who writes that "The emptiness of the soul and mind of the selectively "pacifist" European left is astonishing."  And here's what Noory has to say about former Jesuit priest John McLaughlin, who wants the US to "talk to the bad guys," which would only serve to give Hezbollah unwarranted legitimacy:

What he set aside with his grey suit and white collar was the concept of a universal notion of the responsibility that comes with free will. God's two hands are compassion and justice, and that the continuity in a good society requires both, and not one hand to be tied behind ones’ back when jihad is thirsty for blood.

Good stuff.  Read more here.

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) -- The Air Force successfully launched an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile early Thursday.

The Minuteman III dummy warheads were fired at 3:14 a.m. and traveled about 4,200 miles before hitting a water target in the Marshall Islands.

The launch was delayed by a day because of a power outage at a radar facility that handles flights in and out of Southern California. The purpose is to test the defense system's reliability and accuracy.

Earlier this month, North Korea shook up the world by firing several missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a failed long-range missile.

Now that nuclear proliferation is becoming a reality, missile defense is the only defense to nuclear armageddon at the hands of rogue states, terrorists, and madmen.

A missile like this could save your life someday.

Is the system fully functional yet?  Of course not.  Is it foolproof?  No.  It's brand new technology, still in the process of development.

But even the limited capability the United States has at this early date must give pause to North Korea and other rogue states.  If anyone were to launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at the United States, it could not be certain that the missile would not be intercepted.  The first strike opportunity would be lost, and the wrath and military might of the United States would rain down on the perpetrator.

So even the very limited missile defense capability we have now is already serving as an important part of our national defense.  We need to advance this program further and develop a fully functional capability

Will it be difficult to perfect a reasonably well functioning missile defense program?  Yes. 

Will it be next to impossible?  Yes. 

But the nuclear bomb was also impossible -- before it was invented.  So was space travel.  And so was open heart surgery.

Here are some fearless predictions:

• There will likely be one or more nuclear missile attacks in the world within the next 75 years.  There are too many hate-crazed regimes and terrorist groups in the world right now, and they are not being fought hard enough.  Some who enjoy the luxury of living in decent, civilized nations are foolish enough to serve as apologists for such groups, or cling to the naive notion that they can buy peace by appeasing the rogue states and terrorists.
• Missile defense technology will continue to advance and will eventually become a viable, if imperfect, form of defense against nuclear missile attack.
• Some rogue states will eventually develop their own nuclear missile defense programs so that they can launch nuclear missiles without fear of an effective nuclear response (they hope)
• Terrorists and rogue states will try to launch sneak attacks anonymously in an effort to avoid devastating reprisals.
• Missile defenses will not always work perfectly and will frequently fail; nuclear missiles will sometimes reach their targets.
• Nuclear weapons will cause regional environmental damage that is long-lasting but not permanent.
• Detonation of nuclear weapons will cause severe economic damage to nations on the receiving end.

Is this a happy view of the world?  Not with respect to nuclear proliferation -- that battle is all but lost.  (Exhibit A: North Korea.  Exhibit B: Iran.)

Yet in spite of all this, life will go on.  Many lucky souls around the world will live out their lives in peace.  Terrorists can't be everywhere at once, and fortunately there will always be decent people and decent nations with the courage to fight the terrorists. 

So all is not lost.  It never will be.  But we need to take nuclear missile defense seriously and give it the support and funding it needs to succeed as soon as possible. 

To return to where we began, this is the missile that may save your life. 

It's no less important than the cop down the street who is there to help if you are the target of a crime.  In fact, this missile, and the people who built it and tested it, are more important in the long run than any cop.

So give peace a chance.  But while you're at it, give national defense a chance too.  They go hand in hand.

_______________

Update 7/23/06:  Thanks for the link and kind words from Joe Noory at No Pasaran!, who writes that "The emptiness of the soul and mind of the selectively "pacifist" European left is astonishing."  And here's what Noory has to say about former Jesuit priest John McLaughlin, who wants the US to "talk to the bad guys," which would only serve to give Hezbollah unwarranted legitimacy:

What he set aside with his grey suit and white collar was the concept of a universal notion of the responsibility that comes with free will. God's two hands are compassion and justice, and that the continuity in a good society requires both, and not one hand to be tied behind ones’ back when jihad is thirsty for blood.

Good stuff.  Read more here.

The Audacity of Hope, Trust and a Little Pixie Dust

Obama Poised to Tax You 'Til It Hurts

Did you catch the headline? "Tax Rate for New Yorkers Would Top 50% Under Obama"

Under Obama's proposals, the highest marginal tax rate for citizens of high income-tax states like New York will be close to a punitive 60% - and that's before you consider sales tax, property tax, gas tax, and other taxes.

New York tax filers reporting more than $375,000 a year in earned income may end up paying nearly 60% of their wages in taxes to the government under a Barack Obama presidency, economists who have analyzed his plan said.

The Democratic presidential candidate is proposing not only raising the federal income tax, but also adding a Social Security tax for those Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. For New Yorkers, that could mean that if the current Social Security rate is applied, the marginal tax rate, or rate on every extra dollar earned, could rise to 58%.

"This is a very eye-popping number," a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Alan Viard, said.

If Obama is elected president and Democrats control Congress, taxes will be raised at the earliest possible date You can take that to the bank. How high? A vote for Obama will be very expensive. The entire economy, already reeling from devaluation of the dollar and high gas prices, will but under further stress as incentives for hard work are diluted by punitive tax rates and sloth is encourged by further padding the social safety net.

All the higher taxes collected will not go directly to the social welfare programs, of course. About half will be lost to government waste, corruption and inefficiency.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Left Ignores Tips that McCain Will Visit Iraq, Screams Bloody Murder When It's Obama's Turn

Did He Really Just Do That? screams the headline at Talking Points Memo.

This is the lead on a story just out over the Reuters wire ...

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday that his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is likely to be in Iraq over the weekend.

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator's trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials' visits to Iraq in advance.

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

The Reuters piece hints at it. But if Obama is going to be in Iraq this weekend, this is a major breach on McCain's part. As a knowledgeable insider notes ...

If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publically.

And so the outrage begins.  It's a "major breach!"  It's a "serious mistake"!  Predictably, every other leftist website jumps onboard.  Some of the links at Memeorandum at this hour:

Cernig / Newshoggers.com:   McCain Compromises Obama's Security

Hilzoy / Obsidian Wings:   He Said What?  —  Reuters: … Obama's schedule was not public …

THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™:   Senator John McCain Commits OPSEC Violation, Potentially Endangering …

Macranger / Macsmind:   Did McCain “drop the dime” …

Dave / Political Machine:   Was I Not Supposed To Say That?

Jed / The Jed Report:   Unfit to serve  —  It's hard to imagine that John McCain intended …

Warren Street / Blue Girl, Red State:   You Gotta Be Kidding Me—McCain Reveals That Obama *Might* Be in Iraq This Weekend

Sister Toldjah:   John McCain deliberately gives out Obama's Iraq trip information …

Greg Sargent / TPM Election Central:   No Word Yet From McCain Camp On McCain's Discussion Of Obama Trip Timing

Mark Kleiman / The RBC:   McCain blabs

Ben Smith / Ben Smith's Blogs: McCain breaks embargo on Obama's schedule

Except that . . .

The same sort of thing has been written about John McCain before when he visited Iraq, and nobody on the left screamed outrage:

From the Los Angeles Times March 15, 2008:

McCain plans to visit Iraq this weekend on a weeklong overseas trip that includes Israel, Britain and France.

The horror!  A major breach!  A serious mistake!

From the Washington Post, November 19, 2007, from photo caption:

McCain plans to visit Iraq during the Thanksgiving holiday period.

Auggghh!!  Another major breach!  Another serious mistake!

But blowing things completely out of proportion to score cheap political shots against political adversaries is so much fun, isn't it?  It's one of the few things the left does well.

Gas Saving Tips That Really Work

By DemocracyRules

From Gina's archives

Gas saving tips that really work.

And some others that don't.

Organization of 50,000 Physicists Agrees: NO Consensus on Global Warming

Here's the news, hot off the wires:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

But - but - but -- what about all the radical lifestyle changes we're all going to have to make just to survive?

What about all the expensive laws we're in the process of enacting? 

What about THE ENTIRE AGENDA?

Now scientists are going to have to re-open the entire debate on global warming?

What are politicians going to do in the meantime?  Will they have to put all their economy-killing laws on hold?

Facts can be so inconvenient.

Why Can't an Attractive Woman Find the Right Man?

By DemocracyRules

Yes, you’d think it would be easy to find a good man but it’s not.  A posting on Craigslist.com about this has been hotly debated recently on the Internet. 

The poster said she was in her mid-twenties and was highly attractive.  She lived in New York, and hung around places where rich single men congregate.  These men mostly work in the financial industry.  She estimates that her target population makes about $400,000 to $500,000 per year.  Why, she asked, can’t she find a good one among this bunch?  In her estimation her beauty is worth at least $500,000 per year.

A male poster replied that she is a depreciating asset.  While the man increases in net worth over time, her trading value decreases over time, because she gets older and less attractive.  If she is searching for a mate purely on commercial grounds, turnabout is fair play. 

On purely commercial basis, it may be a better deal for the young man to hire a house cleaner and/or a personal assistant, and get a mistress.  That combination would be cheaper than marriage, because of the very high costs of maintaining a financially demanding wife, and the high costs of divorce.  Furthermore, the man can maintain the value of his assets by getting new ones when the old ones get worn out. 

A bit brutal, eh? Well the problem was the woman showed no interest in love, only in a commercial exchange.  Successful Western marriage is not simply a commercial exchange between a woman’s attractiveness and a man’s wealth.  Primarily it's about finding someone you want to love.  You have succeeded when you love a person into the indefinite future.

The second goal is to be loved in return, and if you love your mate, then you are likely to be loved in return.  In our survey on “What do women want”, the most highly valued characteristic was a man who loved them.

Here are some mistakes physically attractive women make. (1) They don’t look hard enough.  In “What do women want”, I discussed the six main things women  look for in a man.  It’s a very hard list, especially since these characteristics in men tend to be placed on a bell curve.  To find a man in the top 5% on all of six characteristics is really rare, as you can see on this bell curve.  He would have to be in the 'red zone' on six bell curves like this!  The woman will have to sort through thousands of men! It takes a lot of work to find a good man, and it helps a lot if you loosen your cut-off levels!  Marilyn Monroe never found the right man.

(2) They don’t go after the ones they want.  Sitting back and waiting won't work very well.  Haley Berry may attract thousands of of men, but most will not be right, because of the screening problems in (1) above.

(3) Attractive women, like everyone else, have a strong tendency to think that an attractive man will be “as good as he looks.”  That is, they falsely think he will be good in every other way as well.  Usually they're not.  Rather than give up, she needs to look harder and look smarter.

(4) Attractive women have to work on improving themselves just as much as everyone else.  If a man detects that she will not continue to “be nice, stay pretty, and maintain physicality”, then most highly desirable men won’t want her.  She will attract a lot of men, but not the ones she wants.

This is another reason why attractive women must work on themselves.  Usually they can find someone who will marry them, but if they’re mean or unaffectionate they won’t get a very good man, and they will not know how to love or to be lovable.  Their marriage will be like a donut, with no love in the middle.

(5) They don’t look in the right places. It is good to be out and circulating in public, but some places are vastly better than others. Bars and nightclubs are full of people who drink.  The ones who are there most often are the heavier drinkers.  Twenty percent of the drinkers consume 80% of the alcohol, so bars have a lot of alcoholics in them.  About 50% of the adult population drinks little or no alcohol, so they’re not in a the bar in the first place.

Churches and synagogues are full of people who are trying to improve themselves.  Night school is great because you will meet your target person repeatedly, and it is possible to get to know them causally.  The workplace has become dangerous (especially for men), but it is still an very common way to meet other people.  Volunteering can be a great way to meet other generous people.

(6) They don’t use the Internet properly.  Many of my friends have met someone on the Internet, and there are good ways and bad way to use it.  Look for men who explicitly say they are looking for long-term relationship. Find out what loving men want.  Don’t judge someone by a photo, or assume that because they look good, they will be good.

See also: Relationships Roundup

One Year Ago Today on GINA COBB: If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Originally published on July 18, 2007:  If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

Two Years Ago Today on GINA COBB: Stop the "Cycle of Violence" Meme: It's Dishonest and Cowardly

Originally published on July 18, 2006:  Stop the "Cycle of Violence" Meme: It's Dishonest and Cowardly

The terrorists have spoken in words and in deeds, including suicide bombers. They have what Churchill once described in the Nazis as "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."  (Thomas Sowell)________________________

Is there really a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East? 

Thomas Sowell answers the question eloquently in A 'Cycle' of Nonsense at RealClearPolitics.

Now that Israel has responded to rocket attacks and the abduction of its soldiers by terrorists by making military strikes into areas controlled by those terrorists, much of our media are deploring another "cycle of violence" in the Middle East.

For reasons unknown, some people seem to regard verbal equivalence as moral equivalence -- and the latter as some kind of badge of broadmindedness, if not intellectual superiority.

Therefore, when Palestinian terrorists ("militants" in politically correct Newspeak) attack Israel and then Israel responds with military force, that is just another "cycle of violence" in the Middle East to some people.

The "cycle" notion suggests that each side is just responding to what the other side does. But just what had Israel done to set off these latest terrorist acts? It voluntarily pulled out of Gaza, after evacuating its own settlers, and left the land to the Palestinian authorities.

Terrorists then used the newly acquired land to launch rockets into Israel and then seized an Israeli soldier. Other terrorists in Lebanon followed suit. The great mantra of the past, "trading land for peace," is now thoroughly discredited, or should be.

But facts mean nothing to people who are determined to find equivalence, whether today in the Middle East or yesterday in the Cold War.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, nothing is easier than to create verbal parallels and moral equivalence, though some people seem to pride themselves on their ability to do such verbal tricks.  . . . .

Regardless of fashionable rhetoric, there is no Middle East "peace process" any more than trading "land for peace" has been a viable option. Nor is a Palestinian "homeland" a key to peace.

During all the years when Arab countries controlled the land now proposed for a Palestinian homeland, there was no talk about any such homeland. Only after Israel took control of that territory as a result of the 1967 war was it suddenly sacred as a Palestinian homeland.

There is no concession that will bring lasting peace to the Middle East because the terrorists and their supporters are not going to be satisfied by concessions. The only thing that will satisfy them is the destruction of Israel.

Pending that, they will inflict as much destruction and bloodshed on the Israelis as they can get away with at any given time. This brutal reality is not going to vanish through verbal sleight of hand.

The terrorists have spoken in words and in deeds, including suicide bombers. They have what Churchill once described in the Nazis as "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."

We saw that on 9/11 -- or should have seen it. But many, especially among the intelligentsia, are determined not to see it.

Of all the Western democracies, only two have no choice but to depend on their own military forces for their survival -- the United States and Israel. The rest have for more than half a century had the luxury of depending on American military forces in general and the American nuclear deterrent in particular.

People who have long been sheltered from mortal dangers can indulge themselves in the belief that there are no mortal dangers. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran or North Korea -- and, through them, in the hands of hate-filled terrorists -- may be all that will finally wake up such people. But that may be tragically too late.

Read it all.

There is no more a cycle of violence in the Middle East than there is a "cycle of violence" between cops and robbers.  If someone suggested that cops were "perpetuating the cycle of violence" by chasing, shooting if necessary, and arresting robbers, everyone would think they were crazy.

-- Now stop that cycle of violence! 

But of course, terrorists are not happy, smiling robbers who have "only" taken someone else's money. They are the type of people who consider this kind of carnage a good day's work:

Yes, the red you see is the lost blood of Israelis deliberately bombed by terrorists this week at the Haifa train depot.

Thank God, literally, that Israel has the courage to confront this evil directly rather than succumbing to it or fleeing from it.

The terrorists have spoken in words and in deeds, including suicide bombers. They have what Churchill once described in the Nazis as "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."  (Thomas Sowell)________________________

Is there really a "cycle of violence" in the Middle East? 

Thomas Sowell answers the question eloquently in A 'Cycle' of Nonsense at RealClearPolitics.

Now that Israel has responded to rocket attacks and the abduction of its soldiers by terrorists by making military strikes into areas controlled by those terrorists, much of our media are deploring another "cycle of violence" in the Middle East.

For reasons unknown, some people seem to regard verbal equivalence as moral equivalence -- and the latter as some kind of badge of broadmindedness, if not intellectual superiority.

Therefore, when Palestinian terrorists ("militants" in politically correct Newspeak) attack Israel and then Israel responds with military force, that is just another "cycle of violence" in the Middle East to some people.

The "cycle" notion suggests that each side is just responding to what the other side does. But just what had Israel done to set off these latest terrorist acts? It voluntarily pulled out of Gaza, after evacuating its own settlers, and left the land to the Palestinian authorities.

Terrorists then used the newly acquired land to launch rockets into Israel and then seized an Israeli soldier. Other terrorists in Lebanon followed suit. The great mantra of the past, "trading land for peace," is now thoroughly discredited, or should be.

But facts mean nothing to people who are determined to find equivalence, whether today in the Middle East or yesterday in the Cold War.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, nothing is easier than to create verbal parallels and moral equivalence, though some people seem to pride themselves on their ability to do such verbal tricks.  . . . .

Regardless of fashionable rhetoric, there is no Middle East "peace process" any more than trading "land for peace" has been a viable option. Nor is a Palestinian "homeland" a key to peace.

During all the years when Arab countries controlled the land now proposed for a Palestinian homeland, there was no talk about any such homeland. Only after Israel took control of that territory as a result of the 1967 war was it suddenly sacred as a Palestinian homeland.

There is no concession that will bring lasting peace to the Middle East because the terrorists and their supporters are not going to be satisfied by concessions. The only thing that will satisfy them is the destruction of Israel.

Pending that, they will inflict as much destruction and bloodshed on the Israelis as they can get away with at any given time. This brutal reality is not going to vanish through verbal sleight of hand.

The terrorists have spoken in words and in deeds, including suicide bombers. They have what Churchill once described in the Nazis as "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them."

We saw that on 9/11 -- or should have seen it. But many, especially among the intelligentsia, are determined not to see it.

Of all the Western democracies, only two have no choice but to depend on their own military forces for their survival -- the United States and Israel. The rest have for more than half a century had the luxury of depending on American military forces in general and the American nuclear deterrent in particular.

People who have long been sheltered from mortal dangers can indulge themselves in the belief that there are no mortal dangers. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran or North Korea -- and, through them, in the hands of hate-filled terrorists -- may be all that will finally wake up such people. But that may be tragically too late.

Read it all.

There is no more a cycle of violence in the Middle East than there is a "cycle of violence" between cops and robbers.  If someone suggested that cops were "perpetuating the cycle of violence" by chasing, shooting if necessary, and arresting robbers, everyone would think they were crazy.

-- Now stop that cycle of violence! 

But of course, terrorists are not happy, smiling robbers who have "only" taken someone else's money. They are the type of people who consider this kind of carnage a good day's work:

Yes, the red you see is the lost blood of Israelis deliberately bombed by terrorists this week at the Haifa train depot.

Thank God, literally, that Israel has the courage to confront this evil directly rather than succumbing to it or fleeing from it.

Check Out the News and Buzz (and More)

Be sure to check out the "NEWS & BUZZ" over there in the right column while you're visiting here today.  There are lots of links like these, updated periodically throughout the day:

Chuck Schumer's Novel Plan to Reduce Price of Oil: Drill More! (in... Saudi Arabia)
Smart. Because U.S. energy independence is just plain WRONG

Israeli Critics Question Lopsided Prisoner Swap
It's not even a prisoner swap. All Israel gets out of it are two dead bodies

D.C. Gun Registration Starts Tomorrow
The 'registration' plan is to TAKE ALL THE GUNS AWAY 'temporarily,' then give (most of) them back. That should go over well

L.A. Uses Homeland Security Grant to Install Subway Turnstiles
Gee, thanks. We feel much safer from terrorists now

While you're visiting, check out Dilbert and the Daily Cartoon from Andertoons, also in the right column.  Both are updated daily.

Other regular attractions are "Websites to Explore" (also in the right column), featuring some of the best and most interesting websites, in randomly shuffled order.  You can't go too far wrong by clicking a few links to see what's new.  Websites known to have been updated within the last six hours are marked "New!"

If you're still looking for more, the lower left column has features from the Free Dictionary automatically updated daily, including a Word of the Day, This Day in History, In the News, Quote of the Day, and more.

Gosh, Jesse Jackson Sure Is a Chatty Fellow

He used the "n" word too, saying that Obama is "telling n*****s how to behave."

This is in addition to Jackson saying he'd like to castrate Barack Obama (in cruder language, of course).

The left will pretend it doesn't matter and continue applying its usual double standards and feigned moral authority. 

But it does matter.  It raises the question of whether Jesse Jackson really wants to end hatred in America -- or just trade one form of hatred for another.

I'm thinking the latter.  Because it's OK for Jackson to use foul language and violent imagery about a fellow black man, but let a white man do anything remotely close and his career is over, if Jackson has his way.  Remember his reaction to Don Imus?  He all but demanded the man's head on a platter.

And here's Jesse Jackson's reaction to "Jerry Seinfeld" comic Michael Richards, who dared to use the same dreaded "n" word in a comedy club;

CHICAGO (CBS) ― There was more fallout Tuesday night from comedian Michael Richards' racist remarks. . . . .

"I'm really busted up over this and I'm very, very sorry," Richards said Monday night on the "Late Show with David Letterman."

Michael Richards, best known as Kramer on "Seinfeld," says he is sorry for his racist rant at a Hollywood comedy club. His words were directed at two black hecklers. During his tirade, Richards referenced a time when African Americans were lynched. He also used the "n-word" repeatedly.

"He needs more than racial sensitivity and more than therapy training. Why is he so angry with blacks?" said the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

I guess using the "n' world and telling someone that you'd like to cut Barack Obama's private parts off doesn't qualify as being angry with blacks.