Senator Clinton not in favor of protecting the US from another 9/11

Senator Hillary Clinton attempts to placate the Anti-Victory, far Left by sending them an email that she didn't post in the "statements" section of her own website. With the poliferation of information channels on the Internet, who does she think she is fooling? After Googling a bit I did find it here. Reading through the statement, she makes sure to hit all the hot-button excuses as to why the war isn't associated with the democrats that voted to authorize the use of force:

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaida, and fully uproot the Taliban.

[added bolding --editor] Wow, that is some fancy foot work! Notice the lack of definition in who is doing the asking"Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority". Really? That's an assertion that doesn't really stand up. I think that GWB would have asked. In fact, we don't have to wonder. He did ask.

She follows with if "Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed". Notice that she did not say that she would have voted differently: Congress might have not agreed. Notice that she does not say that she stands behind her vote, if fact she leaves the impression that she would have voted "nay". But she doesn't really say either way. Having it both ways!

She goes on to hit some more sour, Lefty notes:

...the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

while at the same time describing herself as " firmly in support of our troops".

And in summary Senator Clinton couldn't resist taking this shot:

That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support.

Didn't Saddam invade Kuwait? Didn't he violate the agreements that ended hostilities? Isn't the UK, Poland, Japan, Spain, Italy, etc, etc real international support?

I'm surprised that she would come out against preemptive war. President Bill Clinton had no problem launching preemptive war (by her definition of preemptive) on Iraq in 1998. If another 9/11 were being planned in Somalia (or pick any other State) and we had the chance to prevent it by invading/bombing/taking preemptive action would Senator Clinton reject the doctrine of preemptive war?

Upgrade your Browser, Firefox 1.5 released

If you are browsing the web, (and yes, you are!) then you might like to do it in the fastest, safest, and coolest web browser. Firefox 1.5 was released today. You can get it here:

http://www.mozilla.com/

You can also add some nifty features from Google via their toolbar plug-in. Click the Button on the right side of this site to download the GoogleBar. Works for IE as well.

Follow the Money...

Michelle Malkin does some important reporting on the connections between RINOs and George Soros. Another fine example of the original reporting in the Blogosphere.
Commentary: Money buys influence. It is very clear to me that a politician who accepts money that originated from George Soros is beholden to him. George Soros represents and funds ideas and policies that are antithetical to mainstream conservative ideas.

I urge all those that value mainstream conservative ideas to reject all dealings with any organization that has accepted funds from George Soros. Furthermore, I urge all voters to vote against any candidate, including Republican candidates, that have accepted money or support from George Soros or any organization that has accepted money sourced from George Soros.

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Here a great list of non-confrontational questions to use to deflect any "Bush Lied" propaganda you might get from your family today. Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.

Revisiting Reasons for the Second Iraqi War

The basis for going to war included (at least) the following reasons:

* Non-compliance with the existing cease fire agreement
* Non-compliance with UN weapons agreements and inspectors (1)
-- Medium Range Ballistic missiles
-- Chemical Weapons
-- Biological weapons
-- Nuclear program
* Past demonstrated use of WMDs
* Past demonstrated attacks on neighboring nations
* Past demonstrated assassination attempts on US gov't officials
* Ongoing support for Palestinian terrorist actions (this wasn't part of the GWB's public reasons)
* Suspected ties to Muslim terrorists
* Suspected existence of Muslim Terrorist training camps
* Promotion of a new Democratic System within the Arab world
* Ending a tyrannical regime
* Ending genocidal activities
* Ending the corruption of oil funds into:
-- The UN
-- Terrorists
-- Iraqi military

There is supporting evidence for each of the listed reasons with the possible exception of WMDs (1). The facts collected on the ground in post-war Iraq do not conclusively prove that large stockpiles of WMDs existed at the time of the invasion. It is possible that these did exist and that the evidence has been removed. I will set this aside because it is not a defendable position, although it may be true. There is circumstantial evidence of WMD activities within Iraq; WMD antidotes, HazMat suits, protected bunkers.

This extensive list of justifications leads to the question that should be asked now: Why have so many Democrats flip-flopped on their support for this country's foreign policy? Is it their position that all of the reason listed above that have proved out do not remain a significant justification for the war?

Did John Kerry Lie?

Some folks (especially in the MSM) are under the impression that "Bush lied us into War". There are multiple layers of misleading assumptions built into that statement. Let's assume for the moment that if person X said the same as GWB at the same time then he would be lying too. Then go read this:

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582
HT: Glenn Reynolds

Yeah, I guess Kerry lied and people died!

Seriously though, it is an increasingly ridiculous assertion to believe that GWB some how convinced those in Congress, the UN, the NYT, the WaPo, the Clinton Administration (in 1998!) by some kind of retroactively dated argument that we should go to war. The start of the second Iraq war was a widely supported operation at the time.

These are the times that try men's souls.

Excerpted from JOHN O'NEILL's essay

On December 23, 1776, with Washington's army freezing in tatters at Morristown, Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." He noted many mistakes by the American army, but noted that "tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered" and that heaven charges a high price for freedom because it is so precious. It was a time when "the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot shrink ... " but those who stood firm would someday receive the love and appreciation of the nation.

Brilliant and inspiring, is this quote, especially in context of today's difficult and unpopular effort in Iraq. Yes it is difficult to stand up and back the mission through the constant drumbeat of bombings and beheadings reported by NPR and others. I will not be distracted by minor accusations of supposed coalition misdoings; I will not be deterred by quibbles about equipment or numbers of troops; I will not be swayed by calls for withdraw from weak-kneed American politicians. Tyranny (and terrorism) is not easily conquered, and I will stand and support the effort resolutely.

Cowards cut and run, Marines never do

Jack Kelly wrote on his blog Irish Pennants:

No one in the administration called Murtha a coward. No Republican in Congress called Murtha a coward. The closest anyone came was freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), who repeated on the floor of the House what a constituent, a Marine reserve colonel currently serving in Iraq, said:
"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." She later withdrew the remarks, saying she meant no insult to the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Emphasis mine. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The conservative mantra

Hugh, you just coined a phrase:

Win the war.
Confirm the judges.
Cut the taxes.
Control the spending.

Spread the word...

Worst Case Scenario...

If the US experiences a nuclear 9/11 would we reply (somewhere) with a nuclear strike? With a nuclear barraige? This is a serious question that is considered seriously over at Winds of Change. I reprint my comment here:

First off, I should state my base assumptions. I am an extreme hawk with respect to the GWOT. I believe that 9/11 gave the US the casus belli to invade, blockade, bomb, assassinate, incarcerate, physically/psychologically abuse any nation, group or person as necessary in order to pursue, disrupt and destroy those involved and associated with 9/11 style terrorists. The rest, in my view, is simply tactics.

Tactically, it may be smart to refrain from actions that described by the unfriendly media as torture. But in the cruel calculus of war, would not a few abused terrorist be a morally superior choice to a 9/11 times 10 or times 100 attack?

So tactically speaking would a nuclear attack against the terrorist make sense?

* Targeting
-- Can we identify a target that requires a nuclear weapon?

* Collateral Damage
-- Is the expected value of the attack greater than the collateral damage expected?
-- Is the negative reaction from allies, non-aligned states and enemy civilians greater than the expected value of the attack?

I must admit that I'm not convinced that that nuclear weapons have much value in actual use. Consider a the situation in Tora Bora when it was thought that OBL was there. If we had used nuclear munitions on that area would that have achieved our goal better than a carpet bombing campaign? I suspect that equal or greater military value can be had by simply using excessive amounts of conventional bombs rather than nuclear weapons.

If we assume that a nuclear terrorist strike in the USA has changed our current tactical thinking by reducing the sensitivity to civilian casualties then I suspect that the military could achieve its objectives without going nuclear. Can someone posit a situation to contradict my assertion? Perhaps going after the military industrial complex in Iran?

I see zero value in killing civilians for the sake of reducing the enemy civilian population. I do not follow the arguments that this will change the enemy's mindset. I believe that the analogy to Japan does not hold; the gov't ultimately surrendered -- the people would have gone on. We don't need to nuke Saudi Arabia to get them to surrender.

I do understand that there will be some domestic political pressure to reply in kind to a nuclear strike on the US. I also see some deterrent potential in a 100% certain retaliatory policy. Given this posture, it is quite unclear upon whom we would bomb if struck by terrorists.

The way to frame the debate...

Australian treasurer Peter Costello:

If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law.

We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.

We do not derive our laws from religious instruction.

There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that’s your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it’s not going to happen.

Brilliant. That's true here in the USA. If you want to emigrate and become a freedom-loving, capitalist, democratic, law abiding American then welcome.

HT: Tim Blair

Protecting our Freedom of Speech

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

'nuff said. Or, at least it should be, but sadly it is not. Some in Congress are busy trying to limit your freedom of speech. I stand with my fellow patriots against this. Please follow this link to the onlinecoalition.com to learn more about what Congress is trying to do. Then take action.

EnviroNut Humor

Some of the best writing anywhere is to be had is in a Slashdot thread:

Environut: Global warming is going to kill us all. We have to stop the evil oil companies bent of world destruction.

Engineer: Well then, let's invest some money in clean, reliable nuclear power plant design

Environut: Are you kidding. Those things are radioactive and they meltdown all the time. Plus Tom Brokaw says terrorists can blow them up with molotav cocktails and kill us all.

Engineer: I don't think you understand the issue fully, but ok, how about natural gas.

Environut: I heard through from my neighbor's, best friend's, third cousin who is an expert in environmental peace engineering at Evergreen Community College that natural gas tankers can explode with the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Engineer: The stored gas has equivalent chemical energy, yes, but it's release is dependent on the oxygen that can be supplied. The absolute worst case scenario is a really big fire. Still, if you're not comfortable with that, how about hydro power in locations where it's available?

Environut: Disrupts salmon spawning.

Engineer: Wind power?

Environut: Kills birds

Engineer: Geothermal?

Environut: Haven't you seen Core? You'll stop the earth's core from spinning, cause earthquakes, and kill the yellowstone geysers.

Engineer: Umm, how about tidal generators for coastal cities?

Environut: Absolutely not. They destroy the reefs to build them and devastate the shoreline ecostructure by reducing wave action

Engineer: How about investing in Fusion research?

Environut: Doesn't that involve atoms? I don't like atoms and I think they should be banned by international treaty because terrorists can build dirty bombs out of them.

Engineer: I suppose you have something against solar power too?

Environut: Oh no. I love solar power. It will save us from global warming, cure world hunger, end racism, and get Barbara Streisand elected president.

Engineer: Well, it does have its benefits, but it's only practical in a limited part of the world and it's currently nowhere near as cost-effective as other forms of energy production

Environut: I knew it! You're just another puppet for big oil. Why do you hate the baby seals? What did they ever do to you? Murderer!

Greenpeace caught destroying the environment

In my favorite story of the day, Greenpeace caught destroying the environment. I wonder how much diesel fuel the rainbow Warrior uses? ;-)

Hey, I like coral reefs too, but it is important to realize that the environment is in a constant state of change. At the moment, the climate is warming (due to Human and non-Human factors). 300 years ago the climate had a distinct, brief cooling episode. Climate changes do cause plants and animals to die off in some areas and populate in others. It is a silly premise to expect the environment (and the coral reefs) to remain the same forever*. A much more nuanced view would embrace the changes as part of our world.

Footnote: I do realize that a more sophisticated Green argument is that Humanity is forcing environmental changes at a rate so fast that the natural systems do not adjust gracefully, resulting in (arguably) negative outcomes. While this is harder to disprove, it really comes down to a set of opinions on what comprises a "negative outcome".

If Arctic Tundra is replaced with Northern woodland is that negative? I don't presume to answer this question, because the answer depends opun the implicit "To Whom". So called Environmentalist Issues tend to boil down to "change is bad", so we should do X, or ban Y so that change doesn't happen. This is a false premise, change is not necessarally bad. X costs money and Y has value; these factors need to be considered.

NRO reports on protecting online Free Speech ...

This NRO story has the latest info on preemptive legislation to protect bloggers' First Amendment rights. The long and the short of it is that this attempt to preemptively ban regulation of online speech has failed in Congress.

It is my opinion that the First Amendment clearly extends to internet speech, and that any and all regulation of speech by the gov't is wrong and illegal. Unfortunately, the campaign finance law has passed Congress, was signed by the President, and has not been struck down by SCOTUS. A trifecta of constitutional shame.

This blog will continue to follow this issue and tirelessly advocate to protect our First Amendment rights.

GWOT as compared to WW II

Over at Winds of Change, Cicero wonders:

So this week I am wondering: Is November, 2005 similar to March, 1939?

This week, appeasment has delivered two unfortunate results. First, Iran has elected a new, ultra-Islamofascist president, who has now recalled what it considers to be its 'moderate' ambassadors from Europe, while stepping up uranium production. There is no longer any realistic hope that European carrots will prevent an Iranian bomb. And second, Europe itself is seeing an intifada explode on its own soil. France is burning as I write this. The Netherlands is in a state of high tension, one year after Van Gogh's murder. European immigrants are teaming with passion and fury, with a fire not unlike the ones that raged in Europe 60 years ago.

Is this the point at which Europe collectively recognizes that appeasement has hit a dead end?

The analogy between the so called Global War on Terror (GWOT) and WW II continues. I think the analogy, while as imperfect as all analogies tend to be, is useful.

To answer Cicero's question; I would say NO this isn't March 1939, but rather this is 1940, prior to the blitzkrieg of France. The USA is at war (as Britain and France were in 1940) but much of the rest of the world is not fully involved, even though the enemy is known. The present day France and Germany remain frustratingly on the sidelines, as the USA did until Dec 7th 1941.

I believe there will be several horrific future events that will bring various countries and constituencies into the struggle against Islamo-fascism. I shudder to think what else needs to take place beyond what has happened already: 9/11, Beslan, 3/11, 7/7 ad nauseum.

Pork Busters

Unfortunately, our congress-persons cannot see fit to allocate Federal moneys away from their own districts and toward the hurricane devastated states of Louisiana and Mississippi. This is to be expected, based upon their past behavior, but it is NOT to be tolerated. Please support Pork Busters. I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package. You should too.

Another Pearl Harbor, Another 9/11?

Dan's post at Winds of Change led me over to this post at Regime Change Iran. This information , if believed, should alarm everyone. Shouldn't an open declaration of hostilities by a foreign gov't official matter? When they are building atomic weapons?

If the energy of the Democrats is focused on accusing, investigating and proving that GWB "lied us into the War"( See Yesterday's Senate Shenanigans) then it would be nearly impossible for them to process the information about Iran and politically support the needed policy actions against the Iranian threat. I am very troubled that the Dems have moved to the far left Anti-war position. Bill Clinton led the US to attack Iraq (and Afghanistan and Sudan) in 1998; proof that the Dems can act like hawks when it suits them. For the good of the USA it is critical that the Dems rediscover their inner hawk and stand with the rest of us when it matters most.

That's free speech for ya...

Enjoy this video from China
HT: Cicero at Wind of Change.net

Reason number 47 that Radical Islam should be opposed...

Warning: disturbing images of child abuse.
Hat tip: bareknucklepolitics.com

Any comment from Kofi? ACLU? Dick Durbin? ... crickets chirping.