What's Sauce for the Goose- The Case of Harold Koh

Bill McGurn wrote a revealing editorial in Tuesday's edition of the Wall Street Journal concerning Harold Koh, the Secretary of State's legal advisor.

Koh is being justly pilloried for inconsistent, yes, even hypocritical behavior with regard to how the US fights terrorism.

In brief, Koh, a former Yale law school dean, one of whose students was John Yoo, went to great lengths to persecute and prosecute his former student when Yoo was George Bush's Justice Department Counsel. Yoo defended waterboarding. For that, he has been pursued by the left ever since the mid-years of Bush's administration. Koh-led efforts attempted to disbar Yoo.

Now Koh is justifying the use of Predator drones to kill terrorism targets from a distance, often also killing innocent, unknown bystanders.

All this, apparently, to avoide capturing and, then, having to deal with the discomfort of how to handle such prisoners.

McGurn observes that Koh called Yoo's memos defending enhanced interrogation techniques "torture memos," and, thus, refers to Koh's "execution speech," wherein he defended those drone kills of innocents.

As with so much of Wonderboy's foreign and anti-terrorism policy, this administration refuses to acknowledge how it has, in fact, backed away from its prior, incendiary rhetoric, often continuing and even expanding George Bush's original policies.

McGurn suggests that Koh should, in good conscience, either publicly apologize to Yoo for his past persecution of the latter, or maintain his honor and resign over the principles involved in the Predator strikes.

Instead, Koh does neither. So much for the most ethical administration ever and the continued misbehavior of its members.

Some Reflections On Osama Bin Laden's Death & Related Issues

After the initial wave of comments on the death of Osama Bin Laden at the hands of Seal Team Six, other aspects of the event have become more evident, at least to me.

For example, Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal alleged that George Bush's presidency began to decline from the moment that he said it wasn't important where Bin Laden was, nor exactly when he would be captured or killed.

Stephens is wrong, Bush was right. The actual killing or capture of Bin Laden had become, while an occasion for celebration, not the most important event in the war.

People forget Bush's major emphasis- that we are in a war on terror. Primarly Islamic terrorism. Helped along by people like Gore Vidal who denigrated Bush's calling it a war, liberals have consistently avoided acknowledging that reality.

Thus, Karen Hughes, one-time Bush press official, was, I believe, correct to note that killing Bin Laden was not an act of foreign policy. It was simply one event in a war on terror.

So if you recall, as I did, that even Bush 41's victory in Kuwait couldn't re-elect him a year later, why would you think this event will ensure Wonderboy's re-election 18 months from now?

Glenn Beck made some interesting points on his program last night which give the lie to those who believe that Bin Laden's killing shows Obama to be capable of managing something to a good conclusion.

Beck noted that, with over six months of planning and preparation for this event, it's impossible to believe that nobody among Wonderboy and his advisers discussed what to do in the aftermath of Bin Laden's killing. Specifically, how and when to show pictures or video.

Beck as relentless on this point. He reminded everyone that, in today's world, with so many cellphone cameras, nobody really believes anything without visual proof. Don't you think at least one of those Seals took a few private images on a prepaid cell just for that purpose?

For example, Beck continued, how can you believe a Muslim cleric would be present onboard the USS Carl Vinson, but no policy had been determined regarding publishing photos or video of the dead terrorist? Or that anyone would care about seeing a white-sheeted lump of something dumped off of a board on the side of the Vinson into the sea?

Now, I want to be clear about this. I believe Bin Laden was shot and killed. I really do. But Beck's point is, especially after the recent birth certificat flap, you'd think Wonderboy has learned that coming clean with conclusive proof immediately is the best way to silence critics and/or sceptics.

Moreover, fumbling and dithering publicly over whether or not to publish the pictures only reinforces Wonderboy's inability to make decisions, or have foreseen this and planned a coherent and reasonable story to back his decision on the matter. He can't even seem to decide on something so simple as that.

I don't personally agree with those, even Charles Krauthammer, that this event means Republican presidential candidates now have to admit that Wonderboy has achieved a foreign policy success. Or that he actually managed to successfully orchestrate something. It's clear that all the heavy lifting was done by career intelligence and military personnel. All the First Rookie did was to choose inserting a Seal contingent over dropping a bomb, then giving the go ahead.

At this point, only a moron in that office wouldn't have done the same thing, presented with the evidence, estimates and options available.

I think it's fair to say that the point of the Bin Laden killing is revenge. Thus, it's not the most salient event in the continuing war on terror. Both of these points were missing from Wonderboy's speeches in the aftermath of the raid. He also took pains to avoid acknowledging the obvious- that the terror threats we face are Islamic-based.

Unfortunately, killing Bin Laden doesn't end the war on Muslim-originated terror, nor relieve the government's oppressive presence which retards US economic growth and resurgence.

Also, the post-raid exchanges of comments to the press by various Congressional and administration officials raised the evidence that waterboarding and other 'harsh interrogation' tactics bore fruit in this case. KSM was rendered to Poland or Romania, where harsh methods, including, according to NY GOP Representative and current House Intelligence Committee chair Peter King, resulted in information about the courier's identity.

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Feinstein (or was it Boxer? I can't tell anymore) swore on camera that harsh tactics were of no use in producing any information leading to Bin Laden's death.

However, in his on-camera interview, CIA chief Leon Panetta grudgingly, very grudgingly admitted that waterboarding did the trick.

I saw Donald Rumsfeld state on Sean Hannity's program that he never said harsh interrogation methods don't work. What he said was,

"Then, before Hannity could interrupt, Rumsfeld addressed “some confusion… suggesting that I indicated that no one who was waterboarded at Guantanamo had provided any information on this… What I said was, ‘No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo by the U.S. military.' In fact, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo, period. Three people were waterboarded by the CIA away from Guantanamo and then later brought to Guantanamo and, in fact, as you point out, the information that came from those individuals was critically important.” "



This meshes with Peter King's remarks that KSM gave up the courier's nickname after harsh interrogation outside the US.

What's clear is that liberals are trying very hard to ignore the truth on this, i.e., waterboarding produced information which, over time and with substantial additional work, led to the identification of the couriers who led US forces to Bin Laden.

Yes, it was a tremendous accomplishment that the Navy Seal teams effected in Abbotabad last weekend. Too bad the follow-up management of it by Wonderboy's administration wasn't up to the same standard of performance.

But, really, after three years in office, is this surprising?

Regarding Osama Bin Laden's Killing by US Navy Seal Team

Like other Americans, I woke up to the wonderful news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in an assault on his compound in Abbottabad by US Navy Seals late last night.

There as so many things one can express on the heels of this important event.

First, of course, as many others have said, it's notable to enemies of the US that we endured 10 years of sacrifice by our military and intelligence forces to find and kill this terrorist. Like the Soviet Union of old, perhaps, now, more countries will appropriately respect and fear attacking US non-combatants and or military personnel without a declaration of war.

Second, given his long-running opposition to the entire process of seeking retribution for the 9/11 attacks, I hope Wonderboy receives no credit for this. It was quite obviously the work of those lower-level, long-term personnel who are not part of his administration.

Never the less, hearing of the details of the planned strike, it's clear that the First Rookie saw this as just another early campaign event. No Predator strikes on this one. No, he wanted to claim a clear, identified kill to help his re-election campaign.

But if you listened to his 9 minute speech, he said some curious things, and omitted others. There was no sense of joy or triumph in his words. And he wrongly claimed that Bin Laden wasn't a Muslim, and that this had nothing to to with Muslim terrorism. Ever the Islamic apologist, his words actually made one wonder if Wonderboy isn't a closet Muslim who attends Christian services because he knew Illinois would never elect a Muslim Senator, and the US would never knowingly elect a Muslim president. I'm not saying it's a major concern of mine, but with all the lies this guy has told for years, and how cynically he's treated the American public, this would not surprise me if it were found to be true years after his exit from the Oval Office.

Remember, he's the guy who claimed that America is a Muslim nation. And wanted/wants to close Guantanamo Bay, the facility where, we have now learned, KSM gave up information under interrogation which led to yesterday's happy event.

Then there's Wonderboy's obvious contempt for our armed forces and his plans to energetically cut funding for them.

Instead, Wonderboy tried to simply characterize Bin Laden as a generic global terrorist. This is nonsense. Bin Laden always identified his brand of terrorism as religious and anti-American.

I think full credit goes to George W. Bush for having set in motion and presided over most of the era during which the US has been retaliating for the 9/11 attacks on our civilian population.

Additionally, those of us old enough to recall, as am I, the sad events at Desert One under our national embarrassment of a president, Jimmy Carter, can't help but thank Ronald Reagan's rebuilding of our military which led to a more capably-equipped and -led force like the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden.

Because Bin Laden was an Islamic terrorist, not a uniformed military commander, I am somewhat at a loss as to why we treated him to an apparently Islamically-correct funeral.

Remember the video taped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Perle? And other US citizens captured abroad?

Personally, I'm put in mind of the way the Russians reacted to the early 1970s kidnapping of one of their embassy personnel in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. I recall, around that time, the US lost either an ambassador or other senior embassy official, and we basically accepted it. The Soviets, instead, kidnapped and, I believe, let it be known that they tortured or would kill the member of the organization that kidnapped their guy, and several more, as well.

Their man was nearly-immediately released unharmed.

It would seem to me that we should have used Bin Laden's death and body to send a signal to other Islamic terrorists that we would and will do whatever is necessary to their corpses to defile them religiously in order to prevent their entry into a happy Islamic afterlife. Not that the US would do so to a uniformed member of the military forces of an Islamic enemy. But this guy was not an acknowledged member of any other nation.

I don't know precisely what that treatment would be, but it seems that there were a myriad of ways his corpse could have been treated, for a video record, to assure onlooking Islamist terrorists that we will give no quarter to them. I'm thinking something involving decapitation and disemboweling, for starters. Things that would horrify Islamic terrorists.

The British used to put the heads of traitors on pikes at Traitors Gate. It's an inspriring example for how to treat Bin Laden's body, is it not?

I will just bet you that the Seals who took him down enjoyed much such banter regarding how they would, if allowed, treat his corpse as a trophy. Things we'll never hear in public. In fact, we'll probably never learn the identity of the Seal who put Bin Laden to death until he, too, has died, in order to protect him and his family from reprisals.

All of that notwithstanding, the choice of a burial at sea, where no martyr-like ceremonies may be held by Bin Laden's followers is understandable.

Among the silly after events this morning were various Q&A's of people like Jack Welch and Warren Buffett regarding the effect of Bin Laden's death on the global or US economy, equity markets, etc.

That's just nonsense.

So is one person's comparison of Bin Laden's killing to Hitler's death. Hitler lead a legitimate country in a world war. He was a profoundly evil man, but the elected head of the German nation.

Bin Laden was a nation-less terrorist. His terror organization remains in existence, probably now planning reprisals to re-establish their relevance and capacity for danger.

Also inane was one anchor's question regarding the relationship between the recent Arab Spring and Bin Laden's killing. How in the hell could someone be so stupid as to see any relationship whatsoever between these? One is a multi-nation process of dictatorial overthrow with a melange of parties responsible in each country. The other is a surgical military operation to take out the world's leading (Islamic) terrorist.

Perhaps the most important aftermath is how our government handles issues with the Pakistan government.

After all, you'd have to be an idiot to not believe that they knew where Bin Laden was. The news stories this morning contain so many details that it is simply not credible that the world's leading terrorist was not living with the tacit approval and acquiescense of the Pakistani government.

For example, his million-dollar compound was within a few hundred yards of a major Pakistani military installation and retirement compound for officers. Abbottabad is on the outskirts of Islamabad, Pakistan's capital. It's as if a major US terrorist was living in a multi-million dollar luxury compound in Alexandria, Virginia.

Furthermore, the compound had no telephone nor internet links, and, rather than put their garbage out like everybody else, burned it withing the compound.

One wonders how George Bush would be reacting, knowing that the Pakistanis basically were 'against' us on this one.

The one thing Jack Welch said that was worthwhile was to remind viewers that George H. Bush was defeated for re-election only a year after his successful military campaign to retake Kuwait. So it's quite reasonable that Wonderboy will receive no long term credit for this whatsoever.

US Intelligence Failures

The Wall Street Journal published a troubling editorial last Friday entitled, "The Meaning of al Qaeda's Double Agent."

I don't focus very much on this topic. I suppose, like many Americans, I've viewed the ongoing conflict of the past decade, and then some, between Muslim extremists and America, as a religious war of terror.

What this article brought home is how much more sophisticated our enemy has become at using skillful, deeply covert counterintelligence capabilities to parry US thrusts.

For example, the editorial opines on how effective al Qaeda was at managing to infiltrate a lone suicide bomber into the heart of a forward CIA operating base in Afghanistan, killing a substantial number of seasoned CIA personnel.

That those CIA operatives didn't seriously consider this threat even remotely possible is unsettling. Apparently, they didn't even ascribe such skill and motivations to our enemy.

Thus, in addition to focusing on the more conventional battelfield developments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need to be more aware of how our intelligence services are doing in the shadowy battle behind those fronts.

Right now, it doesn't look good.

Napolitano's Vigilance

Pretty amazing stuff, wasn't it?

Our Homeland Security Secretary claimed that finding a bomber on a plane qualified as a successful interception.

Maybe we should use Napolitano as the canary in the coal mine on similar, bomb-laden, "secure" flights.

What's really surprising is how Wonderboy's minions have dusted off the word "terrorism."

That was fast!

Hopefully, our First Rookie will toss Napolitano to the wolves for her incredible lapse as the primary executive responsible for the nation's domestic security from terrorism.

David Obey's Misplaced Priorities

It requires a special sort of arrogance to treat a shooting war as an inconvenient distraction from converting America into a totally socialist society.

That's the sort of arrogance displayed by Wisconsin Democrat and House member David Obey.

While griping about the cost of US military operations in Afghanistan, he proposed a "war surtax," but only on "the rich."

In an interview on ABC, Obey complained that Truman's Square Deal was ruined by the Korean War, Johnson's Great Society by that little distraction in Vietnam, and, now, on the brink of passing an unaffordable health care system redesign, fighting the War on Terror is proving, well, untimely.

So, despite having thrown fiscal caution to the wind with last year's TARP, this year's stimulus bill, cash for clunkers, several jobless benefits extensions, cap and trade legislation, and the incredibly expensive and unaffordable House health care bill, Obey chose an actually Constitutional governmental activity, providing for the common defense, to find fiscal probity.

Never mind borrowing for all those other socialistic programs which aren't Constitutionally sanctioned.

We only need to make people feel pain for actually defending the country from Muslim terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.

This guy is some piece of work. With Representatives like him, no wonder Congress is held in such low esteem nationwide.

Another Terrorist Warning: The Fort Hood Massacre

I haven't written anything to date on the Fort Hood massacre.

Initially, there really wasn't a lot to say. It seemed fairly straightforward. A Muslim US Army Major killed 13 and wounded many more in a zealous rage of terror.

It wasn't simple criminality. It was, once one heard the evidence that he yelled "God is Great" in Arabic, clearly a terrorist act.

The real story began with the Army's, media's and administration's denial of this fact. Their attempt to place political correctness above the primary mission of the US armed forces, which is the defense of our country.

But then it got worse. Much, much worse.

We learned last week that the Army actually had intercepted Hassan's phone calls to Al Queda operatives. That he had given a presentation contending that militant Muslims be released from US armed forces obligations, so they could return to sympathetic countries, the easier to wage war on the US.

It strains belief that this could really all be true. That our armed forces could be so badly managed as to know that an officer no longer believed his oath to defend our country, and was actually fomenting dissent in the ranks.

The Army let this continue, let the officer serve, and behaved as if nothing were out of the ordinary.

We now know we have serious problems. Perhaps on the scale of Britain's in handling its own Muslim population.

Much has already been written and spoken about the need to not paint all Muslims with a brush of suspicion. That's true. What is also true is that our armed forces must be purged of this focus on diversity at the expense of execution of its primary mission.

And the primacy of allegiance of all US service men and women to the country which they serve, above any other allegiance to any country, religion, or any other competing entity.

It appears that our nation's ability to defend itself is now vulnerable to this simply requirement being enforced in our military forces.

Black Panther Voter Intimidation Okay, CIA Interrogation of Terrorists Criminal

I wrote recently of several, when taken together, bizarre actions emanating from Wonderboy's Justice Department.

As sort of an afterthought, I included the recent decision to drop prosecution of the Black Panthers who engaged in documented, undeniable voter intimidation in Philadelphia last November.

As I've reflected on that post, I realize there's a more clear juxtaposition between the CIA prosecution and that of the Black Panthers.

This administration is consciously and deliberately weakening our defenses, while also consciously and deliberately failing to punish voter intimidation.

It's as if Wonderboy is acting to trigger a crisis in America. A crisis by which he can call for special powers. And, in the process, perhaps alter an otherwise-unbroken string of elections from 1789 until today.

These two actions are both just so inexplicable without the assumption that the president who sanctioned them wants a harmful outcome for America, rather than the one to which he swore when he took the oath of his office last November.

Wonderboy's Justice Department's Curious Recent Moves

Eric Holder's recent actions certainly are mystifying, as well as stomach-churning.

First, he unleashes a new special prosecutor on CIA employees whom both he and Wonderboy had previously assured would be safe from exactly such retribution-oriented witch hunts.

Then we learned yesterday that scandalized, grafted-up New Mexcio governor and Wonderboy pal/backer Bill Richardson had his federal probe quashed by someone in DOJ in Washington.

So much for ethics and "change you can believe in," eh?

I don't think you have to be cynical to view these two DOJ acts as a harbinger of a Nixonian type of justice being practiced. You know, enemies lists on one hand while turning a blind eye to legitimate crime on the other.

Oh, and let's not forget Holder's refusal to prosecute the Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia.

Together, these DOJ actions send a very bad signal to Americans. Real violation of laws are ignored, if the violators serve Wonderboy's ends.

But brave, legitimate actions by the intelligence community in defense of our country, simply because they occurred on Bush's watch, will be prosecuted as criminal behavior.

I guess it really does take an excess of liberal politics to teach naive American voters the price of handing all of the federal government power to liberal Democrats.

Let's hope all of this nauseating news from DOJ heaps more fuel on the fire to turn out Democratic majorities in Congress next year.

Dick Cheney's Underestimated Influence

A Wall Street Journal's editorialist, William McGurn, wrote a nice little piece yesterday giving rare credit to former VP Dick Cheney for his ability to force the current president to take him on as an equal.


In McGurn's column, he actually cited liberal MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews as the only media person to correctly notice Wonderboy "listening for footsteps, that he could hear Cheney coming at him and he was defensive."


No kidding. Here we have an unaccomplished young political hack pretending to be president, dressing up in grown-up clothes and grappling with issues which are beyond his grasp, and the consequences of his actions he typically doesn't understand.


"Coming at him" is a very accomplished, seasoned, very smart former US Representative, administrative operative, Secretary of Defense, VP, and corporate chief.


Among US Vice-Presidents, Dick Cheney is perhaps the most qualified to have actually become President, should the occasion have arisen. Possessing a rare combination of extensive prior goverment experience in both administrations and elective Congressional office, he was, and is, qualified to perform as Chief Executive of the United States.


George W. Bush never considered Al Gore remotely threatening as a former VP, or even former presidential candidate.


It speaks volumes that, regardless of the largely-uncognizant larger populace of the US on whom popularity polls are conducted, the sitting president rightly fears tangling with Cheney.


Cheney doesn't engage in baseless or unreasoned emotional diatribes, as does Wonderboy. Rather, Cheney constructs careful, coherent, logical frameworks of reason which are unusually difficult to refute.


There's no question that in last week's face-off, Cheney emerged as having bettered the current Oval Office occupant.


Wonderboy took pains to lambast his predecessor, although again promising he wouldn't, suggesting that whatever actions were taken involving enhanced interrogation methods and Guantanamo were without a justification. Nowhere in his speech from the National Archives was the 9/11 attack on American citizens on American soil ever mentioned.


Cheney, however, made that attack the rightful centerpiece of the debate. Without it, the rest of the arguments on either side are pointless and lacking in context.



If this mess continues to be pressed to the point of Congressional hearings and, possibly, criminal charges, Wonderboy and his chief accomplice in this matter, Frisco Nan Pelosi, will be very sorry they persisted in banging on this drum.


Cheney's speech provided a preview of the arguments which will be used in such venues, and their solidity and credibility.

Our Pansy President

Reading a review of John F. Ross' book about Robert Rogers, War on the Run, made me think of how ill-prepared Wonderboy is to be president, in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief.

Our first rookie gave a speech this week reminding everyone how moral he is, how inflexible he is regarding what he would do, or not do, to execute his oath of office to protect the country.

After all, it's not like our current president has any life experience to suggest he's tough enough to face serious challenges to our safety. He's a 'hopeful' dreamer. A lawyer and community organizer. Basically, an unaccomplished liberal who has been a 'do-gooder' of the socialist stripe.

Robert Rogers was the original Ranger. He founded the first Ranger force, from whom, Ross writes, special operations and unconventional warfare styles have descended in the American military.

While reading the review of Ross' book, Wonderboy's lack of preparedness to use our armed forces to defend the US became obvious when I read this passage,

"Like Sun Tzu, Rogers understood that victory was as much a matter of psychology as firepower or numbers: In an unconventional war in the ­wilderness, the general’s job is to overcome his men’s fear of the savage and unknown and impose it on the enemy. He once scalped a captured French ­soldier in full view of a fort’s French garrison: The French surrendered a short while later."

I can't imagine Wonderboy understanding the necessity of Roger's action in the passage. Upon hearing of the episode, he'd probably have the leader brought up on charges, then convey his apology to the enemy.

I think of Obama in the same light as Carter and, to an extent, Wilson. A cockeyed, naive dreamer for world peace who believes all other men and nations have noble intentions toward us.

Those previous presidents sowed seeds of future problems for America. I suspect Wonderboy is doing so even now.

Is Dick Cheney Still VP?

Wow, that was quick!

Dick Cheney gives a couple of interviews, publicizing his views on the inappropriateness of releasing photographs from CIA files, and, presto, Wonderboy relents.

Is Joe Biden even in this administration?

Despite many people feeling he was out of line, as a former VP, Cheney's comments about the threat to national security evidently shoved the First Rookie back into line. Perhaps Cheney's drip feed of remarks finally percolated that thick liberal skull of the new president.

So, once again, Wonderboy changed direction and followed his predecessor's policies on anti-terrorism strategies.

If only he could somehow leave Guantanamo open. I'll be he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut about that now, don't you?

Will The New Messiah Endorse "War Crimes" Show Trials?

Friday's Wall Street Journal contained an editorial by Kim Strassel discussing House Democrat John Conyers' hopes of dragging Bush administration members before House show trials on trumped up charges.

Strassel notes that this will be an acid test for the First Rookie. Campaigning on a theme of hope and change, not to mention post-partisanship, it will not go down well if he backs this House Democrat witch hunt.

Given how sceptical people are already becoming about the New Messiah's spending plans and how he's already reneged on his promises and hired a lobbyist for his cabinet, he doesn't need any new mistakes right out of the gate.

Plus, if Mr. Post-partisan in any way countenances, allows or abets this Congressional witch hunt, you can bet that as soon as the GOP reclaims one of the Houses of congress in 2010, they're going to return the favor.

And don't forget the looming conflict between Frisco Nan's liberal extremists and Wonderboy. This might well be the ground on which it begins, which is bad for both of them. To waste time and effort, publicly, arguing with fellow Democrats about convicting out-of-office Republicans won't reflect well on either Congress or Wonderboy.

I think Strassel is entirely correct when she finishes her column with,

"The president's best bet is shut this down soon, and quietly- before he no longer can."

The Gitmo Song and Dance

The First Rookie has already begun his seductive shuffle on Gitmo and the War on Terror.

Of course, the 'close Gitmo' line was always just that- a campaign line. Predictably, once elected, he's shuffled his feet and tossed the whole mess to 'a commission.'

Yeah, right.

Today's Wall Street Journal pointed out that even the Wonderboy's liberal 'helpers' have opined on the idea of a special court for terrorists. Turns out, when you read their details, they have recreated Bush's and Congress' current rules and procedures for the military tribunals.

In the process, Wonderboy apparently declared the War on Terror over. Global applause to follow.

Huh? And just how did this victory suddenly come about? Or is the First Rookie just trying to get everyone to forget about that messy, icky thing called war? And that Muslims are trying to kill as many Americans as they can?

Personally, I still believe that wrong actions result in errors and bad consequences.

Despite so many people swearing they love the guy and 'want him to succeed,' it isn't going to happen. He's already demonstrating a sort of cotton-candy view of the world, with only good things, and no bad men.

Boy, is he going to pay a fearsome price when the safety which his predecessor maintained for seven years is blown away in some terrorist act.

Then Gitmo and the war on terror will seem like things he should have left alone.

Observing Pearl Harbor Day

Just a short note to observe the 66th anniversary of the Japanese attack on the US Naval and Army bases at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. This attack, coming, as it did, explicitly in advance of the Japanese declaration of war on America, galvanized public commitment to defeating Japan as nothing else probably ever could.

Whether Roosevelt conspired to facilitate so much damage and loss of life among American servicemen has never been clearly determined.

Never the less, on this day, I think it's worthwhile to consider our modern counterpart, September 11, 2001.

That day's terrorist attack on the World Trade Center towers parallels the Pearl Harbor attack. There was no explicit change in relationship status between the United States and another recognized state.

Rather, it marked the first time the shadowy forces which share extremist Islamist beliefs struck Americans on our own soil.

In the midst of the current campaigns for the November, 2008 Presidential election, it is timely to note the different reaction of the American people from that of our predecessors in World War II.

Now, Democratic candidates insist there is no terrorist threat, and that we should simply withdraw from combat in foreign lands. They fuel the public's desire to believe that sacrifice is unnecessary to protect our way of life, liberty and freedom. The mainstream media is complicit in this campaign.

Rather than see Pearl Harbor as an isolated event, I think we should take a lesson from it and rededicate ourselves to eliminating the forces which, without reason, threaten, and have attacked our country, wherever they may be found.

Remember the Arizona. Remember Pearl Harbor.

Norman Podhoretz on World War IV

The Wall Street Journal recently published a review of Norman Podhoretz's new book, "World War IV," by Christopher Willcox.

It's a clear review of an obviously riveting, declarative book. Referring to the 1945-1998 period of cold war as WW III, Podhoretz identifies the current era as a world war with terrorism.

He questions whether America has the will to win, let alone survive, this war. If there's a difference.

Podhoretz unequivocally backs President Bush in the belief that this is a defining, global war- not a series of skirmishes with relatively insignificant bands of local or regional terrorists.

This quote from the review pretty much sums up Podhoretz's views,

"Mr. Podhoretz handles the swift radicalization of top Democrats with gusto, quoting most of them as ferocious Saddam critics before the invasion and, as the war became difficult, newly ferocious critics of the U.S. invasion. Teddy Kennedy leaves the rails completely when he reacts to the serious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison by declaring on the Senate floor that "the torture chamber of Saddam Hussein has been reopened under new management -- American management."

It is precisely such rhetoric, and the moral-equivalence reasoning behind it, that makes it especially appropriate to remember Whittaker Chambers's Cold War doubts about the West's capacity to defend itself. Mr. Podhoretz believes that the West may face an even more formidable foe today. This time, it lurks in shadowy networks of oil-enabled jihadists, mullahs and despots who are at war with modernity and can count on the support of millions of militant Islamists. If such people succeed in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they will surely use them.

Pre-emption may thus turn out to be a compelling option for whoever wins the presidency in 2008. If so, the Bush Doctrine -- like Harry Truman's earlier doctrine of containment -- will have a longer life than its critics imagine. And, yes, Mr. Podhoretz reminds us, Harry Truman had some pretty lousy poll numbers when he left office, too. "

And I loved this quote used to describe the liberal Democratic position on the war on terror,

"Here is hapless John Kerry running for president two years after 9/11: "We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

I've never actually read any of Podhoretz's books. Only occasional articles. But I know I follow in his ideological footsteps. This is one of his books which I will likely buy, read, and treasure.

Terrorist Heaven

My partner sent me this rather humorous picture the other day. To see a larger version, click on the picture.

If, like me, you believe that the war on terror represents the West's response to what is, in effect, a religiously-based war recommenced by extremists in the Muslim religion, then you'll enjoy this.

John Edwards' "Bumper Sticker" Remark Comes Back To Haunt Him

I wrote this recent post discussing the unfortunate timing of two significant threats to American security that may materially effect the Democratic Presidential candidates ability to retake the White House in 2008.

However, the damage done to one candidate in particular, John Edwards, by the JFK airport plot uncovered this past weekend, seems to be outsized.

Talk about bad timing. Here's a YouTube clip featuring Edwards' remarks that the global war on terror is 'just a bumper sticker,' pre-dating this weekend's events, including the Democratic candidate 'debate' in New Hampshire. Edwards had re-iterated this theme, which he evidently believed to be a winning slogan.



His continued diminishment of this real threat was lampooned in this humorous video clip, also from YouTube.



And, here, Rudy Giuliani rebuts Edwards' foolish remark with his own sentiments.



Perhaps the most telling measure of the longer-term effects of Edwards' attitude toward this real global conflict was seen on Bill O'Reilly's program last week. I happened to catch a few minutes of it one evening, during which he cited polls that had Edwards losing 8 percentage points of support in recent surveys of Democratic Presidential contenders.

At this rate, Edwards may need to start sharing a bus with co-contender Dennis (The Menace) Kucinich to save on campaign funds.