The support for the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of it has been slowly but surely dropping on the right side of the blogosphere for months, like the air hissing out of a balloon. However, the speech and the new strategy that went along with it seem to have reversed that trend, at least for the moment.

As I looked around the right side of the blogosphere, the supporters of the speech probably outnumbered the detractors or more accurately, those who thought it was too little, too late, by about 3 or 4 to 1. Perhaps more importantly, there were more genuine flashes of enthusiasm for the strategy Bush unveiled than I've seen in quite a while.

So, the speech was definitely a hit on the right and there does seem to be some hope that it will produce results. Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and this is going to have to work in the real world or support will start to drain away again. However, the flip side is that if Bush can produce progress, if we do start taking apart Mookie Al-Sadr's forces, if the Iraqis start stepping up, if they do manage to take over the day to day policing of their country by November, it now looks possible that Bush could get public opinion on the war slowly inching up, instead of continuing to drop off. Time will tell.

In the interim, here are some of the more interesting quotations that I ran across today from the right side of the blogosphere.

"The President’s revised strategy for Operation Iraqi Freedom gives our country the best chance for victory and provides the Iraqi people their best chance for sustaining democracy. Senator Obama (along with many in Congress for that matter) does not approve of the strategy change. He told Larry King that he fails to see any “evidence” that the additional 21,000 troops will make a “significant dent” in Baghdad and I whole heartedly disagree. I have completed two combat tours in Iraq, most recently an 11 month tour as an Apache Helicopter company commander in Baghdad. I can tell you with confidence that if victory is to be achieved in Iraq, the additional 21,000 troops are essential.

...I agree with not disclosing a plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. A timetable for a planned withdrawal is exactly what the enemy is waiting and hoping for. The days leading up to the last U.S. boots departing Iraqi soil would be some of the most peaceful we have seen in years. However, I am confident that the days following our redeployment from the region would lead to a complete and total collapse of the progress we have made to date. That being said, I also believe that this should be our last effort in this fight. It is now clear to the world that our commitment to this conflict is not open ended. The Iraqi people are the only ones who can completely end the violence in Iraq, and I believe this latest strategy revision provides them the best opportunity to do so." -- C.J. Jacobs at Ankle Biting Pundits

"I saw nothing in President Bush's demeanor to suggest that he really believes in this new plan or that it is at all likely to be successful. He has to know that the Iraqis will not follow through on their commitments either militarily, legislatively, or politically. What the President just laid out COULD work very well if it were executed properly, but we all know that is just not going to happen. Relying on these people for anything is a recipe for disaster as they are completely unworthy of our trust.

Unfortunately, I think President Bush knows this and is basically setting the Iraqi government up for the fall WHEN this plan goes sideways. The premise, as I see it, is that once the Iraqi units don't show up/refuse to fight, or the Oil money legislation doesn't happen, or Maliki's favorite Shi'a get a pass, then the President will be able to point the finger and say, "We tried to help you out, but you squandered your last opportunity. Bu-bye, have fun with the genocide." -- Froggy at Blackfive

"The main indication that things have truly changed will be the dispatch of al-Sadr. He leads the Mahdi Army which is nothing more than an Iranian Death Squad. As long as al-Sadr lives, Iraq will be in trouble.

....It is this sort of speech, and his general attitude, which reminds me why I care about the president and support him--because he's sincere and truly believes in our responsibility to defend ourselves and spread liberty around the world to that end." -- Tammy Bruce

"Leadership. That's what it looks like. It's not exercised by committee. It doesn't waffle on polls. It does not take dictation.

A leader does take the counsel of grey hairs and the people's representatives, among many others. But then a leader, all by himself, with no one but himself to turn to in the end, makes a decision. A sometimes very difficult decision. There is a reason why our founding fathers set it up this way. They had spent enough time arguing with each other in committee to know that ultimately, one man all alone has to make the hardest decisions. As one of their heirs said a century and a half later, "The buck stops here."

There is not a lot that needs to be said about what George Bush said last night, except that it was the right thing. At long last, the key pieces are moving into play." -- Jules Crittenden

"In tonight’s nationally televised speech, President Bush informed the American people of his intention to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. This increase in our troop commitment represents, quite possibly, the last best hope for stabilization and, ultimately, achieving victory in the current war that we fight against the terrorists. President Bush has my full support.

...For political reasons all their own, the Democrats seem anxious to declare defeat. In point of fact, whatever euphemism they use: strategic redeployment, phased withdrawal, tactical relocation – we should not be deluded as to their true meaning.

...Unmistakably there is risk in further stretching our military capability, but there is also the sobering reality that a strained military is infinitely preferable to a defeated one. It is clear that the status quo in Iraq is no longer acceptable and given the circumstances, there are only two directions in which to move. Our Commander-in-Chief has chosen to advance rather than retreat and I wholeheartedly support him." -- Tom DeLay

"Detailed, forceful, candid, clear: It did everything it needed to do with a minimum of flowery language and a maximum of effect.

It also delivered a stiff warning to the Maliki government: Stop acting like a Shiite government - and start acting like an Iraqi government - if you want American help to continue." -- David Frum

"A lot of the anti-war Left is saying that Abizaid and Casey are out because they're anti-surge, and Bush put another yes-man in place, blah, blah, blah. Unfortunately, the Left has also been saying that this has been a disaster since the beginning, that the light footprint plan was never viable, and that Bush should change course instead of "staying" it. So, he changes the plan, and immediately, that's a bad move, too. They never wanted a change in plans. They just want Bush to fail, which unfortunately means America must fail.

As for the Democrat response to Bush, I simply LOVE how all the good things that have happened in Iraq, which Democrats have been trashing as worthless for four years, are now worthwhile only after they're done and Democrats didn't have to risk any political skin to support them or speak out for them.

...Some were saying this may be the most important speech of Bush's career. I think this is the last bet Bush can lay on Iraq. The American people want victory, but they're impatient. But the best sign that victory in Iraq is possible is that only a couple Democrats are fool enough to actually stand up against the new plan and threaten funding. They're CYAing in case this works out, so they can retroactively praise the progress they denigrate for the next year." -- Mary Katharine Ham

"Bin Laden, DinnerJacket, and every other potbellied dictator is watching Iraq - and our premature departure is only going to encourage them.

I really believe that liberals/Democrats know this and they genuinely don’t care; they’re fine with America being struck again. Another 9/11, or worse, is fine because America has no right to be the only superpower, etc, etc. We’ve heard it, we know.

Like you, I’m exhausted with the war. I want it to be overwith. But if the choice is a 10 year war in Iraq vs. a 10 year war in New York or Chicago or even Los Angeles, I’ll opt for Iraq." -- Right Thinking Girl

"What Bush is proposing could lead to a limited success in Iraq; saving the Sunnis from annihilation and giving the streets back to the Iraqi government. Beyond that, any democracy that emerges from our involvement there will also be up to the Iraqi people. We’ve done just about all we can do in that regard as well.

I believe the President should get a bump in support from this. And support for the war may increase a couple of points as well. But the days of moving the American people en masse towards a belief in victory are long gone, crashed on the shoals of unfulfilled promises and the disheartening realities of the violence in Iraq. But if what the President proposes is the very best we can hope for – and I believe that it is – then perhaps it will eventually be seen by both the Iraqi and American people as having been worth the effort." -- Right Wing Nuthouse

"An outspoken GOP opponent of Republican border security proposals was bumped from the House Judiciary Committee by party leaders Wednesday, drawing protests from minority rights groups.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who rebuffed House Republican leaders and sponsored an immigration reform bill to grant legal status and citizenship to undocumented workers, was removed from the panel.

The GOP Steering Committee gave Flake a seat on the Foreign Affairs and Resources committees.

"The Judiciary Committee hasn't exactly been the friendliest place for those who favor comprehensive reform. And leadership was not happy that I was not happy with their strategy — which was to do nothing," Flake told the San Antonio Express-News.

... Flake had more seniority on the panel than six other members.

He said his immigration views are more at odds with Smith's than with those of former Judiciary Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

"Smith will have a far harder line on immigration than Sensenbrenner," Flake said."

If the GOP Leadership in the House is actually kicking people off of committees for being squishes on illegal immigration, that would seem to mean that they're still dead serious about fighting amnesty. That's good news, because from what I've seen, a coalition between the GOP in the House and the Democrats who talked tough on illegal immigration last year to get elected in rightward leaning districts is our best shot to stop amnesty.

Over at the Democratic Underground, predictably, they're not happy with Bush's speech. How unhappy are they? Well, a single thread just doesn't really capture the depth of their dissatisfaction. However, if you take a look at the titles of all these different threads from their General Forum, I think you'll get a good feel for it:

Is impeachment the only way out?
Maybe a draft would be a good thing....
It's Our Fault. No American is Innocent (rant)
He looked like a terrified toddler with a corn cob up his *ss.
America Has A Dictator.
I Am Now One-Hundred-Percent For Impeachment.
"Escalate Impeachment" (DailyKos Post)
I am now convinced * IS the Manchurian Candidate (his mood dial
Forget impeachment, arrest that criminal!
Have we officially entered the Bizarro World or what?
No work for me today - I've already called in sick. I'm too p*ssed.
George W Bush is an *sshole
Impeach Bush before it's too late.
Now can we impeach?
ARE WE READY TO GET IN THE STREETS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Impeachment? How about a straightjacket
"My God we have a madman on our hands!"

This morning at 10 AM, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a blogger teleconference. Here are my notes, not quotes from that meeting.

McConnell's Opening Statement

My take on the President's initiative: I support the decision. The goal is to win. That means having a stable government and an ally in the war on terror. We're going to clear and hold, not clear and leave. No neighborhood will be exempt, including Sadr City. Iraq needs a secure capital city to have a chance.

What the Democrats really advocate is leaving. But, when we left Vietnam, they didn't follow us here. The terrorists in Iraq will. If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs and leave a mess there, it will follow us here. The Democrats want to leave and there's only one way to do that: to cut off money for the troops.

The Q&A Session

Q: Are we going to take on Iran if they interfere?

A: The President has been intentionally vague on that and I think that's the right approach.

Q: What does your caucus think about this?

A: The Democrats will need 60 votes to stop Bush and I am hopeful that we will have enough Republicans to stop the passage of any anti-war resolution. We also expect Lieberman to support us.

Q from me: If the Iraqis don't get the job done in 2007, will we be able to hold out in 2008?

A: Not going to answer a hypothetical on something like that.

Q from me: Follow-Up. If the Iraqis do meet the goals, clearing and holding, Iraqis taking over the provinces by November, can we still muster GOP support to keep US troops there for logistics, air support, etc.?

A: I hesitate to answer a hypothetical, but I think we can stop the Democrats from cutting the money.

Q: What about the rules of engagement?

A: I can tell you that no neighborhood will be exempt, but don't have a lot of detail to give you beyond that?

Q: How good is Bush's relationship with Malikki?

A: We're not happy with how it has gone and it's time for him to produce.

Summary: Basically, McConnell sounds as if he expects to hear some grumbling from some GOP Senators and of course, lots of complaining from the Democrats, but that he thinks that they can't muster the votes to cut off funds for the troops and that's the key thing. If they don't have the votes on that, then it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. All in all, I think McConnell seems to be taking the right approach, hitting the right notes, and backing the President's play on the war.

Update #1: If you're looking for an indication that there is a new attitude in Iraq, this would seem to be a pretty clear signal:

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of the staff.

...Iranian media said the country's embassy in Baghdad had sent a letter of protest about the raid to the Iraqi foreign ministry.

One Iranian news agency with a correspondent in Irbil says five US helicopters were used to land troops on the roof of the Iranian consulate.

It reports that a number of vehicles cordoned off the streets around the building, while US soldiers warned the occupants in three different languages that they should surrender or be killed."

(Applause) It sounds like we're done playing pattycake with the Iranians. It's about time.

Update #2: Also see,

Powerline

Update #3: This is another headline that has been long overdue,

Al-Maliki gives Mahdi Army blunt choice: disarm or face American onslaught

You should see some of the loopy North American Union emails I get. Here's my favorite one so far from the latest batch:

From: adam leavitt
Subject: NORTH AMERICAN UNION

"so really think that there are no plans for the american union.....why do one third of american's believe 9/11 was an inside job......why does israel run american policies"

Edited Runner Up:

From: James Mason
Subject: North American Union

"....So you are on the side of the one-worlders--why don't you just admit it, instead of sliming people who don't share your blue sky and pink air worldview?"

It looks like these geniuses have figured out my game. You see the Jews, the Trilateral Commission, and the Alien Reptilians were getting a little nervous because the conspiracy theorists were getting too close to the truth.

The real plan is to get Bush to merge America, Mexico, and Canada so that all three nations' resources can be used to build the world's largest ice skating rink in Mexico City with the help of the Chinese, who will immediately cross the border and invade after it's ready to go with the help of the Masons and the Illuminati. Granted, that seems like a pretty complex plan, but I'm told that unless the ice skating rink is completed, the Alien Reptilians' mind control rays in space can't be bounced off of it, refocused, and then used to penetrate even the thickest tinfoil hats.

Anyway, they paid me off to convince people that was there was nothing to the North American Union and the negotiations were epic. I mean they flew me out to Tel Aviv where I had female Israeli soldiers giving me backrubs while I talked to the lizard clone who replaced Tony Blair last year.

Long story short: I got a permanent prison camp waiver (You have no idea how handy those are going to be after Ameri-Cana-Ixico comes into being and there's the Star Trek style replicator that the Reptilians brought from their home world. Does it work? You better believe it. I now have a freezer full of replicated fillet mignon and a bathtub full of gold.

But look, don't worry too much about this North American Union thing anyway because once the earthquake machine and laser tanks are ready, the Americas are going to be taken over by the Illuminati/Mason/Chinese forces anyway. So by then, the last thing we'll have to worry about is the NAU.

This is footage of Mitt Romney when he was debating Ted Kennedy back in 1994 and there are a lot of cringeworthy moments that will greatly trouble conservatives:

Romney has already responded to this video, but if you're looking for a profound explanation, you're going to be bitterly disappointed:

"Well, I just got a look at the excerpts from my debate against Ted Kennedy in 1994. It reminded me of why I ran against him in the first place. Someone had to give him a run for his money.

"Now, it also shows what 13 years will do. I'm grayer. I'm a little heavier. And I hope I've grown a bit wiser as well.

"Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have."

Romney then goes on to talk about some of the conservative things he did as Governor of Massachusetts.

The problem is that this video doesn't show Romney as say, just a college kid spouting off, it shows him as a candidate for the US Senate. So presumably, had he actually beaten Kennedy, he would have actually been governing in the Senate as another Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee. Yet today, in 2007, Romney is telling everyone who will listen that he's a Reagan conservative. But obviously, he's not a movement conservative. To the contrary, he comes across as a politician who has changed his positions because he needs to appeal to conservatives if he wants to get the Republican nomination for President and it's hard not to be leery of pols like that because conservatives keep getting burned by them over and over again. See "Conan the Socialist" in California for a perfect example of a guy who originally came in talking like a conservative, but is now actually governing to the left-of-center.

The Text Of Bush's Speech On Iraq

Chavez Sworn In For Radical New Term In Venezuela

An Army Private Charged With The Slaughter Of An Iraqi Family Was Diagnosed As A Homicidal Threat By A Military Mental Health Team Three Months Before The Attack

Minimum Wage Measure Moves to Senate (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Kids Assaulted In San Francisco After Singing The Star Spangled Banner

Kids Kicked Off A Bus For Speaking English

Claim: Bush Will Veto Any Changes In Medicare Drug Bill

There Were 744,000 Homeless People In The United States In 2005, According To The First National Estimate In A Decade

David Henderson: Terminatorcare -- Gov. Schwarzenegger Writes A Prescription For Disaster

Dick Morris: Taking Day Off For Football Costs Dems Credibility

Jonah Goldberg: Dull-Witted But Well-Meaning Bureaucrats Slap Down The Paving Stones Of Good Intentions On The Road To Hell

Duncan Hunter: Rotate Iraqi Troops Through Baghdad

Evans-Novak Political Report For The Week of January 10, 2007

Ann Coulter: Stripper Lied ... White Boys Fried

'Image Spam' Could Bring The Internet To A Standstill

Scientist James D. Watson, Co-Discoverer Of The Structure Of DNA And A Nobel Prize Winner: Anti-Semitism Justified (Geeze)

Barbara Walters Calls Trump `Poor, Pathetic Man'

NY Firefighters Say U.S. Flags Removed From Lockers

The Worst Night In A Chinese Restaurant Ever

Website Of The Day: Peter C. Glover's Wires

(8:55) OK, 5 minutes until the Bush speech. Let's hope that he has spent a few hours getting prepared.

(9:00) Back in October 25, 2006 -- I wrote a piece called The Way Forward in Iraq. In it, I wrote:

"However, there is one idea with merit that has come out of the study group and that's benchmarks. What are benchmarks? Think of it as a private timeline that's shared between the U.S. and Iraq and it's going to be the way forward for us in Iraq.

...Although George Bush may be our commander in chief, Congress also has a big say over what we do in Iraq and after the elections, the pressure from Democrats and Republicans on Bush to get our troops out of Iraq is going to start ramping up significantly. Does that mean Bush will be forced to cut and run? No, but it probably means that he essentially has a window that will last through 2007 to do what he needs to do in Iraq before, at a minimum, our troops will have to fill a role more similar to the one they play in Afghanistan than the one they play in Iraq. That means our special forces may be active and we may be helping with training, logistics, and air power, but we're not going to have our troops policing Iraq on a day-to-day basis. And let's be completely honest here. We invaded Iraq in March of 2003, so by the end of 2007, we'll have been there for more than four and one-half years. Quite frankly, by that point, the Iraqis should be policing their own streets, fighting their own battles, and dealing with their own internal bad actors.

...So, basically what we need to do is reaffirm to the government of Iraq that if they want to start cleaning out these militias now, we're going to be right there beside of them. But, they also need to understand that whether they want to deal with the problem or not, we're starting to get close to the time when the training wheels are going to come off the bike. In other words, they can deal with the militias now, when we've got 140,000 troops in the country, fighting beside them or they can deal with the situation at the end of 2007, when 70,000 or 80,000 of those troops will have probably already headed back to the US. The only thing they can’t do is keep us hanging around forever while they try to make up their minds.

Does that mean we set an artificial deadline based on political concerns? No. But, as George Bush has said many times, "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," -- and quite frankly, by the end of 2007, they should have had enough time to stand up. Granted, it would be tempting for us to hover over them like a mother hen over her eggs, but there comes a time when, for good or ill, you've got to cut the apron strings. We're getting to that point in Iraq."

It sounds like that's what we're doing. Taking on the militias, benchmarks, and having them takeover policing their own country by the end of 2007. That's great.

(9:02) Fox cut in late because Brit Hume was blathering. Good grief.

(9:04) That's right. If we cut and run, Iraq could be another terrorist enclave like Taliban Afghanistan.

(9:05) 9 districts, 18 brigades. He should have broken it down by troops like Snow did. Maybe that's coming up.

(9:07) Why will this effort succeed?

(9:07) This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to take 'em out and either the Iraqis go through with it or they lose or support. Good.

(9:11) We will hold them to the benchmarks they've announced. They will take responsibility for security by November. Oil revenues to all Iraqis. They will spend 10 billion of their own money on new jobs. More elections. Reform debaathification allows. We will help them get these things going.

(9:12) He should emphasized that they were taking over their own security by November more. I think that's the key to the whole speech.

(9:13) So Al-Qaeda wants to control Anbar and the Democrats want to pull our troops out while they're fighting and winning against them with the help of local tribesmen? Really?

(9:14) Iran and Syria are causing problems in Iraq. Iran is allowing attacks on us. We are going to disrupt them. It's about time! The Democrats will freak over this, I bet.

(9:15) This is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. Yes, it is.

(9:16) They are watching Iraq. Will the Democrats win and get us to give in to the terrorists or will we stick in there? Exactly.

(9:17) Deadly acts of violence will continue. No surrender ceremony, but it will mean a functional democracy, that polices its own borders. Yes, spot on.

(9:18) Scale back or withdrawal? To step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and cause mass killings. That's the result of the Democrat cut and run strategy.

(9:19) Yes, how will the Democrat cut and run strategy help us "succeed" in Iraq?

(9:20) We need to increase size of the military.

(9:21) Times of testing reveal character. Will we quit and fail this time? Not if I have my way.

Summary: I liked this speech a lot because it revealed a workable plan, it gave people a key date to watch (Nov, 2007 for the Iraqis to takeover), and it did seem to explain the point of the surge. I love the fact that he told the Iraqi government that they have gotta move on these militias, they've got to fulfill their promises. He also warned Iraq and Syria. Great. Not a great delivery, but it seldom is with Bush. All in all, B+.

Dick Durbin's Response

(9:25) We must surrender to the terrorists! We must lose, lose, lose!

(9:26) We have given them so much, but we must allow them to collapse now, even though they only need until November to takeover security in their own country.

(9:28) We must surrender now, before Bush's plan has a chance to work!

(9:28) Bush wants to win. Durbin wants to surrender. Seems pretty straightforward.

Durbin Summary: If Bush is saying, "We need until November to get the Iraqis taking over the policing of their country," how do you even come back and demand that we give up now and leave the Iraqis to die? Bush is at least offering up a hope for victory and Durbin is offering nothing but a dishonorable surrender to the terrorists. I think it's pretty clear which policy makes more sense.

Update #1: Here's the
text of the Bush's speech as prepared for delivery.

Update #2: The press releases are already flying fast and furious. Herre's the key phrase from a Duncan Hunter release:

"We are a nation at war. To fracture the U.S. government at this critical time will demoralize our troops and allies, and embolden our enemies. I support the Commander-in-Chief in this operation."

I just got off of a teleconference with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and Brett McGurk, the Director for Iraq, National Security Council. It was about the President's speech tonight on Iraq. Tony started out with a little intro and then went into Q&A. Here are my notes (not quotes) from the teleconference.

The Intro

Tony: #1) It's absolutely essential to succeed in Iraq. #2) What has been attempted in Iraq over the last 6 months hasn't worked. So how do we move ahead?

#1) We have to focus on security before anything else. We can't move forward on politics or economics with the violence in Anbar.

#2) We have to put Iraqis in the lead on security.

#3) In the short run, the Iraqis can't do this on their own. They need our help.

We also have to take on the extremists and force the people on the fence to choose between the government or the terrorists.

All this will create room for political progress. Some benchmarks will include:

#1) Distributing oil money across the country.
#2) Baath Party reformation has to happen. It has been too severe, we have to loosen it up.
#3) Seats in the Parliament need to be adjusted because Sunnis are underrepresented.

We're going to help them build their institutions a little more -- the court systems, for example. We're also going to try to bring in more help from the region, asking neighbors to contribute money. The President will mention Iran and the Syrians tonight. They are causing problems.

The President will commit 5 army brigades to Baghdad to help the Iraqis secure Baghdad. The city will be divided into 9 districts. There will be 2500 Iraqi troops and about 600 US troops in each district. They're going to go door to door and stay 24/7. We're not going to just clear and leave, we're going to leave and hold. We will help with transportation, logistics, etc.

There will be an economic component, too. We have had success in Mosul and will work to do it in larger parts of Iraq -- roughly 1.2 bil for State Department and military spending on development in Iraq.

The Question And Answer Session

(All answers are from Tony Snow unless otherwise noted)

Q: How much is Bush dependent on the Democrats to do this?

A: That's a little fuzzy legally, but we hope we won't have to worry about it.

Q: How much will we be going on offense?

A: Two problems with Baghdad last year? #1) Not enough resources. #2) Rules of Engagement were bad because Iraqi politicians could have operations stopped. That's part of why militias took off. Politicians won't be able to influence the operations any more per the Iraqi Prime Minister. We will probably have more than 50k Iraqis and 20k American forces in Baghdad. We're also going to get the Iraqis better equipment.

McGurk A: The tribes have been fighting Al-Qaeda in Anbar and we want to consolidate the gains made there, so we will be sending in another 4k troops.

A: The tribal leaders in Anbar have had it with Al-Qaeda and they want our help fighting them. Al-Qaeda wanted to take over Anbar and they're failing badly and will continue to fail.

Q: Will the President spend any time telling people about what we've accomplished in Iraq?

A: The President doesn't want to get into numbers of terrorists killed because they'll say we're making up numbers, like Vietnam. But, Tikrit, Anbar, and Baghdad are where almost all the violence occurs. In most of Iraq, violence isn't a big problem. But, the violence in Baghdad is problematic and undermining confidence across the country.

The President will let people know that if we fail in Iraq, it will give the terrorists a new staging ground and access to oil to buy weapons. It will also allow Iran to crow and intimidate people in the region. If we fail, people in the region will lose faith in us and would look to turn elsewhere for protection. That would hurt our security. A successful Iraq will put pressure on Iran and Syria.

Q: Tony, this is John Hawkins from Right Wing News. CNN is claiming that, "President Bush's new Iraq plan will call for all Iraqi provinces to be under Iraqi control by November 2007." Is that correct and even if that were to happen, would it be safe to assume that although we'd still need troops for logistics, air support, special forces, that sort of thing, a lot of the ground troops we have policing Iraq would likely no longer be needed?

A: That is true, and it may be possible that we won't need as many troops then, but I don't want to prejudge. The Iraqis wanted to takeover by November. That's something they wanted to do. We think that's an achievable goal. We are embedding down to the company level to work with the Iraqis to help them get it together.

Q: How do you plan to detail with the Democrats who plan to throw up hurdles to the President's plans?

A: We want a full debate on this and we think it's important that people realize 14 of 18 provinces aren't in bad shape on the violence front. Also, we want people to see us moving on the development front. There is a 10 billion dollar development program and that's from Iraqi funds. When the American people start to see that the Iraqis are taking the lead in Iraq and pumping more money into water, roads, schools, etc., they'll see that they do want to make this work and the American people will respond to that.

McGurk A: Failure would be a disaster and every plan has risk. We looked at everything and we think this is the best way to handle it. For example, we considered leaving Baghdad and letting them fight it out. We decided that was a bad idea because it would strengthen the terrorists. Another option: set a timeline. To threaten to just leave on a timeline would cause people to hedge their bets and look to see who else could guarantee their security after we left.

Q: What about the Syrian and Iranian border? How will we deal with Syrian and Iranian instigators?

A: We're going to treat it very seriously, but I am being deliberately vague on that. The importation of weapons from Iran is a problem. Iraq is a central front in the war on terror, but Iran is also a big threat.

Q: Why are you allowing the press to downplay all the good things we're doing?

A: We're not letting them. They just do it because they're accustomed to bad news. It's the unusual and the gory that attracts attention. It creates a real challenge for us. Thank God for blogs.

Final from Tony: All of the bloggers here are from blogs I have bookmarked. So, it's great to have you here.

Summary: This was a detail-rich teleconference that was a 180 degree shift from the, "Stay the course, details to follow," approach we've gotten from President Bush over the last few months and personally, I found it very encouraging -- especially the part about the Iraqis being able to handle their own security by November. If they are actually able to do that, then we should be able to bring home a lot of our troops and American casualties would plunge as we helped the Iraqis with logistics, planning, air support, special forces, etc., instead of policing their country.

All in all, this is the sort of breakdown I've been hoping to hear from the Bush Administration for a while and I am hoping that the Iraqi takeover in November will help buck up support for the war. Time will tell and, of course, George Bush isn't as eloquent as Tony Snow, so there's no way to know if he will come across as well tonight. But, so far, so good.

Update #1: Here the audio from the teleconference. You can also see Mary Katharine Ham's write up, which is good, here.

"Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union." -- Jerome Corsi on May 19, 2006

"If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero,” we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election." -- Jerome Corsi on May 22, 2006

"What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union.

...What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned." -- Jerome Corsi on May 30, 2006

Yesterday, Jerome Corsi was prattling on about the North American Union in Human Events again after Michael Medved deservedly spanked him for spreading conspiracy theories. While I don't think Corsi is any more worthy of being taken seriously than those who think Jews rule the world or the "Truthers" who think George Bush is responsible for 9/11, I thought I would respond to him one last time (I think that's about the 4th time I've said that).

Now, why respond again? What's the point? Well unfortunately, a lot of conservatives consider this conspiracy theory to be so preposterous that they believe it's beneath them to even bother discussing it, and that leaves Corsi and his ilk to dominate the debate. And since there are a lot of conservatives being taken in by this North American Union nonsense, somebody has got to step up to the plate.

Of course, once you decide to respond to a conspiracy theory, you have a very basic problem: the people who believe in this theory didn't reason their way into it, so it's extremely difficult to use reason to convince them that there's nothing to it. In this case, from what I've seen, most people who buy into the NAU conspiracy theory have done so because they're understandably upset about George Bush's outrageous position on illegal immigration or because they're heard a few big conservative names like Corsi, Phyllis Schlafly, Michael Savage, Lou Dobbs, or Joseph Farah talk about it as if it were reality. Then, they see that we're cooperating with our neighbors on certain issues (which is something that we're always doing) and they leap to the conclusion that we're in the middle of some far ranging plot when nothing could be further from the truth.

However, not one of the advocates of this conspiracy theory mentioned above has ever produced one single solitary piece of evidence that shows anyone in the Bush Administration is working on an Amero or actually merging the US into Canada or Mexico, because there is no such evidence. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about this conspiracy: it's supposedly a grandiose plot that the Bush Administration is engaged in, yet no one from the Bush Administration is ever tied to any of the "evidence," such as it is, that's offered. For example,

A think tank called the Council on Foreign Relations had a task force that put out a report called "Building A North American Community." If you read through the report (.pdf file), contrary to what you've heard said time and time again by NAU conspiracy theorists, you'll find that it does not call for a "North American Union." Moreover, the CFR itself doesn't even take official positions on foreign policy issues because its members have a wide variety of different opinions on the issues. So, there's no cabal of globalists sitting around at the Council on Foreign Relations, rubbing their hands together sinisterly, and plotting to sell us out to Canada or Mexico -- but even if there were, so what? Think tanks champion all sorts of ideas, good and bad; it doesn't necessarily follow that they're implemented by the government.

Then there's Robert Pastor, a liberal university professor and globalist, who has talked about an Amero in one of his books and served as a co-chair of the task force that produced the "Building A North American Community" report. Newsflash: I've talked to Robert Pastor and he denies talking to the Bush Administration about any sort of North American Union. Furthermore, he says that to the best of his knowledge they're not working on any such thing. He also noted that the Amero was one of three ideas he floated in one of his books, that he wasn't married to it, and again, to the best of his knowledge, nobody in the Bush Administration is working on it. Additionally, Robert Pastor has this to say about the idea of a North American Union:

“Each of the proposals I have laid out represent (sic) more than just small steps. But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.”

Even if Robert Pastor had said exactly the opposite and called for a North American Union to be formed tomorrow, so what? He doesn't work for George Bush. It's like having a Communist professor screaming that Lenin was right and we should become a Communist nation tomorrow and then having people like Jerome Corsi go, "See? George Bush is converting America to Communism!" It makes no sense.

Next up is NASCO and the Trans-Texas corridor. NASCO is a business organization that promotes businesses up and down a certain stretch of highway in the US, Mexico, and Canada and they do support the building of the Trans-Texas Corridor. However, NASCO isn't affiliated with the Bush Administration, nor were they formed to promote any sort of North American Union. You can like NASCO or not, you can be for or against the Trans-Texas Corridor, but understand that neither project has anything to do with a plot to merge the United States with Mexico or Canada.

Then there's the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP works under the Commerce Department and they are working on increasing cooperation between the US, Mexico, and Canada on a variety of issues (which is something we're always doing). However, again, despite what you may have heard, the SPP is not based on the "Building A North American Community" report. Furthermore, they're not working on an Amero or a North American Union. They say so right on their own website,

"The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers."

Heck, even Tony Snow has specifically said, "Of course, no. We're not interested (building a European Union-style superstate in North America). There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."

So, if the SPP and the Bush Administration are actually working on a North American Union, despite their denials, where’s the hard proof? Not, "Well, look at Bush's position on illegal immigration." Not, "This language on the SPP website sounds kind of similar to this language in the CFR report." Not, "There's a college professor who thinks this is a good idea." Where's the real proof that the Bush Administration is actually working on an Amero or merging the US with Canada or Mexico? There is none and there won't ever be any offered.

That's why conspiracy theorists love to try to bog people down in minutiae. Sure, lots of people saw planes hit the Pentagon and the WTC, but let's ignore that and talk about the temperature that steel melts at and the size of the hole in the building at the Pentagon. That’s how they trick people in missing the big picture. With the North American Union conspiracy theory, nobody ever talks about how this could practically be brought about when it would be almost universally opposed by the American people and would likely require a Constitutional Convention to pull off. Presumably, people like Jerome Corsi believe that there will just be a press conference one day announcing the changeover to an Amero and introducing us to our new Canadian and Mexican overlords -- actually, these conspiracy theorists never really think that far ahead and they hope that you don't either. They don't want you to consider that there have been no leaks from the Bush Administration about this conspiracy even though thousands of people would have to know about it, that the mainstream media, which would love nothing better than to beat George Bush over the head with something like this if it existed, isn't discussing this issue, that the citizens of Canada and Mexico wouldn't go along with a NAU -- you could go on and on. The reality is that even if George Bush were a diabolical mastermind who wanted to dump the dollar and form a North American Union, he doesn't have the authority to do it without the consent of Congress and without it passing muster at the Supreme Court, neither of which would happen.

This is what the conspiracy theorists don't want you to realize because once you get out of the weeds and stop talking about roads, obscure reports, and professors, it becomes obvious that this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water. But, people like Corsi have gone too far out on a limb to ever admit that. So, they'll keep on insisting that the Bush Administration is about to implement a North American Union until Bush is out of office and then they'll try to take credit for preventing the implementation of a non-existent plot rather than admit that they didn't have the slightest idea what they were talking about.

But, for just a moment, let's forget about Corsi and let's talk about you. Do you think America should jealously guard its sovereignty? Good, so do I. Do you oppose the amnesty plan for illegal aliens that George Bush favors? Good, so do I. Would you oppose any sort of North American Union if it were ever offered up? Good, so would I.

However, that doesn't translate into accusing the Bush administration of being behind some sort of monstrous plot to sell us out to Mexico and Canada. When you buy into that sort of conspiracy theory, you marginalize yourself, and that's the biggest concern I have about these wild accusations about a North American Union. When I see important groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Minutemen get entangled in wacky conspiracy theories via their relationship with Corsi, I worry that it will hurt their credibility. When I see people like Joseph Farah, Phyllis Schlafly, and Lou Dobbs promoting a laughable conspiracy theory about as credible as the ones about the Illuminati and the Trilateral commission, it disturbs me to see them damaging their reputations when we may need their influence on issues like illegal immigration over the next couple of years. Last but not least, after making fun of some of our "friends" on the left for the wild conspiracy theories they've indulged in over the last few years, "Bush let 9/11 happen on purpose, rigged the elections, and is going to stick us in camps and rule as dictator, etc.," it troubles me to see a new "black helicopter crowd" being created from scratch on the right that's just as bad as the worst conspiracy theorists on the left. We're supposed to be better and smarter than that.

Also see,

Killing the North American Union Conspiracy

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

"The Other Side Of Kim: The ultimate list of stuff which every family should on hand in case the you know what hits the fan.

Michael J. Totten: Walking through the rubble in Hezbollahland, Lebanon.

TomDeLay.com: Vote for the most ridiculous liberal of the year - 2006.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

The Smirking Chimp has become one of my favorite little windows into the mind of the liberals because unlike a lot of other blogs, their writers don't hide what they think. Sure, they're repugnant people, but at least their openness is refreshing.

With that mind, enjoy these quotes and excerpts from the posts on the first page of the Smirking Chimp. Keep in mind that everything you're about to read comes from the actual content at the Smirking Chimp, not from the commenters. So, the sort of sentiment you're about to read below is what helps them build their big, liberal audience.

"Forty years ago, demonstrations against an equivalently unpopular war were routine. Students took over college campuses; marchers filled the streets of our cities. The most radical antiwar activists bombed ROTC and other military offices. Why are we so docile now?

...scattered throughout the history of the 1980s and 1990s are episodes that prove the effectiveness of street activism. Members of ACT-UP staged guerilla actions, such as sneaking onto the set of an evening new broadcast to shame the Reagan Administration for its unwillingness to fund AIDS research. Animal rights activists threw paint on women who wore fur coats; wearing a mink stole has become less publicly acceptable than a bin Laden T-shirt. Anti-globalization protesters brought business at the Seattle confab of the World Trade Organization to a halt, terrorizing the pro-corporatization outfit's delegates merely by breaking a few windows at Starbucks.

...It should be noted that politicians also ignored demonstrations during the heyday of the 20th century protest movement. To be sure, many whites were moved to support equal rights by news accounts of peaceful marches led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. But many more were shaken by the violent uprisings that set cities from Newark to Watts ablaze after his assassination. The economic costs of the war in Vietnam played at least as much of a role in ending it as the hippies who tried to levitate the Pentagon. In the current era, the 1999 triumph against the WTO was followed by successful gatherings in other cities whose security forces were better prepared.

Taking to the streets doesn't always get results--far from it. But it's a lot more likely to work than what we've got now: politics as spectator sport." -- Ted Rall

"Now is the time for all Americans to act, and to demand that our Congressional representatives step up to their responsibility and do the two things that their oaths of office require of them: End this criminal war in Iraq, and impeach this president!" -- Dave Lindorff

"While the U.S. media has devoted considerable time to the unruly scene at Hussein’s hanging, little has been said or written about how the world witnessed on Dec. 30 what amounted to the snuffing of a witness who could have implicated key figures around George W. Bush, possibly including the President’s father." -- Robert Parry

"Is the CIA counterfeiting dollars and blaming it on North Korea?" -- Joshua Holland

"So this is what a dictatorship feels like. Tens of millions of Americans deliver an absolutely unequivocal message on November 7: Get our troops out of Iraq. And the Generalissimo, who cares more about his Daddy issues than he does about respecting democracy (in the U.S. or anywhere else), responds by ordering an escalation, purging the military command of anyone who disagrees, and illegally executing the guy who (supposedly) tried to kill Daddy." -- Geov Parrish

John Hawkins | 01:09 PM | Comments (35)

"Michael Illions serves as the host of the January edition of the GOPUSA-NJ Conservatives with Attitude podcast show. Joining Michael were Sister Toldjah of SisterToldjah.com and John Hawkins of RightWingNews.com.

Topics discussed were the Democrats first 100 hours in Congress, a preview of President Bush’s live address to the nation on Wednesday night and a look at the latest news regarding the GOP ‘08 presidential race."

You can listen to it here.

This is a terrible idea, made even worse because the sponsor of the bill is pork king, Ted Stevens:

Senator Stevens Introduces Legislation to Provide Flexible Leave for Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has introduced the Family Leave Act (FLA), legislation designed to provide improved flexibility for federal employees after childbirth and adoption. The Family Leave Act would update and improve the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA) passed by Congress in 1993.

FMLA presently guarantees that mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents are given 12 weeks of leave for childbirth and newborn care. However, this law does not require paid leave during this period. Senator Stevens’ FLA legislation would provide at least eight weeks of paid leave for a mother after childbirth, while requiring a minimum of one week of paid leave for fathers and adoptive parents who work for the federal government.

From the moment the Family Leave Act was passed, people have been predicting that the day would come when Congress wouldn't be able to restrain its socialistic urges and would try to force businesses to pay for the leave.

As is, the FLA is an enormous burden on businesses that's highly abused because it requires businesses to allow an employee to take 3 months off not just for childbirth, but for "illness," without being replaced. By the way, there's a reason I put quotes around "illness." I used to work somewhere where we had an employee who took 3 months off every year, for 3 straight years, because she was "sick." Then, when she reached the maximum number of days allowed by law, she'd come back, right as rain, and there was nothing that the company could do about it. Fortunately, she got a little too lazy and stayed out past the 3 months deadline on her last FLA vacation and got fired. Given that I was one of the people doing part of her work while she fired, I was pleased to see her go.

But, back to FLA. Businesses are not piggy banks and when you put them in a position where they have to hold a slot open for a person who wants to take 3 months off, hire a temp to fill his/her job, and then force them to pay the salary of the person taking time off, it's a huge expense and inconvenience. Moreover, if they force businesses to give paid leave, guess what? The number of mothers taking at least 8 weeks off will skyrocket. Heck, why not take two months off if you're going to get paid to do it and the company can't legally fire you?

You want to add large new costs onto businesses that may significantly hurt the economy? You want to see a big decrease in productivity? You want to give businesses a reason to do everything in their power to find ways to avoid hiring women under 40? Then pass this socialistic bill -- actually, don't pass it. And if it does get passed, then hopefully, George Bush will veto it. Cross your fingers.

Update #1: From the comments section:

"When the original family leave act was passed, a friend of mine who was in a Senior H.R. position was appalled. She could not, and I mean COULD NOT risk putting young, talented, well-educated women on a mainstream management career track because of it.

What was she to do if they reached a critical position and decided to exercise their right to this leave? Hire a temp? If the job had real management-track potential, a temp couldn't do it.

The damage to the company would have cost her her rather excellent position, as well.

In order to juggle the PC hiring "quotas" she was forced to put new college grads of child-bearing age in redundancy-guaranteed areas, low-importance positions, pools, and so on. She also upped the hiring of older women to keep the numbers right.

She later confided that she had been warned especially to watch for hispanic and other "Catholic" (I presume Irish, Italian, etc.) female surnames as they are more likely to become pregnant due to religious strictures on birth control(!).

Ceilings, glass, marble and other. Pelosi didn't crash through them. She will probably be instrumental in installing the beryllium-titanium armor drop ceiling of all time.

Sad, really." -- heldmyw

Believe it or not, Dick Durbin is actually asking the Daily Kos for help in setting the Democrats' agenda in the Senate. Let me repeat. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip in the Senate, is asking the loony Daily Kos crowd to help him set the Senate agenda in 2007.

Here's part of Durbin's post on the Daily Kos...

"Today, a new Democratic Congress is working to make America's hopes for a better tomorrow a reality. Here in the Senate, much like Speaker Pelosi's 100-hour plan in the House, our Democratic caucus has already unveiled an ambitious agenda to provide a new direction for America. But there is a lot of work to be done -- so today I'm asking for your input.

Tell me what priorities you want the Senate to focus on. Click here to rank the most important issues facing America now!

....Thanks for being a part of the effort to provide a new direction for America! I look forward to visiting DailyKos often in these exciting coming weeks to discuss the many pressing issues facing America."

...and here are some of the more "interesting" suggestions that he received:

"...We want you to treat the President the way you would if the Congress were the peoples architect, and the President the contractor, and this contractor then ripped up said architects plans and redesigned the work on the back of an envelope and failed to perform the work in a workmanlike manner, and had huge cost overuns and kickbacks...We expect he would be fired, sued, tried, imprisoned and forced to make restitution.

Get rid of the Patriot Act, the Warrantless Surveillance, all this talk about terrorism and al Qaeda, used to generate a war that trades blood for oil in Iraq and Somalia.

Put America back the way it was before the Republicans ruined it." -- Live Free or Die

"Senator, welcome, and thanks for all your responses. So I'm reading along, wondering how in the world we will get this all done, if we don't get the atmosphere more condusive to one where a sustainable future is possible.

I see global warming mentioned frequently, but it is so often talked about without any aparent realization of what I call "Mother's Skin." That little bitty crust, with dirt and trees on top. That crust that is being stripped, logged, polluted by toxic wastes.
From just beneath that crust flows our lifeblood, water. Precious and becoming scarce.
Please remember that the big picture is made up of the small. Each Wilderness Area designated, each Mountain Top Removal permit not issued, each Corporation that is made to take responsibility for the waste it produces (including aging Nuclear plants) brings us one step closer to a sustainable future.

CAFE standards don't mean squat to the West Virginia family who's spring was just covered in valley fill. Nor to those who live downstream. And we do all live downstream. And we are becoming "water insecure".the

Rebuilding NOLA won't mean squat if it's not built Green. Solar, wind, how about power producing levees? Permeable surfaces everywhere. A living testament to Sustainability, that's what we can have, if we can build for America rather than for CEO severance packages. Replant the coast.

Healthcare, tie it in. Asthma? ADHD epidemic? Cancers from single chemicals or combinations of them? The list is so very large. Stop the war, yes. But at the same time, help us make this place we call America worth coming home to, and a place where we can afford to take care of those who have sacrificed, and as in the case of our dear testvet, care for those who have continued to suffer for 30 years.

These are all National Security issues, for if we do not heal Mother's Skin, we dead. Dead." -- emmasnacker

"Impeach

Impeach.

Impeach.

Impeach.

Impeach." -- naufragus

"Absolutely-Fight Propaganda-Reinstate Fairness doctrine!

The exposure to a balance of opposing viewpoints presented in the media is vital for people in a Democracy to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, with so much of the media now owned by right wing conservatives like Rupert Murdoch, the views of Democratics and progressives--including important statements and views of Democrats in Congress--in this country have been stifled, especially over the last six years.

Entire "News" networks and the vast majority of "talk radio" stations are dominated by right wing pundits, ceaslessly pushing an ultra-conservative agenda. Most of their "expert" commentators have obvious conservative bias and many are employed by conservative think tanks or political groups. People without access to the web and blogs like Daily kos are left without an objective news source." -- kurious

"We definitely have to address the energy consumption issue -- which doesn't necessarily mean destroying our standard of living, but there will definitely need to be dramatic changes in our consumer culture.

I hate to be negative, but I believe we have already doomed the polar bears." -- The Cunctator

And how about oversight of the Executive branch? Booman put it this way:

Friends do not let friends drive drunk. In the case of George W. Bush and the neo-conservatives, they not only are insisting on driving intoxicated, they won't let us out of the car and they respond to all requests to slow down by stomping on the accelerator. In this situation the only rational thing to do is to wait for them to come to a halt at a stop sign (if they are sober enough to avoid running it) and smack them in the head with a sock full of pennies. We need to take away the car keys. -- chriscol

"I notice that impeachment is not on your list. It must a top priority for the Senate. If Bush is not punished for his criminal acts, it will permanently damage the credibility of both the Senate and the nation." -- mrgrandefromage

"Get taxpayer money BACK from WAR PROFITEERS then - put them in JAIL. WAR PROFITEERING is TREASON. Use that money to help our soldiers and innocent Iraqi/Afganie/etc. We must right the WRONGS this CORRUPT CABAL has done." -- Russgirl

"We have 26 years of right-wing stacking of the courts to start to fix, and it can't be done by half measures such as rejecting only the most radical appointments. What we need from the Senate is the refusal to even consider judicial nominations unless they come from a list pre-approved by a majority of the Judiciary Committee." -- cjmarshall

"Impeach, Prosecute, Imprison. We must repudiate the Bush regime, it's ideology and crimes and bring justice for our country and the world." -- Calvin Revolt USA

"Our very sovereignty is at risk with this NAU plan. People are starting to wake up to the fact our government is being dissolved into an arm of these multinational corporations, and conservatives and liberals alike are starting to get nervous about the direction we're heading. It's a given that Bush is trying to further this agenda, but who or what stands in opposition to it? You can't even get politicians to acknowledge that it's happening, much less address it or oppose it.

Will anybody protect our nation from such fate as to exist solely for the benefit of these multinational entities?

Here's Lou Dobb's clip last night calling it out as Bush I's plan coming to fruition." -- retired

"*Free markets and Tom Friedman are a lie. You know it, we know it - stop it.
*Bush is nuts and makes Captain Queeg look like a model of mental health. He & Cheney need to be removed. Investigate, impeach, indict, and imprison. He and his Nazi grandpa have done as much damage to this country as it can stand." -- dkmich

"II. ORDER INVESTIGATIONS BY JOHN CONYERS'S JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996 BY SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

III. ORDER INVESTIGATIONS BY A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INTO WAR-PROFITEERING AND TREASON BY VENDORS INVOLVED IN IRAQ, E.G., HALLIBURTON, BECHTEL, AND CACI

V. SET A DATE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS FOR A TWELVE-HOUR DEBATE, FOLLOWED BY A HOLDING-OFF OF THE VOTE FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME, ON REPRESENTATIVE RANGEL'S BILL REGARDING THE DRAFTING OF EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD CITIZENS TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY" -- james risser

"This president is lying to you,he does it all the time with help from our media,(we need an fairness act or bust them up), and you guys still believe him and dont call him on it.Investigate on your own.. I would bet you those 20,000 are going to iran..He is poking the bear hoping someone will give him a reason to destroy them.Wag the dog before you guys find out what he has done,.He is bombing africa now killing more innocents. He delibertly caused civil war and hunger in afganis. iraq, helped israel killed innocent in palistine and leb.,is bombing africa, and wants to do the same in iran..Dont you wonder when he is going to start torturing and killing americans,he already has camps set up, dont you know he has the power thanks to 109th to come after you and your loved ones for no reason.. He is not above the law but you guys are too afraid to stop him." -- bayside

"Close Gitmo. Permanently. Maybe even give it back to the Cubans." -- oxon

"The most important thing is to get rid of the Diebold e-voting machines. Until we get rid of them every election is in danger of being stolen. They stole 2004 from Kerry and would have stolen 2006 if there hadn't been such a huge surge of Democratic voters that messed up their calculations. Check the exit polls. It should have been an even greater landslide.

Exit polls are never wrong. In Canada they have all paper ballots and RELY on exit polls to announce the winner. Then 2-3 days later they finish the actual counting which VERIFIES the exit polls. WHY did the exit polls in 2004 overwhelmingly favor Kerry???? Because he won!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Sam the Wolfdog

"Starting talking to Republicans to remove Bush and Cheney. Make a deal to put a Republican as President and if that's not possible put Nancy Pelosi in with a guarrantee that she won't run again.

We need to restore our credibility in the world and while this is only a start it's a good one. I want to see the headline in the UK "Finally, Americans have come to their senses". -- CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream

"Enough of this. We have wanna be dictators who have usurped our government, raped our treasury, killed our sons and daughters to make themselves and their friends rich.

I want to know why Bush and Cheney are not in prison. Why haven't you joined together to remove the REAL HARM from our government: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales?

Unless and until you do, America cannot move forward, cannot heal, cannot recover. We have wasted enough time, lives, and money. It is time to put an end to the Neo-Con coup that has attempted to take over our government.

Call all heads of state and tell them to ignore any orders from Bush/Cheney. Call the military and DEMAND they ignore all orders from Bush, Cheney, and Gates.

Physically remove these war criminals from our beloved White House, and put them in a maximum security prison, while they await their plane ride to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

That is what Congress MUST DO NOW. Our country is in danger FROM WITHIN.

Otherwise, we will have to do it for you." -- Eyes Wide Open

Tonight at 9 PM, George Bush will be giving a speech on the war in Iraq and I will be liveblogging it. I'm hopeful about this one because there is at least one big detail that has already leaked out beyond the surge. From CNN:

"President Bush's new Iraq plan will call for all Iraqi provinces to be under Iraqi control by November 2007, a U.S. official tells CNN."

Now that would be evidence of serious progress and if the surge is what it will take to get us there, then I'll go from lukewarm support for it out of deference to the Commander-In-Chief to strong support for the whole concept.

Illegal aliens are just one aspect of a new plan for socialist health care in California.

Your once-conservative, now-liberal Governor Schwarzenegger:

“I don’t think there is a question or debate that they ought to be covered.” That argument was based on the fact that federal law already requires that hospitals provide emergency care for those who need it. No one who needs emergency care can be turned away. So, Schwarzenegger extrapolated, providing nonemergency care is “realistic” and “not being in denial.”

“Realistic,” according to the governor’s office means that nearly 1 million undocumented workers will gain health coverage if the package passes – 40,000 through their (illegal) jobs, 160,000 by purchasing individual coverage and the remaining 750,000 would have their coverage paid for by the state. (Read: Your tax dollars.)

And those numbers do not take into account the attraction of guaranteeing health care to all residents, which – if you believe immigrants make smart economic decisions – is bound to lead to a surge in the number of immigrants illegally crossing the border into California. More undocumented workers will send for their families to join them, and others will decide that free health care provides an added incentive to break the law.

‘Cause, you know, automatic citizenship for their babies, free schools, and knowledge that no one will ever prosecute them aren’t enough to encourage illegal immigration.

This is just so blindingly obvious. Does Schwarzenegger actually believe that people will choose to live in poverty in a third-world country when there is a taxpayer-funded life of free stuff just across an unsecured border?

The most obvious sign of economic illiteracy is the failure to understand incentives. Raise taxes, and you’ll get less of whatever you’re taxing. Give away free health care, you’ll get more people turning up at doctors’ offices and hospitals (and sneaking across the border to get there). What kind of moron can’t grasp that?

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

Democrats Vow To Resist Troop Escalation

Schwarzenegger Urges $43.3 Billion In New Calif. Debt

9/11 Bill Contains Little-Known Provisions

Democrats Decide No Minimum Wage Raise For American Samoa Workers Making $3.60 An Hour Because Of Democratic Campaign Contributions (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Democrats Attempt To Block Justice Department Access To Duke Cunningham Documents

Democrats Push 'Net Neutrality

Warm December Pushes 2006 to Record Year For United States

Sharpton Considers Running for President (Free NYT Reg Req)

Jim Gilmore Moves Toward 2008 Run

1,000 Troops Strike Heart Of Baghdad. American And Iraqi Forces Battle Gunmen In A Daylong Fight (Free LA Times Reg Req)

U.S. Special Forces Engaged In Operations On The Ground In Somalia

France 'No Longer A Catholic Country'

Mary Katharine Ham: Are No Lessons Being Learned in Durham?

Mark Steyn: Oriana Fallaci, She Said What She Thought

John Stossel: Sticking It To Low-Skilled Workers

Tony Blankley: Pelosian Honesty

Iraqi Veep Tariq al-Hashimi: Don't Give Up On Iraq Yet

Mac Johnson: What's Worse Than Open Borders?

Brit TV Show Imagines Blair On Trial For War Crimes

Barbara Walters Caught In Trump, Rosie Feud

San Francisco: Mother Who Threw Children Off Pier Acquitted Of Murder

Glenn Beck To Join 'Good Morning America'

Website Of The Day: The Political Pitbull

LiberalEsto: Citizens' arrest? I'm not at all confident that Congress can stop this dictator. Should people be talking about a citizens' arrest? I wonder if a large number of the nation's top religious leaders would undertake something like this.

Discuss.

Over at the Huffington Post, Steven Hill has written a backwards and ill-informed economic argument for the minimum wage. Here are the lowlights:

"Recent proposals call for increasing the current federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour -- the lowest minimum wage in inflation-adjusted dollars in more than 50 years -- to $7.25 an hour. According to the Economic Policy Institute, an estimated 14.9 million American workers would benefit from an increase in the federal minimum wage -- 6.6 million who currently earn less than $7.25 an hour, and 8.3 million who are likely to receive raises due to the spillover effect of a minimum wage increase. Over half of these workers work full-time, and another third work between 20 and 34 hours per week.

Assuming a minimum wage increase raises earnings for those employees by an average of one dollar per working hour each year, we're talking about a net increase in purchasing power of well over $15 billion annually being pumped into the economy. Those are the kinds of numbers Henry Ford understood.

In other words, raising the minimum wage will positively impact the entire American economy, not just low-wage earners. From a macroeconomic point of view, if low wage workers have more money to buy things, then businesses selling their products and services will have more customers. And more customers will mean greater sales, higher profit, and a "trickle up" effect that creates a more robust economy."

...Republicans and business leaders will counter that the minimum wage increase will lead to fewer entry-level and low-skilled jobs, and also to higher prices for goods and services as the cost of the wage increase is passed along to the price of a hamburger at McDonalds. They will paint support for a minimum wage increase as yet another example of Democrats trying to help the undeserving poor at the expense of middle class consumers.

Yet a broad swath of the middle class can easily understand how giving low-wage workers more money in their pockets will result in a lot more money being pumped into the economy. Moreover the Republicans can't dispute this impact of a minimum wage increase because it is precisely this "trickle up" phenomenon they have pointed to for the past several years to justify the Bush administration's massive tax cuts.

Look, if there were such a thing as a "trickle up" phenomenon, then we'd be better off making the minimum wage a thousand dollars an hour, wouldn't we? That would really cause the wealth to "trickle up," wouldn't it?

Here's the problem with that sort of thinking: the money to pay the minimum wage won't come from a magic hat, it'll be added to the price of the product and paid by consumers who could have spent their money on other goods. So, in order to pay Joe Smith more money than he's worth via a minimum wage, customers will have to buy less of other products, that were probably made by efficient companies that aren't overpaying their workers -- and making our economy less efficient doesn't help the economy. In fact, to the contrary, the more efficient the economy is, the more wealth it creates.

Now, is upping the minimum wage going to cause major economic damage? Probably not, although it will certainly decrease the number of jobs available as businesses attempt to find a way to get their money's worth for their labor. For that reason alone, it should be opposed.

PS: Another way of looking at this is as a variation on the "broken window fallacy." Here's John Stossel running it down:

"In a small town, an idiot breaks a shop window. He's called a vandal, until someone points out that a window installer now must be paid to replace the window. The window installer then will have enough money to buy a new suit. A tailor will then be able to buy a new desk. And so on. The whole town apparently gains from the economic activity generated by the broken window. Of course, if this made sense, cities should hire people to run though town, breaking windows.

But it doesn't make sense. It's a fallacy because the circulating money is seen; what is not seen is what would have been done with the money if the window were still whole. The shopkeeper, instead of paying the window installer, might have expanded his business, or bought a new suit or a new desk. The town is worse off because of a broken window."

Instead of a window installer getting extra money, we're going to be giving the extra money to people doing menial, entry level jobs. But, the principle is the same.

Update #1: From the comments section:

Real life here. I plopped down $215,000 to buy Tumbleweeds Bar and Grill. If the minimum wage is increased I'll have to lay off all my hostesses. I don't believe liberals have ever had to make payroll. My business has to gross $78,000 a month just for me to take home $700 a week. Since we're always teetering on that number an increase in the minimum wage would hurt me bad. Unless of course libs think I'm rich with my salary of $36,400 take home pay a year.

I don't think they have any idea how much us small businesses are already taxed, retail sales tax alone is over $5,000 a month. I have to match all 34 of my employees taxes which is around $3,800 every two weeks.

I'd like to hear from the libs why, since I took all the financial risks am I supposed to make less money? If this minimum wage increase is signed into law there will be 7 college/high school girls out of a job at my place." -- Capitalist_Infidel

-- We should be doing this sort of thing all the time...

"A U.S. airstrike hit targets in southern Somalia where Islamic militants were believed to be sheltering suspects in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies, Somali officials and witnesses said Tuesday. Many people were reported killed.

...A U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship conducted the strikes against suspected members of al Qaeda, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin first reported Monday.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reported. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

The main target was Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who allegedly planned the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 225 people.

He is also suspected of planning the car bombing of a beach resort in Kenya and the near simultaneous attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner in 2002. Ten Kenyans and three Israelis were killed in the blast at the hotel, 12 miles north of Mombasa. The missiles missed the airliner."

Can you just imagine it? The Islamo-Fascists in Somalia have the Ethiopian Army in front of them and the US Navy behind them, blocking an escape by sea. They're trying to figure out how to sneak away without getting killed by the Ethiopians when suddenly, out of the blue, it's "Surprise, you're dead! Courtesy of the US military."

That's just magnificent!

-- "It would be a dishonorable thing for the Congress to budget away the bullets at a time when their commander in chief had ordered them to hold their place in the battlefront." -- Gordon Smith

Yes, it would be a "dishonorable thing." Spot-on Gordo...

-- It looks like someone besides Hillary is getting jealous of all the attention that Barrack Obama is getting:

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Monday he is seriously considering a run for president. ''I don't hear any reason not to,'' Sharpton, 52, said in an interview during an urban affairs conference sponsored by another civil rights leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

''If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?'' Sharpton asked. ''We clearly have a reason to run, and whether we do it or not we'll see over the next couple of months.''

-- I may be completely off base, but this story makes my BS detector go off. My gut instinct is that this is probably some sort of huge exaggeration:

"STUDENTS at America's prestigious Ivy League universities are rebelling against their colleges' stuffy reputations, casting off society's norms along with their clothes to hold naked parties.

The Pundits, a secretive society at Yale University, initiated the events - which profess to be non-sexual in nature - in the mid-1990s, open to a select few. The society claims that president George Bush's daughter, Barbara, attended a naked party during her second year, in 2002. The White House has always declined to comment.

But the naked parties are now fixtures among liberal students being primed to become the nation's elite.

While one campus source at Yale - to which Euan Blair, the Prime Minister's son, has won a scholarship - says naked parties are "the No1" thing to do before graduation..."

On the other hand, if it's not a huge exaggeration and someone does have pictures of Barbara Bush nude at one of these parties and wants to send them to RWN to document their existence, he can feel free to do so.

-- As expected, criminals will be among the biggest beneficiaries of the Democratic majority in Congress:

"Federal sentencing laws that require lengthy mandated prison terms for certain offenses are expected to come under fresh scrutiny as Democrats assume control of Congress.

Among those eagerly awaiting signs of change are federal judges, including many conservatives appointed by Republican presidents. They say the automatic sentences, determined by Congress, strip judges of individual discretion and result in ineffective, excessive penalties, often for low-level offenders."

Crime hasn't been a big political issue at the federal level for quite a while and so it's easy for people to forget how bad the Democrats are on the issue. Remember Willie Horton? In fact, the reason that mandatory minimum sentences had to be put in place in the first place was because the American people got sick and tired of liberal judges regularly handing out slaps on the wrist for heinous crimes.

Does that mean that all the mandatory minimum sentences should remain unchanged? Not necessarily. Looking them over to ensure fairness isn't a bad thing, but people should also remember that those mandatory sentences were put in place for a reason. And in my book, if you have to make a choice, it's better to err on the side having criminals in jail for too long than to have them out on the street victimizing the public too soon.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

The New Editor: The 12 most bizarre college courses in the US

Swampland: "The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party's naivete on national security--and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal--just aren't very helpful electorally."

The Blotter: Dead U.S. soldier in anti-war video 'Alive and Well.'

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

No mainstream media outlet does a better job of covering protests than Zombie from Zombietime and since he's based out of San Francisco, he has plenty of them to cover. His latest photospread was on the "Beach Impeach" event which occurred in San Fran on January 6, 2007.

Apparently, the point of the whole thing was to have people get together to spell out "impeachment" in big letters on the beach. What's the point of that? I'm not sure exactly. Maybe they're hoping space aliens will see the letters and threaten to hit Crawford, Texas with death rays unless Bush steps down. Who knows?

Anyway, here's the sign announcing the big shindig:

A message to the world, huh? What message is this guy sending? And exactly what is that thing on his head?

Then there are these guys. Like many of the people who attended the event (no, really), they were wearing tinfoil on their heads, presumably to keep any Bushbot satellites up in space from finding their addresses from their thoughts and then transmitting that info to the FBI, who would then round them up and send them over to a Haliburton run "freedom camp" for dissenters.

Last but not least, here's the highlight of the event:

People always wonder why liberals do so many protests and conservatives don't bother. Well, let me tell you, you go try to convince a conservative to put tinfoil on his head, go down to the beach, and be part of a group of people spelling out something like, "Kennedy's Drunk," and he'll look at you like you need to be sent away to an asylum. On the other hand, liberals hear basically the same spiel and they think, "That's the greatest idea since Al Gore invented the lightbulb!" It's just one of the many fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals.

Make sure to check out all the pics (There are plenty of good ones left) from the protest over at Zombietime.

Over at Unclaimed Territory, lefty blowhard Glenn Greenwald is advancing the same old, tired chickenhawk argument libs have been using for years, but just in case, he's taking 2200 words to say the same thing most libs can do in two sentences.

Here's the short version:

"As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so."

If he doesn't think you can back the President on a surge without participating, then the reverse should be true. Since Greenwald wants us to surrender to the insurgents in Iraq, he should be over there acting as a human shield for a member of the sectarian death squads. Heck, if you add in all his sock puppets, Greenwald could act as a human shield for 4 or 5 terrorists and neck cutters.

Other people have made similar points and Greenwald has a long, tortured explanation for why this sort of non-reasoning only applies to people who believe in winning the war, not people advocating that America surrender in Iraq, but it's such bupkis that it's not even worth addressing.

If people like Greenwald don't like the idea of a surge, there is certainly an argument that can be made against it. It's not sustainable. It encourages the Iraqis to rely on our troops instead of doing things for themselves. It will likely increase casualties and costs. If we "surge" and nothing comes of it, it could boost the morale of the enemy. Unlike Greenwald's lame "chickenhawk" argument, at least those are legitimate criticisms of a surge.

Also see

The Chickenhawk Slur
Increasing Troop Levels In Iraq

Charles notes this clip from MEMRI and entitles it: Sunni-Shi'ite War in Microcosm. I say it's the entire Arab World in microcosm, and demonstrates the emptyness of claims that without an Israel, or an "occupaaation," peace would be breaking out all over. Watch at the link:

MEMRITV: Saddam's Loyalist Mish'an Al-Jabouri and Shiite Iraqi Journalist Sadeq Al-Musawi Fight on Al-Jazeera TV over Saddam's Execution

...Mish'an Al-Jabouri: You should have some self-respect, and choose your words carefully, or else, I will do to you things you cannot even imagine, you Persian liar... Behave yourself, you liar...

Sadeq Al-Musawi: You are a thief... You are a thief. You've been convicted for theft..

Mish'an Al-Jabouri : Get out. Saddam Hussein is your master and the master of your parents...

Mish'an Al-Jabouri: These are your documents. You are an Iranian citizen. You are Persian... You are an Iranian citizen... Saddam Hussein is your master and the master of people like you... (throwing the pages at Al-Musawi) These are your documents...

Sadeq Al-Musawi: Your father killed Kurds...

Mish'an Al-Jabouri: These are your Iranian documents... You are Iranian. These documents show that he applied for Iraqi citizenship in May 2004.

Sadeq Al-Musawi: We will settle accounts with all of you...

Mish'an Al-Jabouri: To hell with you and your accounts...

Host: Sir, I beg you to sit down...

Mish'an Al-Jabouri: You Persian shoe...

Well, at least he didn't call him a Zionist.

This content was used with permission of Solomonia.

U.S. Hits Al Qaeda In Somalia. CBS News Reports Air Strikes Were Aimed At Alleged Al Qaeda Members Linked To 1998 Embassy Bombings (Give 'Em Hell, W)

Claim: War's Toll on Iraqis Put at 22,950 in '06 (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Iran Threatens To Stop Oil Flow Via Hormuz Strait (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Claim: A New Video Of Saddam Hussein's Corpse, With A Gaping Neck Wound, Was Posted On The Internet Early Tuesday

Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Appears In Good Health (Pajamas Media Got It Very Wrong)

Russians Turn Off Europe's Oil Supply

Arnold Schwarzenegger Pushes Socialized Medicine For All, Including Illegals, In California

ACLU Sues Rhode Island Police For Detaining Illegals

Some Illegal Immigrants Are Re-Arrested 6 Times

Congress Is Loath To Pull Purse Strings. Democrats Rule Out Forcing The Iraq Issue. But Past Sessions Have Dictated War Terms. (Free La Times Reg Req)

Democrats Defend Breaking Campaign Pledge On Intelligence Panels

Lawyers Say Nifong Should Recuse Himself In The Duke Rape Case

Poll: Critique Of Wal-Mart Is A Political Loser

Gregg Jackson: My Ideal GOP Presidential Candidate

Rep Paul Ryan: Totalization Is A Bad Idea

The Wall Street Journal: The Fastest Way Home Is A Bolder Strategy Now

Victor Davis Hanson: A War Of Endurance

Britain: Doctors 'Left Elderly Stroke Victim To Starve To Death'

Self-Cleaning Underwear Goes Weeks Without Washing

Website Of The Day: Screenrant

America's biggest, most influential, and kookiest blog is the Daily Kos and so, obviously, the blog deserves its own set of "worst of" quotes for 2006. As you read these quotes, keep in mind that all of them come from the Daily Kos diarists, not from the commenters:

10) "And I come in here tonight and surf on my computer and the first information I get is that Saddam Hussein was hung by the neck until dead. I don’t think we put him out of his misery. I believe he left misery behind long ago. We had taken it from him, because misery was too good for this man – we wanted something more. But he was human – he had dreams, he had aspirations, I am sure. He did kind things sometimes, I am sure. But yes he was a cruel man – funny I felt obligated to say that. I am wondering if Saddam Hussein’s execution will put me out of my misery. Not tonight – because tonight I feel an overwhelming sense of sadness." -- wilbur

9) "The administration will, in due course, stand to account for a war crime committed in Iraq by executing the Iraqi dictator.

...As such, the entire government of the US is now at best an accomplice to this crime, and at worst although it can be argued that circumstantial evidence suggests that it was a premeditated crime perpetrated by the administration." -- NicolausCopernicus

8) "ISG's proposals are studiously designed to isolate Bush, to highlight and tweak his mental illness. Surrounded by a diverse alignment of extremists and centrists, icons of the Reagan-Bush and Clinton 'Wonder Years', the President is put to the test: is he irrational? If he rejects even these lukewarm, unanimous, bipartisan proposals--plans so generic/neutered that even Ed Meese and Vernon Jordan can agree--he proves that he is not just wrong, but mentally ill. And yet the proposals are aimed right at the President's 'issues'--particularly Iran. ISG is almost begging Bush to flip out and reject their report, to show to the country that he is unfit for office.

The next step: consensus among the establishment--in the Congress, among business leaders, in the Pentagon, the White House Staff (yes, even Rove) and in the Bush family--that the President is ill and must be removed from power. We may be witnessing a coup d'etat.

I don't think impeachment is in the winds, rather a quiet in-house understanding where Bush gets the word: You're not really President anymore. Bush would serve out his term as a null object." -- kanaan

7) "Saddam had achieved almost universal adult literacy and Baghdadi meant "wealthy"in Arabic slang when his administration became a target for devastating sanctions and war. Lebanon had rebuilt a vibrant economy, drawing large numbers of sophisticated young professionals, when it was bombed back to the stone age this summer. Iran's educational progress and economic scale now invite our wrath and destruction. Iran must be attacked soon to prevent it becoming an examplar of economic progress and a regional power, and the plan is to permanently impoverish Iranians by stealing their oil wealth." -- LondonYank

6) "And as the fish rots from the head, I propose we start by demanding that the criminal Bush administration be investigated and brought to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's going to be just one more national humiliation if Germany has to do it for us. We owe it to the world to bring these b*stards up on charges ourselves and deliver them to The Hague for final justice in the matter. We are spitting in the world's face (yet again) if we don't.

Investigating and prosecuting the Bush administration is just the first step in our national recovery - and it's going to be one long haul brothers and sisters. Let's get this show on the road." -- One P*ssed Off Liberal

5) "One of the reasons I have such trouble believing in God is that if he were real and the justice that pious believers speak of were genuine, guys like George Bush should be vaporized instantaneously one day just by opening his mouth. I'm still waiting." -- snafubar

4) Because filing briefs don't stop bullets, and when the ballot box fails us, we are not above seeing what's in the ammo box." -- pinche tejano

3) "The GOP likes to attack Kos for his comment saying "Screw them", but Kos was right then (in the comments). And he's still right now. A person doesn't go work for a Private Security Team to "serve God and country". They join to make money. Thus, they are mercenaries." -- pacified

2) "Our sons and daughters need to realize that choosing to be a soldier means a decision to place themselves among "the damned," since no matter what they end up doing while on the field of battle, they will eventually be damned.. damned if they do and damned if they do not. Realizing that compliance with a superior's order to shoot and kill the enemy may well lead to the damnation (the self-extirpation) of one's soul.

...I beg the young people of this nation to consider the ominous proposition that, as it was in the days of Nuremberg when the Nazis were held responsible for crimes against humanity, when the leaders of the German nation dressed their children "in brown shirts" reminding that they had a moral obligation (a national duty) to fight for the Fatherland, it will be the same for the leaders of our nation, as well as for those who blindly allow themselves to be coerced into fighting for our country, a nation having come under the nefarious control of malefactors convinced that our nation has been given the right, the God-ordained responsibility, to oversee the planet, to, in fact, rule the world." -- Populist Party

1) "I heard it on Al Franken this morning and it's frickin obvious.

And the only conclusion here, and the only thing people really need be talking about (while they're taking a break from talking about Foleygate) is that Bush let North Korea get nukes in order to start an arms race in Asia. He did it so American weapons manufacturers will make money, like we do with Israel.

We need to start talking straight, people. We need to start being up front about what this is all about. We can't wait until Bush walks up and blows our brains out to call this what it is." -- Kosmo

On Friday, Bill Bennett suggested a short and to the point Proposed 2008 Platform. That was a great idea and since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I thought I'd ape his idea.

So....

A 21 Item Proposed 2008 Platform.

The Core Items

1) Aggressively fight the war on terrorism which includes stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by any means necessary.

2) A Balanced Budget Amendment with an out for national security spending if need-be. Set the baseline budget to the rate of inflation when we're running a deficit and the rate of inflation + 1% when we're in the black. Yearly appropriation of entitlement programs (no more autopiliot spending). A sunshine rule for earmarks.

3) Get Tough On Illegal Immigration: Secure the border, ban all illegal immigrants from becoming citizens or guest workers, impose gargantuan fines on businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens.

4) Taxes: Make the tax cuts permanent, flatten the tax cut, oppose taxes on the internet, work to end the death tax. Require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes.

5) Health Care: Tort reform, which will reduce not only costs paid out in lawsuits, but the cost of "defensive medicine." Streamlining the regulations that make bringing a new drug to market so slow and expensive. Health care savings accounts. Allowing health insurance companies from anywhere in America to compete for business in any state.

The Rest

6) Judges: Pledge to continue to appoint textualist judges.

7) Support Social Security reform including private accounts, raising the age limit to 70 in 2030, permanently tying the age limit to the average lifespan of Americans, & index Social Security payments to prices, instead of wages.

8) Education: Abolish the Department of Education and send all federal money set aside for education in block grants to the states, to be used as they wish to fund their school systems.

9) An Energy Policy: Drill ANWR, permanently get rid of the Clean Air Act Amendments that lead to different gasoline blends going to different states (which raises the cost of gas about 15 cents per gallon), low interest loans and tax credits for companies that agree to build new refineries or nuclear power plants.

10) Election Reform: All machines should be required to produce a paper ballot, Voter ID should be required at every polling place, and provisions should be put in place that preclude voting machines from being hooked up to the internet.

11) Ethics reform that prevents members of Congress convicted of a crime from getting a pension, no trips paid for by lobbyists, a 5 year ban on working for anyone a Congressman has been lobbied by, etc., etc.

12) A Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

13) Stricter Control Of Legal Immigration. We need to cut down the number of legal immigrants we're allowing into the country significantly, perhaps into the 250k-400k range.

14) Non-Retroactive Term Limits: Propose term limits for senators and congressmen. The term limits would only apply to members of Congress who are elected for the first time in the 111th session of Congress. It's an imperfect solution, but it moves us in the right direction.

15) Moving responsibility for airport security back to the airlines.

16) A Constitutional Amendment banning the desecration of the American flag.

17) Move ahead faster on the Missile Defense Shield.

18) Putting an end to Affirmative Action that goes beyond specifically recruiting minorities to apply for a particular position.

19) A loser pays legal system.

20) Moving ahead with a Democratic United Nations that will be intended as an eventual replacement for the current organization.

21) Pledge to aggressively investigate and prosecute national security leaks.

-- Boy, the Democrats are really knocking out that "culture of corruption," aren't they? Bribery recipient William Jefferson received a standing ovation from the Congressional Black Caucus, Pelosi supported John Murtha, who had tape come out this election cycle that showed that he seriously considered taking a bribe in the ABSCAM sting, John Conyers, who was just slapped on the wrist by the ethics committee, will be taking over the Judiciary Committee, and Alan Mollohan who is being investigated by the Justice Department is now Chairman of the panel that controls their budget.

-- Here are the latest numbers from a CBS News '08 Poll:

Democrats (Favorable/Unfavorable/Don't Know Enough About to Have an Opinion)
Clinton 43/38/19
Edwards 34/21/44
Gore 32/46/21
Obama 28/10/61
Kerry 22/48/29
Biden 9/14/77
Richardson 7/8/85
Dodd 4/9/86
Kucinich 4/11/85
Vilsack 4/4/92

Republicans (Favorable/Unfavorable/Don't Know Enough About to Have an Opinion)
Giuliani 41/22/36
McCain 39/20/41
Romney 5/10/85
Hagel 4/5/91
Brownback 3/6/90
Hunter 1/5/94

Hillary's numbers aren't that impressive and boy, are Kerry and Gore unpopular. Kerry, I expected, but Gore's shift to the left and his monomaniacal pursuit of "ManBearPig," must have really turned off the American people.

Also, again, it's fascinating to note that despite all the internet chatter about Romney, 85% of the public doesn't know enough about him to take an opinion. Moreover, now that the best of buzz is over since people have realized what a squish he was back in his 1994 campaign against Kennedy, it looks like Romney is done before he's even getting started.

-- From the TimesOnline:

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Maybe there's something to this or maybe there's not. It could even be a deliberate leak by the Israelis, designed to prod us into doing something or into scaring the Iranians into backing off. Whatever the case may be, given Ahmadinejad's genocidal threats against Israel, anything and everything that Israel judges is necessary to defend herself from Iran should be fully supported by the United States.

-- Apparently, the first baby born in the United States in 2007 was born to an illegal immigrant. Does that strike anyone as a good sign? The Bush Administration apparently wants to pay out billions of dollars in Social Security money to Mexican illegal aliens. Does anyone think that's good for American citizens? There is now a Dallas based pizza chain allowing to pay for their food in Pesos. Isn't this a sign that there's something wrong?

The sole purpose of allowing immigration, legal or otherwise, to the United States is because it benefits our country. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have lost sight of that and the old "melting pot" model that featured the United States selecting immigrants who love this country, respected its laws, and saw it as a land of opportunity to become citizens is being replaced by a model that says citizenship is something to be stolen by anyone who respects our laws so little that they're willing to sneak across our border.

If you're taking a "courageous political stand" while obviously hoping that it benefits you politically, is it really a "courageous political stand?"

Hillary is famous for doing this. She really goes out of her way to let everyone know that she's "moving to the middle" on some issue and then everybody falls all over themselves to talk about how she's trying to burnish her moderate credentials.

That seems to be exactly what John McCain is doing by pushing the "surge" in Iraq.

For example, check out the Newsmax coverage of McCain on this issue:

McCain: National Security Trumps 2008 Bid

Sen. John McCain's call for a substantial and sustained influx of U.S. troops in Iraq sets the Republican apart from other White House candidates - and it could help him or haunt him come 2008.

The Arizona senator's hawkish position that the United States must do what is necessary to win the war might appeal to hard-core Republicans, but it also has the potential to turn off most Americans whose support for the nearly 4-year-old war has diminished.

"I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security. If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly," McCain said Friday, brushing aside scenarios of political fallout.

..."John's taking a gutsy position, not because he's read any political opinion polls or sifted through the results of the last election, but because he thinks that's what's right for America," Lieberman said.

Interjecting, McCain said, "Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman - many other presidents have taken unpopular positions for the good of the nation."

In other words, "Look at how I'm willing to do what's right, even if it's not popular. Isn't that a trait you'd want in a President? Isn't it? Huh, huh, huh?"

With a guy like McCain, who's not a great respecter of the Constitution or conservative principles, but who does often seem to do things simply for the sake of getting favorable press, you can't be sure if he's acting from conviction or whether this is part of a very calculated decision to go against the grain for purely political purposes. From what I've seen of McCain, I'd bet on form, which means it's likely the latter.

The Washington Post has a profile of General Petraeus and, if it is at all possible to turn around the situation in Iraq, he certainly sounds like he would be the man to do it.

The Democrats and the media are making a fuss about Bush moving Petraeus in to replace General Casey saying that Bush just got rid of Casey because Casey disagreed about increasing the troop levels in Iraq. Well, moving Casey up to be Army Chief of Staff doesn't seem like he's really getting rid of Casey.

This seems like a "tails I win, heads you lose" sort of criticism. Critics say that what we have been doing in Iraq has been badly handled. Bush decides to make changes and move in new people and suddenly he's being criticized for not keeping the same people whom were just being criticized for doing things wrong.

Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to think that the only possibility is to just cut our losses and leave, er redeploy. How that is going to improve the situation in Iraq is unclear. And they refuse to contemplate what the impact will be if we just declare defeat and move on out.

Meanwhile, here is an interesting coincidence in the life of General Petraeus.

In 1991, as a battalion commander at Fort Campbell, Ky., he was shot in the chest with an M-16 rifle when a soldier tripped during a training exercise. Rushed into surgery at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he underwent five hours of surgery by Bill Frist, who a decade later became Senate majority leader.

I'm glad that Dr. Frist's handiwork as a surgeon was more successful with the general than his leadership of the Senate was for the Republicans.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

"We would consider neighborhood-based protectionism to be silly. So why is it that we are prepared to practice the global version?" -- Pejman Yousefzadeh

This is Pride heavyweight champion Fedor Emelianenko vs. 6 Ft 7, 390 pound "Zulu."

If you're thinking about converting to Islam, you're definitely going to want to watch this video of a Bahrani cleric explain the "proper way" to beat your wife.

If you're not thinking of converting to Islam, you'll still want to watch it so you can see the cleric act as if he's some sort of women's rights advocate because he encourages men not to beat their wives too badly.

PS: I know that this isn't new, but it makes for gripping viewing. Also, you have to wonder how many Muslims think wife beating is just peachy. 5%? 40%? 80%? At a minimum, you gotta figure the whole pro-Sharia crowd is behind it all the way. After all, if you favor a code of laws that makes it almost impossible to prosecute rape, then you're probably not adverse to slapping your wife around either.

Bush Plan Sets Series of Goals for Iraq Leaders (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki Said On Saturday That Iraq's Armed Forces Are Set For An Assault On Baghdad To Take Out Militias And Rogue Security Forces

Claim: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike On Iran

Abbas Declares Hamas Force In Gaza Illegal

US To Give $86 Million To Abbas' Forces (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Australia: Terror Nuke Rocket Attack Plotted

Somalia: Islamists Dig In By The Sea As Ethiopia Advances

Britain: An Undercover Investigation Has Revealed Disturbing Evidence Of Islamic Extremism At A Number Of Britain's Leading Mosques And Muslim Institutions

U.S.-Mexico Pact Revealed: Billions In Social Security Money To Non-Citizens

Pelosi Hints That Congress Will Deny Funding For Bush In Iraq (The Democrats Are Already Trying To Sabotage The War)

Democrats Change House Rules To Pave The Way For Tax Increases

Dem Vow Already Broken: House Sets 4-Day Work Week

Dallas-Based Food Chain To Accept Mexican Pesos

Border Camera Test Nets Few Results

Arnold Schwarzenegger Promised Friday Not To Be Beholden To A Political Party In His Second Term And Declared That "Centrist Does Not Mean Weak."

Boston: City Hall Pushed To Buy $1.5m System To Track Gunshots

Mark Steyn: Complaints? Where There's Wool, There's A Way

Jeff Jacoby: The Debate Shifts To The Left

Reuel Marc Gerecht: The Consequences Of Failure In Iraq

Michael Barone: A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq

A CIA Panel Has Told Former Officer Valerie Plame She Can't Write About Her Undercover Work For The Agency, A Position That May Threaten A Lucrative Book Project

Canada: A Five-Year-Old Canadian Boy Can Have Two Mothers And A Father, An Ontario Court Ruled This Week In A Landmark Case That Redefines The Meaning Of Family And Examines The Rights Of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships

Cat Stevens Refuses to Denounce Hamas

A Top French Judge Ruled That An Extreme-Right Group Cannot Serve Pork Soup To The Needy, Saying The Charitable Handouts Aim To Discriminate Against Muslims And Jews Who Don't Eat Pork Because Of Their Faith

Website Of The Day: Relapsed Catholic