Dennis of Damascus and Tehran Tom

Dennis of Damascus and Tehran Tom

By Kenneth R. Timmerman | 9/14/2007

As Democrats in Congress and the organized left denounce the cautious optimism of Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus (“General Betray Us,” according to, some Members continue to consort with the enemy in ways reminiscent of Hanoi Jane Fonda in the early 1970s.

Dennis Kucinich is the latest among the Congressional Democrats to travel the road to Damascus, to give aid and comfort to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

In an interview with a tarted-up reporter for Syrian state television, Kucinich laid out his plan for unilateral U.S. surrender in Iraq, the Middle East, and indeed just about anywhere America might seek to get engaged under its own flag in the world.

Outside of the blog for his hometown newspaper, and a straight-up news account from NewsMax, Kucinich’s latest sneak attack on the left flank of the war on terror was widely ignored.

It should not have been. Kucinich is not merely a disgrace to Congress and the Democratic Party. By sucking up to a dictator and deriding U.S. troops in Iraq on a foreign state-run television program, he has disgraced his nation and his flag.

Here are a few samples of what Dennis of Damascus told the Syrian public, with the helpful (but unneeded) prompting of his cover-girl interviewer.

“I feel the United States is engaged in an illegal occupation,” he said. “Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is, and I think they’re looking for a new direction, and that’s certainly what I’m offering.”

He had come to Syria to meet with “His Excellency,” the Syrian dictator, “so that people are aware that there are members of Congress and in this case, a presidential candidate, who believes that Syria has a very important role to play in bringing about stability, in participating in a political process, which will help create the conditions which can lead to peace.”

Yes, well. That’s what Hanoi Jane said in May 1972 when she traveled to North Vietnam.

The Israeli Air Force recently had something to say about Syria’s contribution to peace and stability last week, when it bombed what appears to have been a shipment of Iranian missiles destined for Hezbollah as it was passing through eastern Syria.

An Israeli official told reporters on Wednesday that the air strike had “left a big hole” in Syria. The Syrians have complained to the United Nations.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker also derided the notion that Syria was a force for stabilization, noting “malign actions” by Syria and Iran in fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

But if you listen to Dennis of Damascus, that’s okay. All we need to do is talk to the dictators.

Kucinich said that Assad “showed a real desire to play a role in helping to create a peaceful settlement of the conditions in Iraq, as well as a grander approach towards creating peace.”

As he told Syrian television, “the United States must end the occupation, close the bases, bring the troops home, but we must have a parallel political process that reaches out to the international community, with the help of Syria and Iran, that would bring an international peace-keeping force, move it in as our troops leave, so there is no vacuum.”

What Kucinich wants is very clear. He wants to turn Iraq over to Syria and Iran, with the imprimatur of the United Nations. He conveniently expects the UN to send the bills to the U.S. taxpayer and dump the political blame for the bloodshed to follow on President Bush.

“I crafted my peace plan with people who served in the UN with peace-keeping missions over the years,” Dennis of Damascus said. “Not only must we stabilize Iraq. We must pay reparations to Iraq for the great human tragedy that has been caused. Perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war.”

But wait: here comes the heart throb. Syria’s wonderfully humanitarian leader has taken in some of those Iraqi refugees. “A million and a half are in Syria, and I met with some of them, and I can tell you that this is a great human tragedy.”

Most of the Iraqi refugees in Syria are Christians, as I have noted on this page. But Kucinich conveniently forgot that.

He also forgot to mention that Syrian-backed Sunni Muslim jihadis were responsible for driving them out of them homes in the first place.

In a subsequent interview in Beirut with the Associated Press, Kucinich explained why he had not used the opportunity of his Labor Day travel to the Middle East to visit with U.S. troops in Iraq.

“I don’t want to bless that occupation with my presence,” he said. “I will not do it.” So much for a Democrat supporting the troops.

All of this could be dismissed as pure comedy if it weren’t for the fact that the Kucinich/ wing of the Democratic party represents real money and influence.

The Washington Times reported on Thursday that “ranked third in the country among political action committees in total receipts from January 2005 to June 30, 2006, with $14.1 million.”

The group trailed two other pro-Democrat PACS – Emily’s List, which raised $20 million, and the Service Employees International Union, which raised $14.4 million during the same period.

Kucinich is not the only member of Congress who wants to cozy up to America’s enemies.

Tehran Tom – excuse me, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California Democrat Tom Lantos – has said repeatedly that he wants to travel to Tehran to negotiate some kind of peace-in-our-time with Iran’s clerical dictators.

Lantos first bruited his desire to travel to Tehran in January 1998, but was quickly rebuffed by the Islamic Republic of Iran authorities.

After his much-disputed April 2007 trip to Damascus with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Lantos said he was ready to escort the gentle-lady from California to Tehran:

“Speaking just for myself, I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable, unfair and inaccurate many of [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s] statements are, it is important that we have a dialogue with him,” Lantos told reporters at the time.

In May, Lantos joined a letter that Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa) sent to the speaker of the Iranian parliament, suggesting a joint meeting of U.S. and Iranian parliamentarians.”

Also signing the letter were “Peace In Our Times” Senators Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, Chris Dodd, and Representatives English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks.

In his letters and meetings with Iranian authorities to obtain the release of Woodrow Woodrow Wilson Center scholar Haleh Esfandiareh, who was arrested in Iran early this year, Congressman Lee Hamilton reportedly offered to broker visits to Tehran by top Democrats in Congress.

Hamilton had “very large discussions” with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in New York, a source close to Hamilton told me, “that covered a broad range of subjects involving U.S.-Iranian relations.”

Esfandiareh was released after Hamilton sent a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, outlining his ideas for renewed U.S.-Iranian exchanges.

Hamilton was summoned to Iran’s mission at the United Nations in New York to receive a two paragraph reply from Khamenei in August, that signaled the ayatollah’s intention to release the jailed Iranian-American scholar as a gesture of good will.

We have seen these kinds of “good will” gestures many, many, many times before.

Whether it’s Neville Chamberlin returning from Munich in 1938, or Norwegian Nazi puppet Vidkun Quisling, who I profiled in my book, Preacher’s of Hate, the practise and its results are sickeningly familiar.

It’s called appeasement.

And the result, sooner rather than later, is always war.

Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).

Testing Congress: Faith and Face

Testing Congress: Faith and Face

By Michael J. O’Shea

Bored by playing God, Congress now plays admiral and general.

Despite endless complaints about HMOs — not doctors — deciding patients’ fate, Congress repeats the arrogance, rejecting those

  • putting their lives on the line,
  • working daily with Iraqi troops and political leaders,
  • seeing the patient fight back and start to stand on its own.

But Congress knows better. And toys with pulling the plug.
It’s a pathetic cycle. Congress’s DNA is documented in Iraq, yet it denies paternity. It then claims the pregnancy’s too tough and wants to abort. It next protests that lifting a people to life is too hard and opts to abandon them to play law of the jungle to see who will survive and not caring which one does.
Which Iraqi politician has not had a family member murdered? How many governors, mayors, and other officials themselves have been slaughtered? How many days has the Council of Representatives met without mortars shrieking towards their chambers? How many can relax with their families, dine with friends, confer with rivals without fearing this moment may be their last?
Yet Congress, pampered by the Capitol police and fighter pilots overhead if need be, preaches, comforted by press, protesters, “opinion makers” – anyone except those volunteering to fight back.
Congress has introduced resolution after resolution on Iraq – and not one has dealt with helping Iraq’s parliament peer to peer, legislator to legislator. Justice, Agriculture, Defense, Treasury, Commerce, the Fed — even the Iraqi-American Chamber of Commerce & Industry – have teamed with Iraqi counterparts to help them meet problems head-on.
But not Congress. It sermonizes and doesn’t hear its own hypocrisy: politicians in America pontificating to politicians in Iraq that only a “political” solution will end Iraq’s woes –  and taking not a single political step to help, offering not a scrap of practical political advice.
US troops under fire, Iraqi troops under fire, President Bush under fire, Prime Minister Maliki under fire, Iraqi governors, mayors, representatives under fire — and Congress alone wilts, spooked by blogosphere barbs.
The irony: Congress abhors supposed cover-ups, as for Pat Tillman’s death, yet blasts friendly fire of its own against its only Arab ally fighting side-by-side, collateral damage to that ally and to US recruiting, retention, and morale be damned. Arguing for diplomacy and dialogue, Congress does neither. Yet claims the moral high ground.
In the entire Islamic world, which leaders are struggling more for peace than Iraqis? Want Muslims the opposite of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah? Look to Iraq: there are millions — thousands of them dying.
Troops never abandon their own; Senate leaders do, dumping Joe Lieberman – sterling enough just seven years back to be their Vice President – for a trendier chap. “Semper Fi”? Not Congress. Misfiring on Lieberman, they took out Marine General Pete Pace instead.
If politicians can’t see what’s at stake in Iraq, what can they see?
What heart, what mind would be changed by ditching Iraq? Nothing would change those who’ll march against Afghanistan once they dangle Iraq’s scalp. Al Qaeda would gloat: “We told you about pampered, effeminate Americans,” then sift through thousands eager to hitch to the horse proven strong while America limps home.
Mahmoud Abbas was elected in 2004, Nouri al-Maliki in 2006: who’s done more, been bolder, been ostracized by fellow Arabs, still sought out rival Sunni leaders, fired commanders and chiefs of police, told Coalition soldiers to confront all militias no matter the political or personal price to himself?
Who’s lived under a death sentence from his former leader, personally has grounds for vengeance but will have none of it?

“I will not deal on the basis of tribal revenge with those who killed my family and people. I will go to courts and respect the state and law. That is exactly what we did with Saddam. We gave him every chance to defend himself after he did not give us a chance to say a word when we used to go to execution chambers. I am the person who most believes in national reconciliation.”

Yet Congress demands the US deal patiently with Abbas but not Maliki? Abbas: saddled with Arafat’s aftermath. Maliki: with Saddam’s. Which legacy is more leprous?
General David Petraeus said in April that Maliki is

“someone who wants to lead and serve all Iraqis, but it’s not enough to go to him.”

Then added:

“He’s not the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Iraq. He does not have a parliamentary majority.”

More than its prime minister, Iraq’s Council of Representatives is key to political progress in Iraq. But Congress, its American counterpart, sneers, too superior to stoop to its peer still traumatized by Saddam’s horrors.
Saddam was terror incarnate, scarring Shias and Kurds for life, while Sunnis dread they’ll face Shias’ former fate. Both see Iran sending arms and cash, Syria permitting terrorists to seep across borders, Al Qaeda recruiting bombers to blast children, women, elders, recruits. Yet Chairman Carl Levin proclaims:

“We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.”

Eighty percent of suicide bombers foreigners, not Iraqis; 60% of US troop deaths from IEDs, many from Iran: and Iraqis must save themselves from themselves. When the doctor can’t even see the disease, how can he write the prescription?
Congress cites Sadr and his supposed dominion over Maliki, never asking: If Sadr’s so powerful and Maliki’s under his thumb, why isn’t Maliki more effective if he’s doing as Sadr demands?
Some say partition Iraq: as if it were Siamese triplets with vital organs in each part and when the patient doesn’t concur. Saw away anyway when the body’s not your own?
Senators cry “civil war,” yet dismiss Al Qaeda’s bombing the Golden Mosque — more sacred to Shias than Senate chambers are to Senate leaders — that unleashed sectarian savagery and cost American lives.
Yet many senators hope to command those troops. Command troops, much less respect, when they can’t command facts?

  • Fact: American troops are better now than before Iraq, over 98% of them alive and well.
  • Fact: Iraqi troops improve by the day.
  • Fact: Iraqi courts are stronger.
  • Fact: local, provincial, and federal Iraqi governments are wrestling with problems Congressmen dodge.
  • Fact: more progress has been made in Iraq in four years than at New York’s Ground Zero in six.

Yet, like children on a trip, politicians keep asking  “Are we there yet?”, “When are we going home?” — deaf to what Operation Iraqi Freedom has been about from the beginning:

“a united Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror.”

It’s never been a war against Iraq: it’s always been a war with Iraq to destroy Islamic terrorists. If conquest had been the goal, Iraq could have been crushed in weeks if not days. Statesmen know the difference: hustlers don’t.
George Bush said from the start: We’ll leave. Al Qaeda said: We won’t. Maliki said since taking over: Let us take charge. American commanders say: They’ve got fight and fight better, but need time to win on their own.
Commander after commander says Al Qaeda is like no other enemy they’re ever known: ruthless, cunning, relentless, resourceful, determined, and with tools no other enemy has ever had – satellite TV, Internet, cell phones. We have precision-guided weapons: they have precision-targeted media  And use them devastatingly, especially in the US.
If Al Qaeda is a match for the US, what chance would Iraqis have alone?
Al Qaeda has another advantage: influence in Congress more than any commander. It attacks, Congress cries, it explodes, Congress cowers, it dictates, Congress bows.
It is men of faith – Lieberman the Jew, Bush the Christian  – who offer hope to Islam. It is warriors of the West who offer peace to the Middle East.
Faith will win in Iraq. Saving face will not.

Greatest movie line ever — Turn up the volume — Things haven’t changed much over the years

The Senate slumber party–Open thread Update: Liveblogging cont’d–The morning after Update:11:25am Levin-Reed fails to reach 60-vote threshold–52-47; Droopy dog Harry feeds the nutroots; Air America crows Update: Roll added…and the politics of obstructionist obstructionism

Congress Should Support the Troops by Censuring Murtha

Congress Should Support the Troops by Censuring


By Clarice Feldman

It’s customary for stories about Washington D.C. written in the final hours before Congress takes its August break to make some comparison to the city’s sweltering steamy heat. This has been a rather cool and dry summer as a matter of fact, but if Congress can’t wait to get out of here, most of us are so steamed at its behavior that we can’t wait for these pampered, self-serving clowns to beat it out of town.  

Our military pulls the laboring oar to complete the mission in Iraq, and the troops seem to be doing quite a job of it only weeks into the surge, which Congress signed on to under General Petraeus (whom they approved for this position). But the Democratic Congress seems hell-bent on undermining the troops and their mission at every turn. For the most shabby and obvious partisan advantage. Even some erstwhile Republican supporters of the Iraq Mission seem to have lost their spine just as the tide is definitely swinging in our favor, making an honorable withdrawal of our troops possible in a not-so-distant future. The unserious proposal by Senators Warner and Lugar comes to mind. 

Once again ordinary Americans rise to the challenge while our overpaid political elite ponce about on the stage making outrageous remarks and proposals in an effort to get approving coverage from a media (which itself for the most part seems determined to bury the significance of the mission and its  remarkable achievements).   But nothing – not even the 300 pointless investigations of an Administration marked by remarkable probity nor the base predictions of failure even before the additional  troops hit the ground – proves the  lack of serious purpose  as much as the Congressional failure to censure Congressman John Murtha.
In May of 2006, Congressman Murtha said that

Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19. The incident is still under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and Multi-National Forces Iraq. [….]

“It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.  

At the moment he uttered those words and prejudged the Marines charged with wrongdoing, the Time story which focused attention on the incident in Haditha was already showing signs of terminal weakness.  But Murtha claimed he had special information supporting the charges in that now-thoroughly discredited propaganda piece. At the time he made those statements Murtha suggested his claims were made on the basis of a briefing that he’d received from General Hagee, something it later turned out was not true. Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about the incident. But Murtha’s statements tarring the men who’d risked their lives for us only to find themselves in legal jeopardy were made as early as May 17.
It would appear, though we’ve no idea where he actually got any of his information, that at best he may have had some access to the raw investigative NCIS files, something because of their very nature, that were never to be deemed conclusive or public, though leaks of damning portions of those reports did appear from time to time in the press. Whether those leaks were from NCIS or from Congressional staff or members with access to them is unclear. Wherever they came from, it is an outrage that this kind of information was leaked to the public. Surely it dispirits the men in the field and poisons the well for a fair hearing.  
Last week, Murtha’s slander became even clearer than it did a year ago. The Investigating Officer who reviewed the record on the first of the Marines to be charged found:

Recommended disposition of Charge

Due to the disparate accounts, it is tempting to simply conclude that this case should be tried to either exonerate LCp1 Sharratt or convict him of a crime. However, to adopt the government’s position that because there are two differing accounts, a general court-martial is warranted is an abdication of the necessary process of determining whether reasonable grounds exist to warrant a court-martial. It is not as simple as stating there are two accounts so a trial is necessary. Analysis of these two versions must provide reasonable grounds that the Government version of events may be true. In analyzing the evidence, I read several hundred pages of interviews, documents, articles and statements (IE 33-105). Ultimately, there is only one statement by an eye witness to the events, LCp1 Sharratt, and his version of events is strongly corroborated by independent forensic analysis of the death scene. The government version is unsupported by independent evidence and while each statement has within it corroboration, several factors together reduces the credibility of such statements to incredible. In addition, the statements of the Iraqis are unclear, contradictory in part, and simply state self-interested conclusions as to what occurred within house 4. Finally, to believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and mission in Iraq. Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy. Much effort during the Article 32 focused on whether the victims were insurgents. Although determining if they were may have some bearing on the credibility of the Iraqi witnesses and may support that LCp1 Sharratt did perceive a hostile situation within house 4, such determinations are not necessary to conclude that LCp1 Sharratt is truthful in his account. From as early as February 2006 LCp1 Sharratt’s statements are supported by the forensic evidence. It is likely that members of the Ahmed family were either insurgents on 19 November 2005, or that they were attempting to defend their house and family when Marines entered house 4 uninvited and unannounced. On that fateful afternoon, Jasib heard someone enter house 4. He investigated with his AK-47 in his hands. LCp1 Sharratt saw him and perceived him as a threat. Using his training he responded instinctively, assaulting into the room emptying his pistol. Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCp1 Sharratt’s actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force. Accordingly I recommend that the Charge and specifications be dismissed without prejudice. I further recommend that LCp1 Sharratt be given testimonial immunity and ordered to cooperate with ongoing investigations concerning the events of 19 November 2005. [Emphasis in original]

In other words, the Investigating Officer found what many of us in the blogopshere noticed over a year ago, at the very time Time and Murtha were slandering the Marines and adding to their pain and the pain of the families, friends and the Marine Corps itself: the story was an utter hoax.  
Laughably, when his office was contacted for comment, his spokesman said the Congressman had none because the investigation was “ongoing”.  Interestingly, he didn’t feel this way when the defendants were first charged and the public and the investigating officer hadn’t an opportunity to view their evidence. He poisoned the well when they couldn’t easily respond, and now that he’s proven wrong he’s hiding from the consequences of his unspeakable behavior.
If Congressman Murtha does not personally apologize to the Hilo Company Marines for his intemperate, false and unsupported charges for his own partisan advantage before Congress recesses, upon its return every single member of Congress should be demanding his censure. And anyone who doesn’t demand his censure clearly does not seriously support the troops.
If the Congressional majority does not act on this calumny, we will have further evidence of the true nature of our political elite: self-serving demagogues who care not for the men and women sacrificing so much for them. We will have yet another reason to throw a lot of people out of office at the next opportunity.  
And perhaps instead of ludicrous hearings which even their friends in the press are beginning to ignore, Congress should show its support for the fighting men and women by initiating some hearings on how damaging portions of the raw NCIS files made their way to the press, and punish anyone on the Hill who is found to have played a role in that. In addition, in exercising its oversight responsibilities, Congress should be taking a close look at how the NCIS operated in this case and others.
The mantra “We support the troops” should, after all, encompass efforts to protect their legal rights with at least the same fervor the Democrats have argued for the legal rights of those charged with terrorism and held in Guantanamo. Shouldn’t it?  
Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  

Democrats’ Fear of Iraq Surge Success Grows


 Democrats’ Fear of Iraq Surge Success Grows
Sher Zieve
Author: Sher Zieve
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: July 12, 2007


The Democrat-controlled Congress, aided by mainstream media, appear to be systematically ignoring horrifying details about the new depths of depravity and barbarism being perpetrated by terrorists in Iraq. FSM Contributing Editor Sher Zieve asks why they are hiding this from you.


Democrats’ Fear of Iraq Surge Success Grows

 By Sher Zieve


On Monday, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters that he and other Democrats were not willing to wait for evaluated reports on the troop surge in Iraq.  Reid advised that he and his colleagues are moving at virtual breakneck speed to formulate and pass an anti-war bill.  While al-Qaeda continues to practice all manner of depravities and perversions—the latest reported corruption being the terrorist organization’s penchant for the profane via literally (not figuratively) baking the children of those it wishes to intimidate and then “serving” said cooked progeny to their parents—most of their debaucheries still go unreported by the terrorist-enabling leftist worldwide press.  Most certainly Harry Reid and other Democrat and RINO leaders committed to surrender won’t mention the actual performance and true scope of the Islamists’ goals.  Instead, Reid and other appeasers are unwilling to wait for any and all reports from those actually functioning in the Iraq battle theatre.  As reports from the front suggest the surge (AKA Operation Arrowhead Ripper) actually is working, the leftist and overwhelmingly Democrat US mainstream media continue their attempts to bury the story. 


Note:  This same battle surge, being waged by our extraordinary and inordinately courageous U.S. soldiers, must be spun and manipulated by the mainstream media and their Democrat leaders in order for them to achieve their objective of reseizing and then retaining (forever we assume) power.  The illusion of power has long been their god.


Because Senator Reid and other Democrats are now the official water carriers for and other leftist money groups, traditional pro-American Democrats have long since been forced out of leadership positions—if not the Democrat Party.  Displaying his submission to anything-for-a-buck-and-a-big-piece-of-the-power-pie, Reid and other Democrat Party members talk daily with and the Las Vegas Sun reports:  Every morning at 10:30, staff from the Democratic leadership offices is on the line with representatives of nearly a dozen groups, including powerful, that make up the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.”  One suspects that this is when the Democrats receive their daily marching orders.


To emphasize his alliance with the far-Left, Reid has now even taken to demeaning US military leaders who disagree with his constant bogus statement “the [Iraq] war is lost.”  Recently, Reid referred to Gen. Peter Pace as “incompetent” and said that Pace “had not done a very good job… I told him that to his face!”  Wow!  How “brave” of a senator to verbally slap a General in his face.  This is the same senator who has the mainstream press in his pocket, so that his unethical land escapades are seldom—if ever—reported.


Of interest, on Wednesday’s Bill Bennett Morning in America Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK) spoke of his recent trip to Iraq.  Inhofe commented on the success of the troop surge in Iraq.  While the mainstream media and their Democrat masters continue to tell us that the US surge isn’t working, Inhofe—who actually visits Iraq—tells a different story.  In May, Sen. Inhofe said:  “The Iraqis have now taken over; they have the numbers and the capacity and they’ve taken over the battle space in Fallujah.  In other words, they’re providing their own security.  It’s a success story in Fallujah, one of the most difficult areas to deal with.”  Hmmm.  After reading “reports” from the NY Times and other far-Left publications, I‘d thought the Iraqis weren’t stepping up to the plate at all.  Didn’t you?


Sen. Inhofe went on to say:  “The troop surge has given us the troop numbers to push al Qaeda out of most of the area in the Anbar province and allowed governance to hold onto their own destiny.  This is a major change.  This is my seventh time in this area, and the Sunni tribes now see the need to work together with us against al Qaeda.”  Then, on Bill Bennett’s radio program, Inhofe advised that due to the success of the surge, there have been “no anti-American messages since April” preached in Iraqi mosques.  This is a very different story than that which our press and Democrat senators are telling us.  And it is another example of liberal and leftist leaders—from both US political parties—lying to the public in order to gain funding from anti-war/anti-American groups and credence with news sources.  Corruption is, apparently, a most seductive mistress.


The Democrat Party is telling we-the-people that it will continue to force the US out of Iraq and, presumably, the Middle East as a whole.  It is also telling al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations:  “We’ve got your back, guys, and if we can seize all three branches of government—we’ll give you Iraq and you’ll be home free!”  That is precisely what is intended and what will occur if this country is forced into a total leftist mindset.  And force is what leftists—and Islamist terrorists—require to complete their missions.  If the Iraq war is actually won by the West, U.S. Democrats will have a much harder chance of winning elections—and winning elections (AKA power and money) are the only items left that seem to be of any import to Congressional electees.  Reid and others already appear to have damned the USA and have begun stronger and stronger campaigns against our own military men and women.  The Democrats’ fear is that if we don’t lose this war—they won’t be reelected.  The term “sicko” should actually refer to the anti-USA contingent entrenched in Congress.


Again, I ask the question is this any way to run a country?  Unfortunately, the answer is still the same:  “No.  But, it is a real way to end it.”    


At last! A clear view Ex-CIA Director: PA Arabs Don’t Deserve State

At last! A clear view

Rachel Neuwirth
James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, in an interview with Israel National Radio, has spoken a blunt truth.

Asked his opinion on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the former CIA director recommended that it not happen in the coming decades. He said that though the Jewish presence in this region precedes the Moslem claim – “for some Muslims like Arafat to deny that Jews were ever present here is idiotic” – the Moslems also have national rights in the area.

Openly avoiding the question of the nature or borders of a Palestinian state, he emphasized his opinion that “the Palestinians should not be granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens.”

“An Arab Muslim living in Jaffa,” Woolsey said, “enjoys freedom of speech, religion, and expression, and can vote for his representatives in the Knesset, and doesn’t go to sleep worrying that some government element might come and kill him. I think that once the Palestinians start treating Jewish settlers with that same degree of humanity – and they’re very, very far from doing that now – at that point I think we have to seriously consider how they could have some degree of self-governing. I won’t get into the question of borders, but what I think is that the Palestinians must be held to the same standards as Israel regarding how they treat the other. I am sure this will be many decades from now, though, because their children are taught the Wahhabi doctrine of being suicide bombers and the like.”