THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE

political calculus 101 - from the Prince of Darkness

           

                      Where is Rudy?
By Robert D. Novak
Saturday, September 29, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Rudy Giuliani is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who has not accepted an invitation to a "values voters" conference of social conservatives in Washington, D.C., Oct. 19-21 sponsored by the Family Research Council.

Giuliani's absence suggests that he will fare badly in the conference's straw vote though he leads the national Republican public opinion polls. Some 2,000 social conservatives from around the country are expected to attend the event.

A footnote: Supporters from outside his staff are urging Giuliani to discontinue the stunt of interrupting a campaign speech by taking a cell phone call from his wife. Although this received national attention only recently when Giuliani did it while addressing the National Rifle Association on Sept. 21, it has been part of his political bag of tricks all year.

NO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

With the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, Senate Democrats have lost interest in getting a special prosecutor to investigate the role of the White House and Gonzales in firing U.S. attorneys.

The Democrats have not at all ended their interest in the matter. But key senators say they have confidence in retired U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mukasey to handle the inquiry, including possible perjury charges against Gonzales.

A footnote: Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, still has not scheduled hearings on the Mukasey nomination two weeks after it was made. A White House political operative has grumbled that the Senate needed only 12 days, all told, to confirm Janet Reno, President Bill Clinton's nominee for attorney general.

GOODBYE, MARTINEZ

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, who was named general chairman of the Republican Party only nine months ago, has advised associates that he will leave the post as soon as somebody clinches the party's presidential nomination. That probably will come after the Feb. 5 primary elections next year.

When Martinez took the party post Jan. 19, it was expected he would stay on through the 2008 elections as the GOP's principal national spokesman. Many Republicans now grumble that Martinez has been ineffective in that role, partly because he has been drowned out by the many presidential hopefuls.

Kentucky lawyer Mike Duncan, who came on board with Martinez as chairman of the Republican National Committee, is expected to remain running day-to-day operations at national party headquarters for the balance of his two-year term.

RICHARDSON FOR V.P.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Mexican-American who could pin down the Latino vote, is back as a leading vice-presidential prospect if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination next year.

Richardson's poor early showing as a candidate for the presidential nomination, particularly in debates, had turned off speculation about him for second place on the ticket. But his clever TV ads have pushed him to the top of the second tier of Democratic presidential candidates and back into the vice-presidential swim.

A footnote: There is considerable opposition inside the Clinton camp to Sen. Barack Obama as her running mate. Skeptics consider it too risky to pair the first woman for president with the first African-American for vice president.

DANGEROUS GOP VACANCIES

The Democratic candidacy of former basketball coach Dick Versace endangers 68 years of Republican control of the Peoria-based congressional seat in Illinois left vacant by the retirement of Republican Rep. Ray LaHood.

Versace was a highly popular coach of Bradley University in Peoria before going to coach in the NBA. LaHood is in his seventh term in Congress after succeeding his boss, then House Minority Leader Bob Michel.

A footnote: A Democratic takeover is even more likely for another Illinois seat: a Joliet-based district where Republican Rep. Jerry Weller is retiring under a cloud of scandal.

President Bush needs to ask this generation of young people to step up and save the world.

I have to agree the President has been AWOL on asking young people to serve in the armed forces.He is good on fighting the war and a lot of young people have stepped up.  But if he wants to increase the size of the military, he has to articulate how important this war is and untie the hands of the military.  This generation of young people will step up many have already.  It's time Bush speaks out and ask the young to save America, only they can.

           

                      A president at war must lead a country at war
By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Saturday, September 29, 2007

When the aunt of a military medic serving in Baghdad asked the president whether he had done anything to encourage Americans to volunteer for service, he replied, "No," shortly after having talked at length about the role of the commander in chief. Then he quickly revised his answer: "Well, I guess I have.

I supported the advertising budgets of the Army and the Marines. But I have urged people to serve the nation in a variety of ways; urged people to feed the hungry or house the homeless. I thanked people for going to help rebuild homes in New Orleans, praised the Peace Corps."

   

       
                    
        Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a Vietnam War veteran and former POW (L), is greeted by Gary Kurplus, the commander of the Kansas City Missouri VFW, before McCain spoke during the Veterans of Foreign Wars' 108th National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri August 20, 2007. REUTERS/Dave Kaup (UNITED STATES)

   

 

       

If a group can collectively cringe, the group around the table in the Roosevelt Room of the White House certainly did. As important as feeding the hungry is, it's not the same as risking your life for your warring country.

I don't think the president meant to equate these things, and I am certain he did not intend to demean military service. He probably hadn't expected the question and might have felt awkward answering it, and the fact that he did not serve in Vietnam has been an issue for him. (It shouldn't be: He did serve in the National Guard.) This may have led him to believe that he couldn't ask men and women to give up their lives as volunteers. But as commander in chief during this war on radical Islam -- a role he takes dead seriously -- his office requires he make that request.

A little later, the president remarked to those in the Roosevelt Room: "I haven't specifically said, 'I want you to go in the military.' There are plenty of inducements for young men and women to make that decision. I've been generally -- I've been kind of on a -- I haven't been specific about how I asked people to serve. I've just asked them to serve."

Pete Hegseth, the articulate head of Veterans for Freedom -- folks who know true wartime sacrifice -- shares my opinion. "I don't understand why he wouldn't call on Americans to serve their country, in uniform, in this extremely important war. President Bush understands the stakes of the fight in Iraq and should call on the best and brightest to serve on the battlefield. That message, to me, seems like a no-brainer."

Buzz Patterson, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and vice chairman of the troop-supporting group Move America Forward, echoes Hegseth: "There is no doubt that President Bush should have sent a 'call to arms' to young Americans to step up and serve. ... He should have appealed to the nation for a mobilized posture long ago. I would certainly hope that our next president will."

The president's response to the question of military service does make an American wonder: Would a vet president help? Could it change an American dynamic? Would it make it easier for a wartime president to inspire military service?

And here you can't help but think of John McCain. Scan the cast of characters running for president. Who is more serious when it comes to understanding the stakes of this war on terror? In fact, in some polls he saw a surge of support in the late summer -- undeniably tied to news from Iraq.

McCain's service to our country is a story of character and heroism. I've heard him say many times that military service many decades ago does not make anyone more qualified than another to make present-day foreign-policy decisions. But it certainly puts him in a better position to say: "Serve. Your country needs you."

I disagree with McCain on many issues, but we're at war, and we need Americans to realize it and feel like they're part of it. Veteran McCain could be the right person to lead.

So is Newt going to run or not.

           

                                        

Can Newt Solve America’s Problems?
By Robert Bluey
Sunday, September 30, 2007

Thirteen years ago, then-Rep. Newt Gingrich stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to unveil the Contract with America, a document that crystallized conservative principles and led Republicans to a remarkable triumph on Election Day. Gingrich was at the top of his game and the country was following closely behind.

Of course, times have changed drastically since then. Gingrich was driven from elective office and along the way Republicans lost their way -- and control of Congress to boot.

   

       
                    
        Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich waits to be introduced before speaking at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California May 24, 2007. REUTERS/Mark Avery (UNITED STATES)

   

       

Related Media:

VIDEO:                 Newt Gingrich talks to Townhall.com

VIDEO:                 Wallace Time: Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich

       

For a moment last week, however, Gingrich was once again the great conservative hope. On the very anniversary, Sept. 27, of the day Republicans unveiled their Contract with America, and at the very place, the Cobb Galleria, where Gingrich celebrated the GOP’s return to the majority on Election Day in 1994, he made a passionate case for solving America’s greatest problems with common-sense solutions.

“American Solutions is my best effort to launch a movement that understands that you have to have real change, that the real change has to be at every level of government, [and] that science and technology are going to be great drivers over the next 40 years,” he told me and Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters in an interview last week. “If you take three things -- science and technology, the principles that worked historically (such as the free market, entrepreneurship and the work ethic), and the core values of American civilization, which have made us the freest, wealthiest and most integrated society in American history -- and reapply them again and again, you begin to see specific solutions to the mess we’re currently in.”

That mess has driven trust in government to all-time lows not seen since the darkest days of Watergate, according to a new Gallup Poll. Will Gingrich lead America out of that mess?

Gingrich said that’s a question for another day. Right now the former House speaker is devoting his energy to finding solutions rather than pursuing the presidency. Last week’s event was the kick off for Solutions Day, an event that continued on Saturday with 35 workshops taking place across the country. Anyone from any party, ideology or belief was invited to share ideas -- and solutions -- for problems facing America.

Gingrich’s goal isn’t to fix all of America’s problems in sixth months. But he does hope American Solutions, complete with a Solutions Lab, can bring people together to share common goals toward reasonable solutions.

“I’ll give you an example,” he said. “Sen. [Hillary] Clinton issued a 10-page outline of a health plan. Large parts of that I don’t agree with because it’s big government, it’s high taxes, it’s red tape. But surely out of 10 pages there are six or seven things you could say, ‘You know, that’s a pretty good idea. Could we do that?’ And try to find common ways to talk together about the world you want to create rather than seek out how to fight each other all the time.”

Gingrich cited three areas where an overwhelming percentage of Americans are in agreement:

• Eighty-five percent of the American people want English to be the official language of government;

• Ninety-one percent want the right to say “one nation, under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance; and

• Eighty-nine percent believe American workers should have the right to a secret-ballot vote as to whether or not to unionize.

“What’s red vs. blue when you’re at 85 percent?” Gingrich said. “The truth is you have a liberal minority that dominates The New York Times, the academic world and Hollywood. Then you have this huge, massive 70-, 80-, 90-percent majority. And the combination of Republican incompetence and Democratic cleverness makes it look like it is a narrowly divided country, when in fact the country’s not divided, the politicians are. I want to reunify the country around values that are absolute massive majorities.”

It would seem logical that in order to achieve his goals, Gingrich would want to seek the presidency. But when asked repeatedly if he’s going to run, Gingrich played coy. Given the fact he’s having so much fun in his current role, it seems hard to imagine him doing anything else.

Liberty is the foundation for all Western democracies and served as the main catalyst in the vision of America's Founding Fathers. Without liberty no democracy can function.

Democracy Doesn't Always Mean Liberty and Freedom
By Frank Salvato
CNSNews.com Commentary
September 28, 2007

Liberty is one of the noblest concepts of all. It is defined as: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control, external or foreign rule, captivity, confinement, or physical restraint. In an ideological sense liberty embodies the idea of free thought and free speech, the expression of one's opinions without fear of reprisal.

Liberty is the foundation for all Western democracies and served as the main catalyst in the vision of America's Founding Fathers. Without liberty no democracy can function.

But with liberty comes an elevated civic responsibility.

This responsibility includes being well educated on the facts surrounding any one issue, especially before opining or taking action. One must seek out fact-based information not only in an effort to validate our beliefs and ideology, but to challenge them as well. We must be responsible enough to brave scrutiny of our political and ideological positions.

To abdicate this responsibility is to cheat ourselves out of a full and well-rounded understanding of the issue at hand. It also serves to foment a populace vulnerable to over-reaching governmental control, antithetical to the concept of liberty.

This civic responsibility also includes engaging the political and governmental process as a tool of governmental oversight. Because absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Founders and Framers of the US Constitution expected the American people to hold those they elect accountable for their actions.

As is demonstrated by the abdication of this responsibility by many in American society, a government not engaged by its populace in oversight, extracting accountability from those elected to government, is prone to political opportunism, cronyism, corruption, the expansion of government into non-sanctioned realms (i.e., entitlement, abusive taxation and social engineering) and decreasing liberty.

So, as we can see, liberty, even in an established democratic republic isn't something that comes without its cost. As with every birthright, liberty requires diligence. The preservation of liberty demands respect, attention, thoughtfulness, study and time, things that many in the West - and especially in the United States - fail to provide in their apathy to politics and government.

In President Bush's second inaugural address, he relied heavily on the idea that freedom is an inalienable right for all of mankind. Human freedom.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

These words should be considered the defining statement, the absolute mission of our foreign policy.

But the president went a step further and in doing so established a goal, well intentioned as it may be, that usurps the graduating series of requirements necessary for attaining and, more importantly, maintaining liberty and freedom.

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Ending tyranny in the world is a noble goal. It is one that would, no doubt, lead to a more peaceful world and a more secure United States. It should remain our "ultimate goal."

But achieving this goal by supporting "the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture," assumes that every nation and culture is in a position to receive the responsibility of democracy; that every nation would be able to engage in democracy honestly, devoid of the manipulation of nefarious forces.

To clarify, every man woman and child on the face of the earth is born with the inalienable, God given right to freedom. On that point I agree wholeheartedly with President Bush.

But as we have seen in locations throughout the Middle East and in certain locations in South America, democracy can be used to legitimize those with oppressive goals. It can be used to achieve validation for the wicked and for those with a bloodlust for domination, both regionally and globally.

In Gaza the world witnessed the election of a terrorist entity in Hamas. Almost immediately they set about establishing Sharia Law, arguably the most oppressive religious ideology on earth. When the ruling al Fatah faction of the Palestinian Authority was found in opposition to the goals of Hamas an armed insurrection took place which now sees Hamas in full control of Gaza and the tenets of Sharia Law being implemented.

In the case of Gaza and the Palestinians, the democratic process led to less liberty, not more.

In Lebanon, the Iranian and Syrian backed Hezbollah terrorist group has found validation in democratic elections. Using what I term the "Al Capone System" of endearing themselves to little over half of the inhabitants of Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah intimidated and bought off government agencies that provided essential services only to, in turn, provide those services themselves.

Their goal was to ingratiate themselves to the people of Southern Lebanon in return for support in local elections, thus validating a terrorist organization as a legitimate political organization, complete with seats in the Lebanese government. Hezbollah, the terrorist group responsible for more American deaths by terrorist act pre-al Qaeda, used the democratic process to attain political legitimization.

Today, the people of Southern Lebanon live under the constant threat of war, instigated at the hands of Hezbollah and its backers, Iran and Syria. They live amongst the rubble that their elected class -- Hezbollah -- refuses to clear and redevelop, instead, using their financial resources for weapons. Additionally, Hezbollah has begun to institute Sharia Law.

In the case of Lebanon and Hezbollah, the democratic process has led to less liberty and freedom, not more.

And in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Evo Morales's Bolivia, democratic elections have advanced the failed ideology of Socialism into the Western Hemisphere. As Chavez and Morales continue down the paths to establishing Soviet Era Socialism in their countries, companies are being nationalized, and constitutions are being manipulated. Chavez has gone as far as to do away with the constitutionally mandated term-limits opening the door to the possibility of his unending re-election, intimating a position of "president for life."

Chavez and Morales join Castro in demonizing Capitalism's free markets and the United States under the guise of being revolutionaries when in fact all they are bringing to their people is Socialistic oppression while aligning themselves with tyrannical world leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the case of Venezuela and Bolivia manipulation of the democratic process has resulted in a coup-like takeover of free peoples and the establishment of Socialist states. Again, less liberty and freedom being the result.

Like President Bush, I want to see the expansion of freedom around the world. But advancing democracy in countries where the populations haven't yet established an understanding of the responsibilities associated with liberty is inviting the Hezbollahs and the Chavezs of the world to manipulate a fragile process. Democracy cannot thrive legitimately where deceitful forces hold sway.

The United States and the functioning democracies of the world must first advance liberty throughout the world. Once a previously oppressed people taste liberty and understand its value their hunger for democracy will grow out of a natural progression. When a people have to choose between liberty and oppression, the choice is clear. Once they have made their choice tyranny's days are numbered

Colin Powell has an interesting take on the world.

Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted: 09/21/2007

It may have been politically incorrect to publish the thoughts on the sixth anniversary of 9-11, but what Colin Powell had to say to GQ magazine needs to be heard.

Terrorism, said Powell, is not a mortal threat to America.

"What is the greatest threat facing us now?" Powell asked. "People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?"History and common sense teach that Powell speaks truth.

Since 9-11, 100,000 Americans have been murdered -- as many as we lost in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq combined. Yet, not one of these murders was the work of an Islamic terrorist, and all of them, terrible as they are, did not imperil the survival of our republic.
Terrorists can blow up our buildings, assassinate our leaders, and bomb our malls and stadiums. They cannot destroy us. Assume the worst. Terrorists smuggle an atom bomb into New York harbor or into Washington, D.C., and detonate it.

Horrible and horrifying as that would be -- perhaps 100,000 dead and wounded -- it would not mean the end of the United States. It would more likely mean the end of Iran, or whatever nation at which the United States chose to direct its rage and retribution.

Consider. Between 1942 and 1945, Germany and Japan, nations not one-tenth the size of the United States, saw their cities firebombed, and their soldiers and civilians slaughtered in the millions. Japan lost an empire. Germany lost a third of its territory. Both were put under military occupation. Yet, 15 years later, Germany and Japan were the second and third most prosperous nations on Earth, the dynamos of their respective continents, Europe and Asia.

Powell's point is not that terrorism is not a threat. It is that the terror threat must be seen in perspective, that we ought not frighten ourselves to death with our own propaganda, that we cannot allow fear of terror to monopolize our every waking hour or cause us to give up our freedom.

For all the blather of a restored caliphate, the "Islamofascists," as the neocons call them, cannot create or run a modern state, or pose a mortal threat to America. The GNP of the entire Arab world is not equal to Spain's. Oil aside, its exports are equal to Finland's.

Afghanistan and Sudan, under Islamist regimes, were basket cases. Despite the comparisons with Nazi Germany, Iran is unable to build modern fighters or warships and has an economy one-twentieth that of the United States, at best. While we lack the troops to invade Iran, three times the size of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force and Navy could, in weeks, smash Iran's capacity to make war, blockade it and reduce its population to destitution.
Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and use it on us or on Israel, it would invite annihilation.

As a threat, Iran is not remotely in the same league with the Soviet Union of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or even Mussolini's Italy.

And why would Tehran, which has not launched a war since the revolution in 1979, start a war with an America with 10,000 nuclear weapons? If the Iranians are so suicidal, why have they not committed suicide in 30 years by attacking us or Israel?

What makes war with Iran folly is that an all-out war could lead to a break-up of that country, with Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Baluchis going their separate ways, creating fertile enclaves for al-Qaida recruitment and training.

Yet, while talking common sense, Gen. Powell himself reverted to cliche. "America could not survive without immigration."

But this is nonsense. From 1789 to 1845, we had almost no immigration, before the Irish came. Did we not survive? From 1925 to 1965, we had almost no immigration. Yet, we conquered the Great Depression, won World World II, became the greatest power on earth and ended those four decades with an Era of Good Feeling under Ike and JFK unlike any we had known before.

Was the America of the 1940s and 1950s in which Colin Powell grew up in danger of not surviving for lack of immigration?

In our time, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia have split apart. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have broken up into two dozen nations. Terrorism had nothing to do with it. Tribalism had everything to do with it.

Race, ethnicity and religion are the fault lines along which nations like Iraq are coming apart. If America ends, it will not be the work of an Osama bin Laden. As Abraham Lincoln said, it will be by our own hand, it will be by suicide.

Politics of personal distruction - Dems never stop.

I was wondering who would be the Dems focus of personal destruction.  The winner is Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell.  McConnell is in the same category as Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Rumsfield.  I thought it would be Rice.

Demonizing the DNI

by Robert Novak

Posted: 09/27/2007

Rep. Rush D. Holt of New Jersey looked across the House Intelligence Committee table at Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell last week and said evenly: “There’s some doubts about your ability to act as an unbiased source of information.”

Even as an isolated incident, this would be remarkable. A very partisan Democrat with a nearly perfect liberal voting record was telling a senior career intelligence officer that he is a liar. That abuse usually is reserved for political appointees.

But this was no isolated event. Holt is a small cog in a large machine of Congressional Democrats who have defamed McConnell over the past month as a shill for the Bush Administration. That preceded recent Democratic attacks, led by Sen. Hillary Clinton, labeling the respected military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as George W. Bush’s mouthpiece.The pattern is clear. Professional security officials who follow the orders of their commander-in-chief, the President of the United States, can await demonization by the opposition in Congress.

That was nothing Vice Adm. (Ret.) J. M. (Mike) McConnell expected Jan. 7 when President Bush talked him out of a high-paying job in the private sector to become DNI (vacant when John Negroponte, a career Foreign Service officer who was the first person to hold the new, very difficult position, was named Deputy Secretary of State).

Certainly, McConnell is no Republican. As a private citizen, he had been critical of the way the Bush Administration handled pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq. He worked in intelligence for 26 out of his 29 Navy active duty years, the last year four as National Security Agency director during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

McConnell found his hands full directing intelligence throughout a world filled with multiple trouble spots. To non-politician McConnell, the government’s program of listening in on suspected foreign terrorists was a no-brainer that should not have caused him any trouble.

McConnell was a still mainly a stranger to Capitol Hill this summer, and he was an unknown factor there. He surely did not realize he was venturing into treacherous waters when the White House asked him to negotiate with the House of Representatives an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) that permits electronic intercepts without a warrant.

On Aug. 2, McConnell engaged in a conference call with senior House Democrats gathered in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. McConnell said during the conference call: “I’ve spent 40 years of my life in this business, and I’ve been shot at during war. I’ve never felt so much pressure in my life.”

As usual, no Republicans were permitted to take part in the call. Democrats claimed the Admiral agreed to their restrictive FISA version, but he is adamant that he did not. With McConnell thus refusing to give shaky Democrats cover for their soft bill, the party’s leadership had to succumb to the Administration.

Pelosi and company were furious. For the first time in his distinguished career, Mike McConnell had become a target. Holt accused him of an “unsatisfactory, even embarrassing performance.” Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York accused McConnell of accepting Democratic restrictions, “until he spoke to the White House, and now he changed politically.” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois came close to calling the Admiral a liar by saying: “He was not negotiating in good faith.”

Democratic animosity to McConnell was stoked when he told a senior Republican House member that the next time he negotiated with Democrats, he would be sure that a Republican was present -- which I duly reported in my column.

McConnell now was the target for demonization, and he unwittingly perfected the accuracy of the demonizers Aug. 21 when he visited El Paso, Texas, for a conference on border security. He gave the El Paso Times an interview, saying that fewer than a hundred people inside the United States were under surveillance by the National Security Agency compared with thousands overseas whose conversations were tapped. McConnell was trying to show that the program was no threat to Americans’ civil liberties, but he was disclosing classified intelligence.

The DNI has a perfect right to declassify intelligence information, but McConnell had blundered. His best ally in Congress -- Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee -- telephoned McConnell to scold him privately.

But McConnell’s mistake fed into Democratic desires to undermine the nation’s chief intelligence officer. “I’m shocked,” sniped Rep. Jane Harman of California, a Democratic stalwart on the Intelligence Committee. “It is stunning to me to read that he has decided to share these details with a small-town newspaper.”

It won’t be long before Adm. McConnell is in the same category as Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove -- and George W. Bush.

How's the war going? - Syria

Source: Human Events .com
War on the Horizon?

by Robert Maginnis

Posted: 09/28/2007

The war drums are sounding louder in the Mideast and America could be drawn into the coming conflict.  The Bush administration can either ignore the warnings and abandon the region or engage the antagonists. But America’s options and credibility are limited.

The US military is stretched perilously thin and America is not viewed as an honest broker by many.  But “We’re living under a volcano,” argues Mustata Alam, director of security studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.  A study by his organization concludes that “an accidental war” that might escalate to include the US is “high.”

The US is ill-prepared militarily to participate in “an accidental war” if it requires ground forces beyond those already committed to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  US military action to support Israel against potential antagonists Syria, Iran or Iran’s proxy Hezbollah (Party of God) would be limited to air and naval forces. Given the nature of the threat, however, that may be inadequate.Syria is beating the loudest war drums and appears to be the geographical lynchpin to any near-term conflict with Israel.  Syrian President Bashar Assad says his military is preparing for that war.  “We have begun preparations within the framework of our options,” Assad told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Anba.

Syria has significant armed forces totaling more than 380,000 men, with another 130,000 troops in reserve. Its arsenal includes approximately 3,700 tanks and some 510 combat aircraft.  Most of Assad’s military equipment, however, consists of relics from the former Soviet Union. 

Syria has recently taken some war-preparatory moves to include modernizing its military.

• On Sept 25, Syria practiced a nation-wide emergency drill to prepare its home front for possible states of emergency that could include a war with Israel.

• Syria added a division along the Golan Heights and positioned thousands of medium and long-range rockets capable of striking most of Israel.

• Syria is also preparing chemical weapons.  On July 26, it was reported that Syrian and Iranian engineers had a deadly accident while trying to arm a Scud-C missile with a mustard gas warhead.  Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that Syria manufactures several hundred tons of chemical warfare agents like VX and Sarin annually.

• Syria is buying sophisticated Russian weapons. This year Syria took delivery of MIG-31E interceptors capable of simultaneously shooting several targets more than 110 miles away and the Pantsyr-S1E self-propelled anti-aircraft gun and missile system.

In addition, Syria’s relationship with rogues Iran and North Korea as well as Hezbollah have earned her special status as the newest member of the axis of evil. 

In 2005, Syria signed a mutual defense pact with Iran.  Syria’s defense minister, Hassan Turkmani, explained “We can have a common front against Israel’s threats.”  Iran assists Syria in developing chemical weapons and has been permitted to base long-range Shabab ballistic missiles on Syrian soil.  Recently, an Iranian news web site boasted that "Iran will shoot 600 missiles at Israel if it is attacked."

Iran uses Syria as a conduit to resupply Hezbollah.  After the 2006 34-day war, Tehran rearmed and financed Hezbollah through Syrian middlemen to prepare the terror group for the next battle with Israel.  Those preparations appear to be nearing completion.

An Iranian-funded Lebanese road has been built on the Litani River’s northern bank.  The area south of the river to the Israeli border – 12 miles – is patrolled by United Nations peacekeeping forces sent there after the 2006 war, allegedly to disarm Hezbollah. 

Most of the land north of the road has been purchased by Shia businessmen with Tehran’s help.  Numerous small villages protected by guards toting AK-47s are being built along the road.  It’s believed that these villages include extensive tunnels, fortifications and rocket launcher sites like those installed in the villages south of the Litani prior to the 2006 war. 

Hezbollah’s general secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah admits that Hezbollah is “transporting weapons to the front” and, he boasts “We have weapons of all kinds and quantities.”  “We are certain that we can reach” Tel Aviv with these weapons, Nasrallah said.

North Korea, Syria’s partner, helps by directing the construction of silos and tunnels near the cities of Hama and Aleppo, by selling Syria sophisticated rockets, providing chemical weapons know-how, and, possibly, selling nuclear technology to Syria.

On August 14, North Korean minister of foreign trade Rim Kyong Man signed a protocol with Syria on “cooperation in trade and science and technology.”  Syrian rocket engineers have frequently visited Pyongyang reportedly to acquire missile technology such as the telemetry – i.e., targeting - -data to help Syria develop a sophisticated class of Scud missiles with sufficient range to reach all Israel. 

The US worries that North Korea may be transferring nuclear technologies to countries like Syria.  On October 9, 2006, hours after the Kim Jong-il regime tested its first nuclear device, President Bush warned Pyongyang against the “transfer of nuclear weapons or material …. Such transfers would be considered a grave threat to the United States….”  A May 2006 US report confirmed that Pakistani supplier A. Q. Khan had already “offered nuclear technology and hardware to Syria.”

Bush’s warning may explain Israel’s September 6 bombing of a Syrian facility north of Raqqa.  Although no details are available, many governments confirm that Israeli fighters bombed the facility. 

One possible reason for the attack is that North Korea shipped nuclear equipment to Syria which was then transported to Raqqa. While the facts are unclear, the Washington Post reported the US knew about the attack beforehand and may have provided confirming intelligence. 

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave us a glimpse under the veil of secrecy surrounding the incident saying Israel did in fact attack targets in Syria. His top adviser, Mossad veteran Uzi Arad, said: "I do know what happened, and when it comes out it will stun everyone." 

The Jerusalem Post confirmed that the raid was against a North Korean-supplied nuclear installation.  Israel’s commander of military intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Vadlin claims the attack restored Israel’s deterrent posture which was weakened by the 2006 Lebanon war.

It may be a bit optimistic to expect a single attack to turn back the clock to the days when Israel’s neighbors were spell-bound by Israel’s military might.  That view was shattered by the inconclusive war with Hezbollah.

The Bush administration will host peace talks this fall to address the ongoing Palestinian issue and Syria is expected to participate.  Those talks ought to extend beyond the Israeli-Palestinian crises to confront the deafening war drums shaking Mideast peace.  Those talks should set security, diplomatic and economic courses of action that prevent the region from stumbling into “an accidental war” created by the Mideast’s new axis of evil.

Dems want to tax and spend.

Taxes, Not Solutions

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:20 PM PT

       

Politics: From powerful members of Congress to leading presidential candidates, Democrats think raising taxes on the middle class is the answer to everything. It's time to start thinking outside the government coffers.

---

Related Topics: Budget & Tax Policy

---

"King of Pain" might be a new nickname for the longest-serving member of Congress, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell of Michigan.

Dingell is warning that a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth is needed to stop global warming — namely a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, a $50-per-ton carbon tax, and the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction for larger homes.

Most of the new tax money would reportedly go toward new highways, mass transit, Social Security, health care and helping the poor with their energy bills. How exactly any of that new government spending reduces greenhouse gases remains a mystery.

"This is going to cause pain," the imposing 81-year-old, 6-foot-2 congressman, known as "Big John" and "The Truck," admitted to the Associated Press this week, adding that he wants to make sure "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of cutting greenhouse gases.

To the middle class, the mortgage interest deduction is a sacred cow; politicians who suggest killing it tend not to fare well.

Take former Rep. Tom Downey of Long Island, N.Y., a rising young telegenic Democratic star. He lost his seat 15 years ago after suggesting that the tax break might have to go. But with nearly 52 years in the House providing job security, Dingell has little to fear.

On the campaign trail, meanwhile, Democrats are falling all over themselves suggesting increases in the 6.2% Social Security tax — one of the biggest levies borne by middle-class taxpayers. At a Dartmouth College debate Wednesday night, Sens. Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, all wanted the tax applied to a larger share of Americans' incomes.

But the front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, wouldn't answer the question, saying she's "not putting anything on the proverbial table." Like her husband, she's shrewdly keeping her mouth shut about the pain until after Election Day.

Social Security, a program hurtling toward bankruptcy, is not in need of new taxes, but new thinking. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (not yet a presidential candidate) advises, it should be "taken away from the politicians so the younger generation can rely on it." They need the option of having a personal account "that they can invest to get a bigger retirement income."

Other fiscally doomed entitlements, such as Medicare, are also in need of innovative solutions. The Democrats' tired old ideas — more taxes and new spending — are not the answers.

if the Club for Growth is not supporting a Republican (or is opposing one), it is because that Republican is an ECONOMIC FISCAL LIBERAL

July 12, 2006

Club Allies Give Davis an Earful

From today's Washington Times:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, the Virginia Republican who has assumed leadership of his party's more liberal members of Congress, said yesterday that conservative groups such as the Club for Growth are hurting the party by refusing to help candidates who don't pass their "litmus test" and by attacking some incumbent Republicans.

You see, under Davis' logic, if a member of Congress has a "R" next to their name, then they automatically become "off limits" to attack regardless of their ideology. (NOTE: That's probably why Davis voted YES on the 527 bill -- he wants to squash political free speech when it threatens the viability of his career and the careers of his liberal colleagues)

Fiscal conservatives know better.  Coming to the Club's defense, Jon Fleishman of the venerable Flash Report blog, writes:

I think that Representative Davis is trying to mislead people from the rather obvious fact -- if the Club for Growth is not supporting a Republican (or is opposing one), it is because that Republican is an ECONOMIC FISCAL LIBERAL who is ENDANGERING OUR MAJORITY by opposing the policy goals...[O]ver and over and over, "Main Street" Republicans, hiding behind rhetoric and excuses, play a pivital role in endangering the GOP majority by stopping us from passing true and meaningful reforms that address the fiscal woes of America, and tries to undo this unprecidented expansion of the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy.

And Matt Lewis, writing for the Human Events blog, states:

Once again, Tom Davis proves why he is one of my all-time least favorite Republicans...Bottom line: The Club for Growth is one of the most effective conservative groups in America.

Thanks for the props, guys.  Onward and upward.

Posted at Andrew Roth at 5:02 PM

Believe Hillary she won't raise taxes on the middle class. Right.

Hillary's Social Security Solution: Stop Funding 'Tax Cuts for the Wealthy and the War in Iraq'
Democratic presidential candidate Clinton already proposed rolling back Bush tax cuts to fund her health care proposal.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
9/27/2007 4:43:16 PM

How many campaign promises can be funded by doing away with the Bush tax cuts?

 

At an AARP candidate forum in Davenport, Iowa, on September 20, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed averting a Social Security crisis could be done partly with that strategy.

 

“So the first thing is, let’s get back to doing what worked in the ‘90s to shore up Social Security,” Clinton said. “Let’s quit taking money from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and the war in Iraq. That’s the way to start having a solvent Social Security future.”

 

However, Clinton already has plans for any rollback of the Bush “tax cuts for the wealthy.” According to Clinton’s Web site, her $110-billion health care plan would be financed in part by rolling back President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts for those in the top two tax brackets.

 

And of course, Clinton’s logic assumes that there is a Social Security Trust Fund with money in it, which is untrue.

“There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any,” wrote Social Security expert David John of The Heritage Foundation. “The Social Security trust fund is merely an accounting device filled with IOUs that future taxpayers must repay.”

But Clinton acted as though Republicans had taken away money that had been in the trust fund. 

“When my husband left office with a balanced budget and a surplus, the projection was that Social Security was solvent until 2055, giving us plenty of time to deal with the aging of the baby boomers and everything else,” Clinton said. “Now after seven years of President Bush and an irresponsible Republican Congress, the life of the Social Security trust fund has been cut to 2041.”

 

A September 27 article by Jed Graham in Investor’s Business Daily reported that back in 2001, the trustees’ report on Social Security’s financial status projected the fund would dry up in 2038.

 

According the IBD article, the projection of Social Security solvency until 2055 was based on the assumption government surpluses would continue beyond the Clinton presidency and a portion of the surpluses would be invested in the stock market.

 

“But those surpluses vanished by 2002,” Graham wrote. “Recession, war and spending increases ushered in a new era of deficits, and there's no reason to believe the next president will have large surpluses to work with.”