dead horses

As much as I despise the beating of dead horses, I'm about to engage it a bit of it.

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies.

As I recall, Nancy Pelosi beat the drum about the 9/11 Commission repeatedly. Oh look, Sister Toldjah has, in fact, documented this: Promises made, promises broken

Not to mention the corruption issue and the complete lack of understand of Iraq and terrorism which I hint at in my previous post: for all his faults

I saw the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations as a real positive of the Democrat take-over of Congress. Now, I'm having a hard time finding any positives.

for all his faults

For all President Bush's faults, at least he knows who the bad guys are.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is "sad" that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Somebody please tell me where the 9/11 Commission discussed the issue of Al Qaeda inciting sectarian violence in post-war Iraq. Thought so. Tell me again why this lady should influence the national dialogue? agenda?

Oh, and to address the substance of Pelosi's assertion: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29434212.htm

DUBAI, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Iraq's al Qaeda wing on Wednesday condemned Pope Benedict's visit to Turkey as part of a crusade against Islam...

Make a sentence with these words: Denial, River, Egypt.

So, take this, add it to my previos post, the Murtha fiasco, the Hastings debacle...and you know why I find it so hard to vote for most democrats.

Friends, Not

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28diplo.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — As President Bush and his top diplomats try to halt the downward spiral in Iraq and Lebanon, they seem intent on their strategy of talking only to Arab friends, despite increasing calls inside and outside the administration for them to reach out to Iran and Syria as well.

And with good reason.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/world/middleeast/28military.html

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

People need to understand that Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, are not "our friends". The countries do not work with us to achieve mutual interests. They work against us to achieve their own interests. What are our interests? Peace, stability, generally representative goverments, each of these has an economic strain as well. What are Iranian interests? Nuclear Weapons, eliminating the Zionist Entity, regional hegemony, theocracy.

Treachery at the NYT

A little background: German American Bund

Wow. Would Americans have stood for this in 1939:

Times reporters tip off Bund

Two NYT reporters alerted members of the German-American Bund to an imminent FBI raid placing officers at risk and marginalizing the effect of the raid from the perspective of law enforcement. Additionally, the NYT is refusing to release records of communication between its reporters and Bund members and taking its case to the Supreme Court.

No? Then why do we put up with it now?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006425.htm
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/047951.php
http://wizbangblog.com...new-york-times.php

Timing is everything. This happened Dec. 14 2001. Just 3 months after 9/11.

French Hypocrisy

French troops in Lebanon authorized to engage Israeli flyovers (but not to stop arms shipments to Hezbollah).

In other news, anti-semitic race riot after a soccer match in France leaves one dead and one seriously wounded.

What else can I say?

Syrian Influence

Is this what Syrian contributions to Iraqi peace and democracy will look like?

Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated

And here's a bonus lesson in media literacy folks: Compare my title (Lebanese Minister for Industry Assassinated) to the BBC's (Lebanese Christian leader killed).

In the larger picture, I wonder if today's killing is related to this?
Hezbollah urges mass protests in Lebanon Here are some highlight from the piece:

Hezbollah's leader urged his followers to prepare for mass demonstrations to topple the government...We do not want riots...Shortly after Nasrallah's speech was broadcast, the sounds of gunfire and fireworks reverberated across Beirut's predominantly Shiite southern suburbs...

"Fireworks" eh? Sort of like, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...one man's RPG is another man's firecracker?

Terror Plot Foiled

Apparently, a terrorist plot involving an El Al flight out of Germany was foiled recently. In the ultra-short BBC report on this there's no mention of who might have been involved.

Come to find out, they were Jordanians, from "Palestine", and from other Arab states.

Why would they choose to act in Germany? Is there any history there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

How about:

• offering "unlimited sums of money to release the hostages"


• failed rescue attempts


• releasing captured perpetrators as a direct result of subsequent terrorist activity

Reason enough?

Reading: An Essential Skill

On a recent business trip I was able to do some reading.

America's Secret War by George Friedman, the CEO of StratFor is an interesting read. The book presents a big picture view of the war on terror (yes, which includes Iraq) and the interplay between the US, its allies, and 'others'.

America Alone by Mark Steyn is not for the weak-minded. One would hope his predictions will not come to pass but, the constant barrage of news from around the world is not encouraging.

And I've nearly finished State of Denial by Bob Woodward. I haven't really come to many conclusions about what's presented in this book yet. It's necessarily a bit dry but, worth reading.

Digging for a Plan

I went digging around for specifics on 'a plan' for dealing with Iraq from a leading Democrat other than stay the course or cut-and-run. I found one in a transcript from NewsHour:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.

Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.

The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

Sigh. So, apparently, according to Iraqis and others in the region, our being in Iraq is not making America safer. Is that credible?

We are not bringing stability to the region. If preventing a democratically elected government from falling prey to Al-Qaeda and Iranian backed militias isn't in the aid of stability I don't know what is.

She wants us to redeploy outside of Iraq. I'm sorry but, that's newspeak for withdraw.

Redeploy outside of Iraq. At the same time disarm the militias. Boys and girls, we're leaving now, as we do, would you please pass your guns and IEDs to the left and front of the class? Thank you kids, yes, that's very good...Good luck with that.

And this part: The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?

What does he mean? He's said it repeatedly and it was given to you as background as part of this question. And by the way, victory is *not* subjective. Last time I checked, Madame Pelosi is an elected representative in the US House of Representatives. She took an Oath of Office. Perhaps she needs a refresher?

Setting the Stage

We've cleaned House (so to speak). Now, let's set the stage:

There have been no domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Unemployment is currently 4.4% including gains of 92,000 jobs in October, 148,000 jobs in September, and 230,000 jobs in August. (source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Dow Jones: 12,176.54 (+19.77), NASDAQ 2,384.94 (+9.06), S&P 500 1,385.72 (+2.88)
A barrel of oil: $59.83 (+0.90)
A gallon of gas in the USA: $2.21
A gallon of gas in NY State: $2.37

Iraq is a mess. Al Qaeda is in Iraq, attempting to de-stabilize the government. Saddam has been convicted of crimes against humanity and Iran is acting through Shite militias to de-stabilize the government.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is offering to hold talks with Taliban leaders. And members of the same Taliban/Al-Qaeda alliance are threatening the Pakistani government on a nearly daily basis and on some days, killing dozens.

Al Qaeda activity in both of these regions is in following with their agenda of overthrowing non-Islamic Regimes in Muslim majority nations as part of an effort to bring about the formation of 'The Caliphate'. A state ruled by Sharia Law. (CS Monitor, Daniel Pipes)

EDIT: Forgot one thing: From AP via Yahoo, Hamas is now calling on Muslims to attack Americans.

What will a post a year from now look like?

More Fantastic Insight

More fantastic insight into the situation in Iraq that you won't see on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, or the sineman. http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/inside_iraq.php

Certainly Iraq is at a critical juncture in its development as a new and independent state. Sunni insurgents are unwilling to consider reconciliation as long as it appears Sadr's death squads will not be addressed by the central government. Maliki is hedging his bets as long as it appear the U.S. may withdraw forces. The much anticipated Baker report on the recommendations for the course on Iraq will be released in the near future. The impression of the report is the U.S. will leave the country to the predations of al-Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads. Iran and Sadr will push the limits as long as the U.S. appears weak and at the mercy of a fickle electorate. Al-Qaeda and Sadr watch the polls and read the Western media, and ratchet up the violence as election season nears. We have captured al-Qaeda documents that prove this.

Everyone should read it all.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers

I will freely admit to falling into the category of conservative atheist as stated in this piece...which I found to be a great read not only because of how much of it rang true to me but, because of how much I had to research before I could truely appreciate it.

Gates of Vienna: The True Believers