Why To Trust McCain On Iraq

In the Sunday New York Times, there appeared an article which, more than any other, showed why John McCain is the candidate to trust on the issue of Iraq. Much has been made about McCain's military credentials and his experience, but the article answered a questioned that anti-war activists have been throwing around since the start of the war. In fact Michael Moore asked the question of almost every pundit he argued with during the 2004 presidential campaign. Would you want your child to serve in Iraq?

In John McCain's case, the question is irrelevant. His son is already there. (Read the article) So John McCain can honestly look at the issue from several points of view. Not only can he look at it from the point of view of commander-in-chief, who must figure out what is best for the country; not only can he look at from the point of view of a former prisoner-of-war who has seen the horrors of war first hand; but he can look at it as the father of a soldier who would be affected by any decision he would make.

While Obama and Clinton attempt to make the argument that a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of George W. Bush, McCain's own record proves that wrong. McCain has fought against the use of torture that the Bush administration has advocated. He was among the first to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, for mishandling the war effort. The fact that both McCain and Bush backed the surge also serves to highlight the differences. McCain proposed such action well in advance of Bush eventually agreeing to it.

Clearly, the war has turned around since McCain's recommendations were acted on. While Iraq is still not where we like it to be, it is on the right track. Even the Democratic National Committee must recognize this, as evidenced by his outright manipulation of McCain's "100 years" remark. (See Factcheck.org's analysis of the distortion)

There is no simple solution to the war. We would all like our soldiers to come home has soon as possible. The candidate best able to do that safely would seem to be John McCain.

U.S. v Terrorists

In a discussion about whether or not Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak at Columbia, I was confronted by the statement that "Bin Laden's videotapes are full of stuff that CNN doesn't report." It sounds as though the speaker believes Bin Laden is more credible than CNN.

Now I'm not a big fan of CNN, but I think they're a lot more credible than Bin Laden. But the exchange brought a quesion to my mind. After listening to the Iranian president and CNN and reading transcripts of Bin Laden's tapes, it sounds like they're campaigning for the democrats.

Why would terrorists want the Democrats to win?

I don't have an answer, I'm just putting the question out there.

The View From Ramadi

If you listen to most major media outlets, and certainly most Democrats, the words Iraq success story is a contradiction in terms. But anyone who wants to know what is really going on in Iraq, and how we can work with the Iraqi people, should read Michael J. Totten's dispatch from Ramadi.

The truth is amazing.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001517.html

Greenspan Misses The Boat

Alan Greenspan has been in the spotlight with his new book. While I genuinely respect the man, I am greatly disappointed in some of his statements. One in particular is where he states that the Iraq War is about oil.

If the Iraq War were truly about oil, it would have been a lot easier on us. First of all, if we're there for the oil, then all we would have to worry about it would be protecting the oil fields. Except look at the troop deployments. The vast majority of them are nowhere near the oil. How are we supposed to be fighting for oil when we deploy troops elsewhere.

Another problem with this erroneous yet popular theory is that we were in Iraq before. Remember operation Desert Storm. If all we wanted was oil, we could have taken it then.

The war for oil theory is a big with people who don't understand what is going on because it is simple and straight forward. As the saying goes, every problem has a simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answer. War for oil is the simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answer to the question "Why are we in Iraq?" The real answer has to do with dictators, human rights, stopping terrorism, and taking responsibility for our actions, none of which is good for a sound bite.

Anti-War Activists Resort To Name Calling

Things are getting out of hand when people can't tell fact from opinion. When General Petraeus testified in front of Congress, he gave the facts about what has been happening in Iraq. Moveon.org accused him of lying because his facts didn't support their opinions. It couldn't that their opinion is incorrect, Petraeus must have lied. An editorial in the New York Times did the same thing. Facts are facts.

With no evidence to back up their claims, and no way to support their own argument, anti-war activists have resorted to name calling to try to discredit General Petraeus. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine. One of the great things about this country is we're allowed to disagree with our leaders. But if you have to resort to name calling instead of intelligent debate, you've already lost.

Iraq Misses Benchmarks. How Did Democrats Do?

With the testimony of General Petraeus making it clear that troops are still needed in Iraq, Democrats are expected to press that the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that were set for it. How is that different from our government?

Iraq had benchmarks set by the U.S. government. The Democratic Congress set its own benchmarks. Iraq is a completely new government, with no member being in power prior to the U.S. military effort. Many Democratic members of Congress have been in office for years, and in some cases decades. So why does the Democrat-controlled Congress expect this new government to meet benchmarks it didn't set, when they can't meet the promises they made in their own campaigns?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has asked for the troops to stay. Can we really be an occupying force or invaders, as some would portray us, if a democratically-elected government is asking us not to go?

It is true that we cannot keep an expanded force in Iraq forever. The strain is wearing on our armed forces. But do people really believe that Al-Queda has an unlimited number of terrorists and an unlimited budget. They will fight us where we are. If fighting in Iraq keeps them of American soil, why should be bring the troops home and fight them here?

France Surrenders Iraq

Only the French could surrender in a war they're not in. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is calling for a timetable for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq.

Shocking. a country that didn't want us in Iraq in the first place wants to announce to the terrorists when we're leaving. Sarkozy also made recommendation to the European Union how things should be run there.

Does he realize France is not a major power anymore. Sarkozy seems to be trying to convince the world that France, which has been described by diplomats as a "mid-level power," still matters. How? By attempting to takeover the EU and influence U.S. military decisions. But French military advice is pretty much limited to raising a white flag, so that's what they suggest.

Bush 32, Congress 18

Democrats swept into office last November stating they had a mandate for a change. They pointed to President Bush's low approval ratings and said they needed to take charge. Since they entered office Bush's approval rating is up to 32% while their own is down to 18%.

Congress promised more than they could ever have delivered and failed miserably. Now, the American people are telling them they don't have a mandate, they have the lowest approval rating in history.

And how does this bode for those presidential candidates? How can we lend any credibility to promises by Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, etc. when they have failed so miserably at the jobs they were elected to do.

Of course the Democrats point squarely to the Republicans, saying they are obstructing the Democrats. It takes two to tango. Neither side has wanted to work with the other, but it was the Democrats who stood to lose the most. Now, the Democratic leadership is figuring out how to spin what it is expected to be a positive report on Iraq into more doom and gloom.

If Congress wants its approval ratings to go up, they need to start listening to the people of America and not to the vocal minority of idiots that are holding the parties hostage.

What Did You Do To Win The Iraq War?

A group called Freedom's Watch is starting an ad campaign to convince wavering politicians not to "cut and run." The campaign has inflamed anti-war activists who claim the war is lost, we need to pull out. If the anti-war activists really want us out of Iraq, what are they doing about it, other than complaining? The simplest way to get our troops home is to win the war, so what are activists doing to win the war.

The biggest complaint seems to be "this is a war for oil." If this were true, and the point is simply to feed America's need for oil, activists should be fighting to use less oil. How much oil was do you think was wasted by Cindy Sheehan's movement. Every car that drove a supporter, every plastic cup that a protester drank from, every bottle of water used, all came from oil. If you believe we're there for oil, stop using so much of it.

If you believe that the war is not effective as a means of stopping terrorists, you should be working to secure our borders. How can we protect ourselves if we don't know who is crossing our borders?

In World War II, every American fought the war. Food and energy were rationed. Since then, American citizens have looked at wars as something that just the military fights. That simply isn't the case. If you want to stop a war, then do something to win it. Don't just whine.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

I've come to expect stupidity from Washington DC. After all, politicians say more stupid things than anyone else. But House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) took the bobby prize for his comment that a good report on Iraq from General Petraeus would be "a problem."

How can a good report be a problem? Apparently, Clyburn thinks we should fail in our endeavors in Iraq. It seems he wants reality to mold itself to his preconceived notions.

Of course stupidity isn't limited to politicians. Let's not forget the lawyers.

Apple is being sued because the battery in the iPhone cannot be removed by the owner. Upon realizing this Jose Trujillo, rather than just returning it, decided to sue and seek class action status for his lawsuit. His lawyer, whose court filings border on the ludicrous and have been widely disparaged in the media, apparently can't spell or read. The filings read as though they were written by an elementary school student and the basic premises of the lawsuit aren't even close to real.

People need to realize that just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

The Right To Be Naive

Everyone is familiar with the three inalienable rights of Americans: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It seems that lately the right to be naive has been added to this list, and more people are showing their naivete, if not outright ignorance in public. The latest is Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy Sheehan became the face of the anti-war movement after publicly disgracing her son, a soldier, by disparaging everything he had done prior to his death. Now she's at it again, threatening to run against Nancy Pelosi unless she brings impeachment proceedings against President Bush. So let's count the ways in which Sheehan is showing that she doesn't have a clue how things work.

1) Despite the unpopularity of George W. Bush, he hasn't done anything impeachable, at least at the time of this writing. Even assuming he lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war, that isn't a "high crime or misdemeanor," which is the standard that impeachment has to meet. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because he lied about Monica Lewinsky to the public. He was impeached because he lied about it under oath, which is perjury. He committed a crime, although it was a pretty stupid crime that he should have been man enough to avoid. Even if every negative thing written about President Bush is true, none of it qualifies as impeachable.

2) Sheehan thinks that Congress can just pull our troops out of Iraq. Congress doesn't have that ability, only the president does. Congress can influence the president, and they can make things difficult for him, but they can't make the decision. Pelosi has done what it is her power, to expect more is naive.

3) Sheehan thinks she could be a congresswoman. To even consider that she's qualified to run for Congress is ridiculous. You need to be more than a one trick pony to be a politician. Ask Ned Lamont, who thought he could be a Senator on just the anti-war movement. He got enough ignorant people to turn out to get him past the primary, but in a general he never stood a chance.

4) Even if she did win, she thinks she would have Pelosi's power. Winning the seat doesn't transfer the power. She would still be a freshman with everybody else in front of her. On top of that, she would be an independent with no one to caucus with, limiting her even more.

Sheehan has the right to her opinion. She has the right to speak out against the government. She also has the right to make a complete ass of herself if she wants.

Votes vs. Soundbites

Congress has passed an increase to the minimum wage. Workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, called the increase one of Òthe proudest achievements of this new Congress.Ó

Kennedy said. ÒDemocrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.Ó

So what's the problem with this? What Kennedy isn't saying is that he voted against the bill. So did Senators Clinton, Obama, and Dodd. Why? The minimum wage was raised as part of the bill that funded our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 87% of Americans said we should finance the war and 69% said we should have benchmarks. So we have a bill that 87% of Americans support, that provides funds for our troops AND raises the minimum wage, and four of the most vocal Senators, three of whom are running for President, voted against it.

They voted against "the proudest moment of this new Congress." We should not forget this.

Damn The Security, There's An Election To Win

Yesterday, three Democratic senators who are running for President showed us just what they are made of. Unlike the majority of the Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike), Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted to abandon our troops in Iraq and cut off their funds completely. Never mind that it would put our troops in more danger than they are in. Never mind the fact that it would abandon the Iraqi people again. (Is it any wonder that people don't believe we can see things through with cut and run policies like this?) Never mind the fact that it would give Al-Qaeda a new home from which to plan the next 9/11. They voted to suck up to organizations like Moveon.org, who represent their own agenda, not that of the American people.

As President, your job is to represent the country. If Clinton, Dodd, and Obama seriously want the job, they should start by not voting to throw our soldiers under a bus.

The Week That Was: April 28 - May 4

Microsoft eyes Yahoo takeover

Microsoft announced it was in talks to buy internet giant Yahoo. Frustrated with its inability to compete with Google, Microsoft is looking for an acquisition that will keep it relevant on the internet. While the deal is an excellent one for Microsoft, it can only spell disaster for Yahoo. Microsoft's continuing stumbles outside of the operating system and its office suite will overwhelm Yahoo's properties and propel Google further. The move smells of desperation, which is never a good way to make business decisions.

Digging its own grave

News site Digg was overwhelmed by DRM opponents posting the latest discovery on how to break copy-protected HD-DVDs. Digg received a cease-and-desist order from the HD-DVD consortium, which it tried to comply with. Digg's audience overwhelmed the company's ability to remove posts until it finally gave up. The incident showcases why user-controlled news sites are unreliable. Digg users weren't interested in news, just stealing content. Newsflash: despite being repeated ad nauseum, information doesn't "want" to be free. People (and companies) who create intellectual property have the right to license just the uses they feel like licensing. Spending $20 on a movie doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. While some of the DRM systems out there impose draconian conditions on their use, and the RIAA has apparently gone lawsuit happy, that doesn't make this right either.

Bush vetoes war funding bill

Just as he promised, President Bush vetoed the war spending bill that Democrats tied into withdrawal terms. Congress and the President will go head to head until the war is funded. However, Democrats in Congress are losing credibility by the minute as they try to micro manage the war. Speaker Nancy Pelosi blew off war briefings this week, claiming she didn't have time for them. If you're going to make decisions about the war, you need to know what's actually going on.

Imus not finished yet

Embattled radio personality Don Imus is striking back with a lawsuit against CBS. Suing for breach of contract, CBS has encouraged Imus to push the line in the past and therefore can't then fire him for doing what they expected. Past the lawsuit, Imus is expected to take the summer off and return to the airwaves, either on broadcast or satellite, before too long.

And that was the week that was.