Safety, Security, Freedom

I have thought long and hard over the past several years about the above mentioned items for my writings this week and feel I should air my opinions on these matters.

Way back near the turn of the century we all remember when terrorists attacked us on our own soil. What followed amazed me and continues to this very day. The champions of freedom decided that from then on going forward, for safety and security, our freedoms should be diminished. There is and always will be an eternal tug of war that balances security with freedom but I don’t think there has to be. I must admit I think it is odd that the people who foisted this upon us would a few short years later shriek with all their might that an opposing political party was robbing the people of their God given freedoms would be the same ones who used fear to take other freedoms.

The Patriot Act allows our government to search United States citizens without approval by the courts showing cause but merely by suspecting citizens of wrongdoing. I allow our government to detain us for no predetermined amount of time and without the ability to face our accusers or the right to a speedy trial by a jury of our peers. Let this all soak in for a moment if you were unaware. Any person who is a member of the NRA or ACLU has to cringe at this loss of rights; any person who wants a return to a more constitutional way of doing things must be disgusted by these laws. Republicans say and do nothing about the Patriot Act, they thought the damn thing up, but rest assured the Democrats with a super majority will address this clearly unconstitional law, nothing, nada, squat. Both parties refuse to address it under what I am sure is the guise that it is keeping us safe and if a few citizens get unjustly labeled an enemy combatant, I am sure the government has good reason, or the guy is sleeping with the wrong guys’ wife. But be reassuered that maybe someday the supreme court will weigh in on this one.

Another dandy imposed by the newly minted Department of Homeland Security was the wonderful TSA that costs us all dearly, pays poorly, and frisks us all regularly. I object to the TSA just on a cost basis alone and I don’t think they do a whole lot to keep us safe anyway but here is what I think on the entire boondoggle. We shouldn’t have a Dept. of Homeland Security, the FBI and NSA can more than handle it, we shouldn’t have a Patriot Act that robs us of freedoms. I think the price of freedom, true freedom, is much, much higher. I think the price of freepom is higher than our young men crossing an ocean, spilling their blood, and dying on some foreign soil. I think the price of freedom demands more than just my life, the true price of freedom is the lives of my children. Security should do what it can but to truly be free we must ALL be willing to lay down our lives for it. I may very well be wrong but I would rather live a truly free life and risk it being taken by someone who hates it for me, than give them to others, including my own government. Do away with the TSA and DHS, bomb us and destroy a major city or two if you must, just know you are killing and bombing people that are free, and will always be so, until we take it away from ourselves.

Lest Anyone Forget We Are At War Still

It seems in talking with people that many have forgotten we are in a war still. There is still an enemy that wants us dead. So when this story hit the wire I decided to share it lest anyone forget we are at war and those thugs are still fighting.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday. In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

First, the partisan hacks that opposed the President of the United States from 2001- 2009 failed to respect that he was our country's leader. They would jump on board any foreigner's criticism back then. That, in my view is abandoning your nation, not loving your nation and I have less respect for those idiots. So, you Lefties that continually tried to undermine our nation that way get no place at the foreign policy table.

Next is to Zawahiri. You don't get to call our leader a liar and still hold any respect or credibility. I can sit here and go "liar liar" but I would need evidence. And then it becomes an internal thing, like a family, where we keep a united front outside the house but deal with the issues inside. I know there are people out there who put their wing above the country (like the aforementioned Leftists) but we stayed united despite those folks. And we will stay United now.

"The battle isn't over, but it has started," Zawahiri said, urging "every sincere person in Egypt" to "wage a popular campaign to incite and preach in order to complete the revolution, which was aborted. "The revolution in Egypt must continue and the Muslim Ummah must offer sacrifices until it achieves what it wants and until it snatches from the corrupt forces ... the dignity and honor of Egypt."

That means Western friendly from Egypt is under attack.

Zawahiri said liberating Omar Abdul Rahman, an Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and inmates at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay was an "obligatory duty for every Muslim." "I call upon Muslims to capture citizens of the countries that wage wars against Muslims," he said.

And there is the call to kidnap Westerners. Cowardly tactic, but we already knew that about these scumbags.

And for the daft folks who think these people can be reasoned with remember two things. First, these people want Shariah law. Don't know what that is then go look it up. The short version is to think of the Old Testament with the most sexist and racist twists. Second, look at the following quote:

"Our captives or Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahamn will not be liberated except through force, for it is the only language that they understand."

Now for our break for some comic relief.

"Obama must admit he and his allies are standing in the defeated line, and that Osama bin Laden, may Allah have mercy on him, and the rest of the Mujahideen and the Muslim Ummah are standing in the victorious line, whether anyone likes it or not."

Lol. Bin Laden died in battle. His enemies outlasted him, bested him, killed him. He is the loser. Game Over.

Was There Any Doubt That He Knew

We knew it was just a matter of time before some evidence of come out. Every since the attacks on the Embassy in Benghazi and the nearly two weeks of denying the fact that it was a coordinated terrorist attack most of us the paid attention to this kind of thing knew that Obama new about the attacks at some point. Make that at some point very early on.

Eating some of that suspicion, and I admit that this is probably not as fair as it should be, is the fact that I do not trust Obama any further than I can throw him upwind. To be fair, there are not many politicians at the national level that I trust any further than I can throw up wind.

Now we have the inevitable leak of the emails that show Obama and the White House actually did know that it was a terrorist attack and that a group linked to al Qaeda was claiming responsibility.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

Okay, so the emails show that there was a coordinated attack, but they don't show that the White House knew or that they were even recipient on those emails. Ah, but wait. There's more.

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11. [Emphasis added]

I am not sure what I believe is the worst part of this. There is the fact that the President has been lying about what he knew and that's bad. There is the fact that there are the lemmings across the nation who will believe that the President is innocent in all of this. That is just scary. And I mean scary in the sense that people are so stupid to believe that there is nothing wrong with what is going on. There is the fact that we have a "leader" who doesn't respect the people on the ground enough to try to protect them, or who doesn't respect enough the military who would do the protecting enough to help with their lives being in danger. Instead he acts like it is just politics as usual.

That is just pathetic.

Iraq Study Report & Troop Reduction Not Recommended

Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/859263.html

Experts advise (President) Bush not to reduce troops despite what the Iraq Study Report says. This story comes out by the Washington Post (And MSNBC also mentions that the ARMY Also wants more troops). This fly’s in the face of the Iraq Study Report, and I doubt you will see this in the Star Tribune. Let me show you why I feel that following the Iraq Study report is... Dumb.

To quote the Associated Press, with a completely non-bias, center leaning, middle of the road, objective article titled "Panel: Bush's Iraq Policies have failed:"

Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great

Wow, this sounds familure. World War II... Lots of US Soldiers died for a war with violence that escalated the further the war went on with no guarantee of success and huge huge consequences of failure. The only thing that’s not the same between the two (the way the Associated Press writer words it) is that Iraq has gotten very unpopular, where World War II was very popular? Oh yea, Never mind that last part, The US Didn't want to get into World War II either.

An intrestering side note that also bothers me: People Anti-War folks try to say "why attack Iraq when they didn't attack us?" Well, in world war II, why attack Germany when they didn't attack us? Wasn't it Japan that attacked us, which pushed us into war on the otherside of the planet with Germany? Iraq is the same. And why do you think terrorists are trying so hard to keep Iraq? Because, oh, I don't know, It must be important to them...

It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. should also begin a "diplomatic offensive" by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said.

Okay, I have a question. What the crap is a "Diplomatic Offensive?" Have the ones we're fighting (terrorists and extremists) ever asked to sit down and talk? Would you believe the word of a group that has said that they want all us "infidels" dead? Do you think a group that has made statements to that effect could be trusted with diplomacy?

"I feel encouraged, and I feel the stay-the-course strategy is officially dead."
— Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Well, I think you, Jane Harman, are an Idiot. To illustrate this point, Let me call upon the views of those who agree with her: ThinkProgress.org. This is quite interesting... watch how I spin this. To Quote Think Progress.org:

A newly translated letter from al-Qaeda’s leadership to their Iraq organization shows the Bush administration’s “stay the course” Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants:

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

This summer, Bush administration officials repeatedly justified their Iraq policy by pointing to al Qaeda propaganda. One example of many:

DAN BARTLETT: So, it doesn’t matter what we say. We should be taking the - the words of the enemy seriously. They think [Iraq is] the fight of the war on terror, so, we must as well. [8/31/06]

Will the White House change its tune now that al Qaeda has endorsed “stay the course”?

For one, this letter is from Al Qaeda is directed to members of Al Qaeda telling them to stay in Iraq, and to fight us, no matter what, or as they say:

even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that.

So, ThinkProgress.org... Al Qaeda didn't say anywhere in there that they want the US to stay in Iraq, but that they want to keep fighting for Iraq. I can't believe that you (ThinkProgress.org) are so willing to put forth your own propaganda as to distort clear facts in that manor.

Secondaly, apparently ThinkProgress.org does not remember in 2004 when Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden him self told us not to vote for President Bush.

We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.

So, with that said, since you (ThinkProgress.org) feel in your own misguided opinion that because Al Qaeda wants us to stay the course (using your own words), that now, thanks to me pointing it out to you again, You feel that Bush is a correct choice because Al Qaeda did not want him as president?

This isn't about partisan politics, people. Its about Logic. Don't let your partisan hatred for President Bush get in the way of the safety of the United States. It is illogical to think that because Al Qaeda wants Iraq, we should let them have it... Because Al Qaeda wants to fight for it, we should back down. So, now that I'm done poking a morinic group with the stick of Justice, back to this "report." (What exactly is "Progressive" about running away, anyway?)

We CAN NOT be diplomatic with Al Qaeda, no matter how much this report wants us to be, or how much the public want us to end a war. To alter the plan to include one of diplomacy with a group that wants to kill us is suscide.

"We will not accomplish victory by setting arbitrary deadlines or negotiating with hostile governments." — Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

And that brings me into the second point about this report. The Withdraw by 2008. If we told Germany in World War II (and by tell Germany, I mean, our media and news papers, because our enemy can read the Star Tribune just as easily as I can) that we are going to take our troops out in 1945, do you think we would have won World War II? No, because the enemy would have just held out until that time, and they would have won. I know war sucks, people, but so does spanking your child. And if you tell your child that you will only spank him 5 times in his life, you may as well tell him you will never punish him.

So, your witty comment to take away from this is:

War is like spanking a child. It sucks, but sometimes you have no choice.

The Iraq Study Report is doing nothing but appealing to what the public wants (thanks to the bombardment of the Media Agenda). This report was nothing but a political gesture to try to tell people that the government is thinking about what people are whining about.

To Quote Chuck Norris:

America: Don't stick your head in the sand!
This is one of my greatest concerns for our newly elected Democratic-majority House and Senate: that they not stick their heads in the sand regarding the war on terror.
With anti-American extremist cells loose and growing in the world, now is not the time to drop our guard and funding on intelligence, national security and the global spread of anti-American sentiment.
Regardless of whether our troops stay or are withdrawn from Iraq, America's enemies will remain relentlessly in pursuit of our downfall and destruction, in and outside our country.
Of course our enemies are not the Japanese or the Germans like they were back then, but a network of nebulous extremists. And our battlefield is not any specific location, but anywhere our adversaries can lie in foxholes of fear.

Make no mistake about it: If we don't fight them abroad, we'll fight them at home.

I will leave you with this. It is pathetic when someone takes a quote that says "there is no guarantee of success" and uses that as their proof that we should leave. There is never a guarantee of success in any situation, but if we used that as a reason not to fight, or push on, or advance ourselves... we would probably still be building premeds out of sand... unless there is no guarantee of succeeding at that either. If we listen to the people who want us out of Iraq, before you know it, Iraqi Ambassador Osama will hang out at the UN Headquarters in New York telling us how unfortunate it was that we forced them to cause 9/11, and we'll be apologizing to him.

********** Update 12/27/06 9:35am **********

See, I'm not crazy. To quote CNN:

Biden said he opposes adding troops in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommended adding troops to the 140,000 U.S. in the country. And there have been signs that the administration favors putting more troops in Baghdad as a way to curb the escalating violence there.

Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.
"We should be drawing down troops gradually, forcing the Iraqis to meet their own
needs to end this civil war by a political agreement," Biden said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose.

Amazing. While I don't agree with the Iraq Study Report saying we need to withdraw by 2008 (that decision should be made based on the assessment of the situation there), which Biden DOES agree with, I do agree with the Iraq Study Report's assessment that more troops would be good (to stomp out the fires), which Biden DOES NOT agree with.

Muslim insensitivity?

At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, 6:30pm last night, 6 Muslims were kicked off an American Airlines plane for standing up and praying, and as of yet, American Airlines is not allowing them on another one of their airplanes.

MSNBC Reports

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, expressed anger at the detentions.

Omar Shahin, one of the 6 men, said

“They took us off the plane, humiliated us in a very disrespectful way,”

Ok. Has anyone reading this ever been arrested? Or perhaps thrown in the back of a squad car for anything? Perhaps kicked out of a building for being loud and obnoxious? I have not experienced all three of those, but of the two I have experienced, I would assume being kicked off of an airplane would be close to the same experience, and when you get kicked off or out of something, or locked up, being treated “Respectfully” or in a non “humiliating” manor by The Man is the last thing on his mind. Am I right here or what? The fact that someone would report about someone’s feelings being hurt as their taken away by authorities is bizarre to me… but then again, anything reported that isn’t Christianity seams to be given a little fluffier a treatment.

Also, another problem I have with this. While not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists have been Muslims. This is where I will support the crap out of “Racial Profiling” or whatever you want to call it. Without naming any races, it's not my fault that 12.8% of the population is responsible for 30.2% of the crime I the United States, but unlike the color of one’s skin, more specifically, the religion one has seams to have a much higher ratio of those who have committed the crime of terrorism. So, because of these blaring facts, (and I am not sorry that the facts are the facts) I would be worried if any Muslims were praying on an airplane… Especially after Sept 11th, the thwarted attempt out of England, and… oh yea, the fact that Muslims Terrorists have mentioned that they will stop at nothing until we are all dead. Perhaps Muslims need to be sensitive to the feelings of those around them and not pull moves that have been witnessed in conjunction with terrorist attacks... like standing and prying in groups on an Airplane.

Where are the news articles about the Muslim insensitivity shown by repeatedly committing acts that scare the US public?

New York Times: Arguement for Treason

Our "Rights" are our rights. The only limitation placed on our rights is when our "right" harms someone else. Freedom of religion, so long as you don't sacrifice someone to your God. The right to bear arms, so long as you don't kill peoples with them. And Freedom of Speech for example, so long as (once again) you don't harm anyone. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. You can't whisper to someone in an Airport that you think I’d be funny if someone was caught with a Bomb in their bag. And you can't cover up Treason, with the claim that its covered under "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press."

This is what the New York times is doing, and what the Liberal Left, Star Tribune, and all the Hate-Bush-First crowd are defending.

The definition of Treason is about as clear as you can get, as it is the only law that’s laid out in the Constitution:

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, lets look at this. Treason, after all, is a pretty big charge.

First of all:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Okay, what’s that word... levying? I gatta whip out my dictionary (note, I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition... cause its... American.)

lev•y (lv) Pronunciation Key v. lev•ied, lev•y•ing, lev•ies
1. To impose or collect (a tax, for example).
2. To draft into military service.
3. To declare and wage (a war).

I'm pretty sure that "in levying War" they aren't talking about definitions 1 and 2. Levy is a synonym for wage in this case. Anyone doesn’t agree? I didn't think so... So treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States... then there's the first "OR"

or in adhering to their Enemies

Adhering? adher?? What the nutz... where's that dictionary...

ad•here (d-h�r) Pronunciation Key v. ad•hered, ad•her•ing, ad•heres v. intr.
1. To stick fast by or as if by suction or glue.
2. To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs.
3. To carry out a plan, scheme, or operation without deviation: We will adhere to our plan.

v. tr.To cause to adhere; make stick.

Adhering to their enemies would be to Stick Fast to an enemy, like suction or glue? Kind of fits... Remain devoted or in support of an enemy? Carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy? I think 2 or 3 are a match here. If I were a lawyer, I would probably just pick 3... but what with my "progressive nature" I can be open minded. (i say that just to piss off liberals. te-he)

Okay. Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy). Gett'in there. What about that last OR. that one has to mean something like "terrorists have rights" what with all the democratic banter... lets look at it.

giving them Aid and Comfort.

Woha, that’s nothing like "terrorists have rights." in fact, I don't think I even need my Dictionary for that one! I rule.

what about that second part?

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,

Okay, easy enough. Any questions? Looks like know everything after that first part. Next:

but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood,

Damnit.

at•tain•der (-tndr) Pronunciation Key n.
1. In the ancient common law, the state of an offender who had been sentenced for a
capital offense.
2. Obsolete. Dishonor.

Obsolete, dishonor. That doesn't fit in there. In this case, the synonym of Attainder is Offender. So lets throw it in.

but no Offender of Treason shall work... Corruption of Blood?

What the F... Corruption of Blood. I bet that’s not even in the dictionary... No frick'in way, it IS in the dictionary!

According to Webster's (American Heritage Dictionary didn't have this entry):

Main Entry: corruption of blood: the effect of an attainder which bars a person from inheriting, retaining, or transmitting any estate, rank, or title

Holy cow... it even mentions the reason I'm looking it up. See how easy this is! So Corruption of Blood refers to, quite literally, the tainted blood that would follow a ancestor of the treason committer. More simply... the name of the traitor’s kids' would not be defunked because the traitor was a, well, traitor. Corruption of blood is an old English thing...

...or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This means congress may take the property of a traitor, but once the traitor dies, the property must be inheritable. The property is only forfeit during the traitor’s life. Once the democrat traitor dies, their kids get their property.

All together now:

Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy) OR giving them Aid and Comfort.

The second part I'll leave out, that has to do with punishment. We'll worry about the punishment when the New York Times is tried for treason. But the first part (remember, this is a law) is pretty clear.

Did the New York Times declare war against the United States of America? No, they did not. I won't even go that far.

Did the New York Times remain or devote support to an enemy? Um... No. Well... devote support to Terrorists? Did the New York Times support Terrorism? Perhaps. Let me ask my third question.

Did the New York Times give the enemy Aid or Comfort? Comfort, in this case, is a synonym of Assist? Did the NY Times assist or aid the enemy? Hell yea. I'll tell you how.

The moment you tell our enemy about our tactics against them, while we are at war against them, is the moment you willingly aid the enemy, as well as willingly harm the United States.

Did the New York Times tell our enemy about our tactics to fight terrorism while we were/are fighting terrorists? With our society, I would normally say, Ehhh, this happens all the time, but unfortunately classified information does not often get out, nor is it printed and published by the millions of copies. Classified information is classified for a reason. My argument for treason against the New York Times is because they released classified information that gave our enemy Aid or Comfort:

In May of 2004, the New York Times published leaked information about Data mining.

In December of 2005, the New York Times published leaked information about the Nsa spying.

In June of 2006 , the New York Times published leaked information about Financial transaction tracking.

Not once, not twice, but three times the New York times committed treason by releasing information that assisted our enemy. By the way, if anyone wants to argue the valadity of either of these programs, feel free to let me know.

And even worse, the New York Times, and all the liberal crazies are attempting to defend themselves under the blanket of "Freedom of the Press." Its amazing, isn't it, how the New York Times is defended when they commit treason, and in the same breath, they want to string up President Bush for going after terrorists. The New York Times has this to say about themselves:

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

The way I read this: It's the Government's responsibility to conduct war, and defend the nation... And its' the New York Times responsibility to stop them.

Newsweek: Grahm: Battling Bush

Every time one of these "War Against Bush" Democrats talks, I don't know weather to punch a kitten or put on a strait jacket. Here is a "Republican" doing the same.

Newsweek is talking here about Sen. Lindsey Grahm, who has:

Played a key role in opposing President Bush's plan to authorize military tribunals for terror suspects and reinterpret the Geneva Conventions to permit some aggressive interrogation techniques.

Okay, for one, just to point out how correct I am (cauz I'm a dick like that) Newsweek puts the word "President" in font of "Bush" because that is correct grammar, to use a person's title and all... so when someone says "Battling Bush" they should be saying "Battling President Bush" or you could say "Battling the President of the United States of America." I guess to shorten it, you could say "Battling the USA." interesting huh? (BTW, I'm not in agreement with the President's (correct English) whole Immigration thing, I just think when your blinded by choosing your actions that oppose someone else, you are a moron.)

Anyway... on with the show.

In this article, Newsweek asks some questions to Grahm, and of coarse, Grahm (can I just call him Cracker?) goes on and on about his opposition to President Bush and protecting America.

Lets take a look at some of the questions and his answers:

Newsweek:How do you see the military commission and torture issues playing out? Is the president going to get the legislation he wants?
Graham:
This idea of trying somebody where they don’t get [to see] the evidence against them, but the jury does—that’s dead. That’s going nowhere...

Okay, terrorists get the same rights as American citizens. Whatev.

Newsweek:Why are you so against it?
Grahm:Let me give you the best example. What if a CIA paramilitary guy is caught in Iran, trying to find out about the Iranian [nuclear] program? What would our response be if the Iranian government put them on trial as a war criminal? And had a procedure where the prosecutor could give to the jury or the judge a file marked “secret” and never provide that to the accused? We would scream bloody murder ... We would go crazy.

Grahm, I hate to brake it to you, but the Terrorists against us represent NO country. Which means the whole POW thing doesn't apply to them. Lets look at what the the Deffinition of POW by the Geneva Conventions.

A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured.

Holy Nutz. Terrorists may be excluded because... they must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of War. And Terrorists don't, this is WHY its called TERRORISM! By your own definition, Grahm, the Spy we sent it wouldn't count either. Any knowledge of his mission would be disavowed. Didn't you ever watch freak'in Mission Impossible?

Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of
achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare.

Just so everyone is clear on this. Terrorists are not POWs. Any Questions?

Newsweek:What do you make of the president’s comments at [last Friday’s] news conference [in which he threatened to terminate the CIA interrogation program if the White House legislation doesn’t pass.]
Grahm:He seemed pretty worked up about this. He’s probably frustrated. But how many people have died in Iraq over the last few days?

Okay. Grahm takes the topic of the conversation from the President's comments about CIA Interrogation to how many people die in Iraq. He is a democrat, I can understand that... perfectly clear link... right? No.
Yea, Cracker. Frustrated because people like YOU don't seam to understand stuff like the difference between "Terrorist" and "POW." Seriously! I can look this stuff up in 10 mn while watching an Episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!

Newsweek:
Every day, there are scores of people getting killed in Iraq.
Grahm:
Yeah, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about this. So the president is getting to talk about something other than Iraq. He’s getting good build-up from his base. He’s getting beat up by you guys [in the media] a bit. I’m getting hit from the right. The politics of this is a mixed bag.

SCREEEEEEEEEEACH! What? Um, we're not talking about... what were we talking about? Oh, we were talking about the CIA... no, people dieing in Iraq... no, something other then Iraq? Getting beat up? awha, WTF.

Newsweek:Another big issue is the use of aggressive interrogation techniques like water-boarding [a simulated drowning experience], sleep deprivation and other techniques that might be considered abusive.
Grahm:Have we gotten useful intelligence using these techniques? I don’t know. I’m not on [the Senate intelligence] committee. And I wouldn’t believe them if they told me .... I know the prosecutor at Gitmo believes that water-boarding inherently renders a statement involuntary. Water-boarding is a near drowning experience. It’s pretty hard to say that a person voluntarily gave you something there. It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary. So they don’t need to go down that road. They don’t need all that stuff ...

Let me refer again to the Geneva Conventions:

It is illegal to torture POWs.
Terrorists are not POWs.

Secondly, we DO need all that stuff. Look at what he said:

It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary.

Duha. I don't think any member of a terrorist organization that wants all US peoples killed... would have been captured voluntary. Neither would a criminal of any kind in the US. Well, crap. I guess we can't question someone who is suspected of a crime because based on his capture not being Voluntary, he has suffered some type of torture? NEXT!

Newsweek:
Are there no circumstances in which we should use them?
Grahm:Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it [then] we’re not a rule-of-law nation ... John [McCain] and I argue. We love “24.”

Holy crap. He actually took an opportunity to attack a Television show... which doesn't happen to endorse peace and love and roses and rainbows with terrorists... And a really good TV show at that. I bet he can credit blame President Bush's poll numbers going up on "24" somehow.
And for him to say "Either we do or we don't" is kind of like an open ended argument. Either killing a human is wrong or its not... Either a fetus is a human or not... then we walk right over to an abortion argument with two steps.

Newsweek:You mean the TV show?
Grahm:He memorizes it. That’s his favorite TV show. These guys going all around, shooting people in the kneecaps. And he won’t miss an episode. But he’ll come back the next day and say, we still have got to treat people right. ..What if the president of the United States were told there’s a terrorist somewhere and we believe he knows where lethal weapons are. If the president of the United States authorizes people—‘do whatever you have to do’—here’s what we’d be giving up: If we let our chief of state decide the law is getting in the way, what’s to prevent some other [foreign] chief of state from saying, ‘that American pilot we’ve captured, he knows where the next bomb wave is coming, do what you got to do.’ That’s what’s hard about being a democracy ... The enemy has no moral dilemma. They don’t sit around wondering, what do we do here? People tell me—hah! They’ll cut our heads off. I say, ‘I know that. So what do we do? Cut their heads off? What does that make us? It might make us feel better. But you’ll wake up one day and the next thing you know, you’ve lost your way.’

For the love of God. Again with the whole "terrorists are equal" crap. Besides, I don't think anyone wants the terrorist's heads cut off... if their dead, they won't learn nuth'in... and neither will we...

Newsweek:
Why do you care so much about this issue?
Grahm:
For the past 20 something years, I’ve been a military lawyer. Every military lawyer I’ve ever met believes that this is vital for the safety of our troops .... I can give you dozens of example of cases involving captured Americans where abuse stopped at a certain point because the people doing it were afraid of being prosecuted as a war criminal ... During the Somalia conflict, they had one of our helicopter pilots. We dropped leaflets all over Mogadishu telling everybody, all the militia people, that we were watching, and that anybody who abuses this person will be a war criminal and we will come after you ...

Damn, this guy doesn't stop. Captured Americans are just that: Americans. They are from America. These terrorists again, don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions because they do not claim to be Iraqi, or Saudi, or what have you. They claim to be Muslim, which is not a country. If they were Iraqi, they would be handled different when captured.

Newsweek:Did you deal with these issues as a military Judge Advocate General (JAG)?
Grahm:
What I’ve done, like every other JAG, is teach the law of armed conflict. There is a pretty famous case back in Vietnam where a downed pilot, I think it was a Navy guy, got shot down. And a couple of Vietcong guys came up to him, captured him. He raised his hands in surrender, they dropped their weapons. He lowered his hands, got his pistol out and shot both of them. He came back to the carrier and started bragging about it. He ended up getting prosecuted—because he feigned surrender. That’s a violation of the law of armed conflict. You know, people may think that’s silly. But I told that story to all the pilots, just to say: ‘Your country will be advocating there for you. But you have to do your part too’ .... I know Al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people, I know the Taliban [are], you know, animals. But every war in the future won’t be with them.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out.... the whole "al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people" thing. And the American who shot those guy should haven prosecuted, under the rules, that’s right... If people are willing to follow the rules... rules work great. Right, Al Qaeda?

Newsweek:What did you make of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s letter [opposing the president’s plan and stating that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”] How did that come about?
Grahm:
That was John [McCain] talking to Powell ... I know Powell is really committed to this.

Opposing the plan that I've been tearing apart just by reading the Geneva Convetions? Whatever. I know I'm no expert, but... I'm more of an expert then most of the people I talk to... Except you, Tony! (no realy, I'm smarter.) Just kidding Tony! ;)

Newsweek:One thing I’m hearing from defense lawyers is that you still have the language in there that’s going to deny habeas corpus rights, strip access to the federal courts for all the other detainees who are still locked up in Guantánamo.
Grahm:That’s absolutely right.

Well, if you swing with a blindfold on long enough, you'll eventually hit a baby seal... thats how the saying goes, isn't it? Anyway, you can read all about Habeaus Corpus here and its suspension in the War on Terror here. Liberals yelp that all this means is President Bush can come to your house, arrest you, and your cat, and hold you forever and ever and ever. Why don't you read about it (apparently unlike the liberals do) and come to your own conclusion... go ahead. I'll wait...

Newsweek:
What that means is there will be trials for the big 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but everybody else could be stuck in indefinite limbo with no access to the courts.
Grahm:
Bullshit. There are 400 and something lawsuits filed against our guys complaining about the food, the TV access, all kinds of crap. Prisoners of war don’t sue their captors .... Habeas rights came about because the Bush administration took such a hard line. What we did last year [in the Detainee Treatment Act] is say, dismiss those lawsuits about conditions of your imprisonment, replace that with a right to go to ... the D.C. Court of Appeals and you can appeal whether or not you were validly confined as an enemy combatant ... They’ll have their day in court to challenge whether or not the government has properly confined them ... But we’re not going to give them the ability to bring medical malpractice lawsuits.

President Bush takes a hard line. Gawd damn right. That’s why I voted for him... remember Kerry's hard lines (link is to CBS even!)?

Newsweek:
But the Guantánamo detainees have been declared enemy combatants at Pentagon hearings which were not real trials. They had the same flaws you just said you don’t want to see in these military commission trials. The detainees weren’t able to see the evidence against them.
Grahm:
They do get redacted versions of why they’re an enemy combatant. Under a law of armed conflict, you can have one person say, ‘OK, you’re an enemy combatant. This is a military decision.’

Yep... thats correct.

Newsweek:
But isn’t the practical effect of all this going to be the small fry—not the big September 11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—but the small fry will stay there indefinitely without having the right to challenge any of the evidence against them?
Grahm:
That was true of the Germans and the Japanese ... But here’s the practical effect. If you’re a small fry and you’re not dangerous, and we got all the intelligence we can get out of you, well, we’ve let 230 go. We don’t have a desire to keep these people in jail, we don’t want to be the world’s jailors... But if that person is truly a member of an enemy force that is committed to your destruction, you don’t have to let them go. And there’s no requirement to try him as a war criminal. That’s the way war works.

Thats correct to. This guy is pretty slimey, but he still has an R on his name, so some of the stuff is logical. The Libs wouldn't agree with this fact either... which points out that it's probably common sence.

Newsweek:
I’ve been hearing from all these defense lawyers who say the process is pretty unfair regardless.
Grahm:
Well, if I was a defense lawyer, I’d be bitching too.

Defence lawyers... Like the ones that worked for OJ Simpson? ehhh... thats a streach, but i'm trying to comment on everything he says... Next!

Newsweek:
So are we going to have a bill on this soon?
Grahm:Yeah, I think a bill will come out of committee [this] week. It’s going to be something we all can live with. I’ve got things that I think are just a bridge too far. I’m willing to give, but I can’t sit by and watch a guy be tried and, even though I may hate his guts, he never gets to see the evidence against him ... You know what I’ve learned from this? I can see how easy it was to put all the Japanese in jail [during World War II]. The temptations are great to lash out and fight back. But history tells us, in the long run, the way we’ve tried to live our life as a nation is the best way, that the higher purpose of our reason to exist as a nation always serves us better than going the low road ... The bottom line—why does Lindsey care about this—I don’t love the terrorists, I just love what Americans stand for.

A bill. Yes sir. The ACLU says "Legislation Upends the Rule of Law." You know what we here say about the ACLU? If they are against it, we are for it... If the ACLU is for it, we are against it.

What he says about the best way and higher purpose and all that... Bahm. Right on. His line about not loving terrorists, just what americans stand for... not quite sure what he means by that... he's been a couple of places in this little interview. I don't know, even with that great ending, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy from Sen. Lindsey Grahm.

McCain blowing hot air may work

Sen John McCain is polishing his run for 2008. Really, why else do you think he gets out in front of positions that the middle and left would like? Sure, he may actually believe the positions he takes, but I'm not willing to have that be the starting point when analyzing a politican.

The latest is the much discussed stance against interrogation.

Straying from the Geneva Conventions to interrogate and try foreign detainees would erode America's image and could endanger U.S. operatives in the future, Sen. John McCain said yesterday.

Speaking to a gathering in Concord, McCain held firm in his opposition to the president over how to treat suspected terrorists. The Bush administration wants leeway from international standards to interrogate detainees and wants to use military tribunals to try the terror suspects.

The White House wants Congress to pass legislation endorsing those practices, but a group of Republicans - led by McCain -has joined Democrats in objecting.

Hmm, let's see, 'has joined Democrats...'. If that does not tip you off that McCain is doing some posturing for 2008 then I don't know what will.

John Anti-Interrogation McCain
McCain, like all politicians, voices his opposition without providing real description of how to solve his opposition.

"One of the things in North Vietnam that kept us strong was that we knew that we were not like our enemies, and that we came from a better nation and better values and better standards, and we stood for freedom," McCain said.

McCain, a likely 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said shelving the Geneva Conventions for the war on terror would be a grave mistake. He said the country should avoid coercive interrogation tactics and try suspected terrorists in accordance with certain protections, such as allowing them access to evidence.

Hey, John, what do you specifically define as "coercive interrogation tactics"? Sleep deprivation? False-flags? Lay it out there, pal. Let us see what you think is REALLY acceptable.

And answer this...how do we try the 19 people for their involvement in 9/11?

At what point were we to read them their Miranda Rights before we could detain them to prevent them from carrying out their plan? It seems that coddling people with information has been working...would you agree?

Now let me find something else out. Johnny McC, is your grounding of your belief and faith in the United States so flimsy that you think we would be on par with the Islamic people who behead prisoners? Are you really so unable to distinguish between our enemies who target civilians intentionally and us...who try to avoid civilian casualties? What do you think of the following statement: "Sen McCain believes we should view terrorists as criminals instead of battlefield opponents in a battle to prevent our extinction."

In other word, McCain, take your vague definition of "coercive interrogation tactics" and your opposition against them to the arena they belong: the police force.

Why McCain Benefits From Anti-Interrogation Position
Why can it work for him? He takes these positions now and in early 2008 he goes to the GOP preaching about his conservative credentials. The GOP members, like their Democrat counterparts, will soak up the rhetoric. "As good as we can get in this political climate" and "not perfect but at least not a Democrat" will be the mantra from the GOP faithful in 2008 in their justification of selecting a bad candidate. Then, if McCain gets the GOP endorsement he comes out in the general campaign presenting his "campaign finance reform" and his "anti-torture" position. The middle may eat it up, but there will not be much ado from the GOP about these positions then.

Win or lose on the torture issue here in 2006 it will boost his chances in 2008. And the GOP is proving their inability to stand for conservative principles in 2006. They are also showing that to not mindlessly trumpet talking points is to be despised. So why should McCain think that 2008 will be any different?

UK thwarts mass murder plot

You have already heard the news, I'm sure. A plot to blow up at least 6 planes while flying over the Atlantic in a 'mass murder' plot. Some are saying that this may have been another 9/11 and there are ties to al Qaeda. The UK arrested 21 people so far but there may be as many as 50 involved. They are reported to be of Pakistani descent. Thank you to Drudge for reminding us that a few days ago a London to Boston flight was turned away because it was discovered that passengers on the no-fly list had actually boarded. Britain is on high alert as a whole while the US has only air related areas on high alert.

That story is going to be played for a while, now. But people are missing the bigger picture. I have been saying for almost 7 weeks that Iran is behind a ton of this stuff...all for various reasons.

First, they want everyone's attention to be divided. Have you noticed no that Iran's nuclear program (and its pending completion) is in a position to not be higher than 3rd headline? Third biggest story...that is below the fold on print papers, scroll far down on webpages and non-bold face in the headline boxes in the sidebars.

Second, divided attention means divided resources. 'Nuff said on that.

What I want you to understand in this is what the danger WILL be domestically. The people in politics who ARE a danger to this country (both on the Left and Right) will turn this in to "advantage talking points" and tie this to the elections. This has nothing to do with the elections...hate to burst the bubbles of partisans out there.

While the partisans tell each other that the other side is "evil", "dangerous" and on the Right they say the Left will lose the War (intentionally, in some of their minds) I do not believe either side is actively trying to lose the war. Everyone sees it in a different lens. Some see the War on Terror as, well, a war and a military campaign. Others see it as criminal elements that need to be dealt with in a criminal justice frame of mind. Frankly, the former view is mostly right. Mostly, because they actually miss the point that we are dealing with rational people...radical, yes, but their thought process is not unflowing like North Korea's. You can easily connect the dots from their premise to their conclusion...even though you disagree with them. The "War on Terror is a War" crowd (which I will call the Right on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Right) misses that our enemies are rational. The "War on Teror is Criminal" crowd (which I will call the Left on Terror only to acknowledge that most of them are on the Left) misses the point that they are (a) the enemy of a war they declared, (b) are willing to die as long as they take others out with them, (c) are not working in a psychological mindset of criminality, but of wardom, and (d) are proven to understand our systems, our weaknesses because of those systems and exploit those weaknesses.

Both the Left of Terror and the Right of Terror are getting distracted (if paying attention to at all) by each individual occurance...Israel vs Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Russia's involement, al Qaeda, these latest plots...and failing to step back with a wider lens. These are all connected.

Why should WE, here in Minnesota really care? Because more experts are coming out connecting a few of these dots (e.g. Iran's nuclear programs near completion with Hezbollah)...and all of the dots together lead to WWIII in some manner. I have explained the different scenarios of WWIII (see the section of the post titled "Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan" if you don't want to read the whole thing). To give you an idea of the location of battlefields think of WWII. In relation to the extent of 'action' and casualties within the borders I think the following analogies help to demonstrate. We are the Russia of WWII...lots of action within our borders and heavy casualties (our civilian casualties will be higher the longer it takes for non-political American citizens to acknowledge the scale of what's coming), Britain (and Europe eventually) is like, well, Britain. They will be 'host' to a lot of carnage as well. They may see more destruction than casualties, mostly because I think in the end they are more willing to sacrifice more freedoms for more security. Their economy will be harder to recover from than ours...though we will seem some really tough times. Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Israel are going to be the Germany of all of this. Nearly completely leveled...likely more complete devastation than in WWII...and a lot of casualties.

It will not get better and will not end until all of the leadership from one side or the other are killed, captured or otherwise permanently neutralized and the government destroyed. That is what I see as a fact of what is building.

Don't like it? Sorry, you have to understand that the enemy is looking for that reality, they are striving for that major battle, they have accepted that road. With each passing day of "negotiations" and "diplomatic" efforts instead of battle hardening we draw closer to both losing advantage in the pending battle and allowing the enemy to set the course of action.

Both the Right of Terror and the Left of Terror try to keep us off the grand battlefield. We are reluctant to deal with Iran (and their tentacles) in combat or with actual military force. Yes, we are thinly spread...but survival is at stake. Find a way to make the disadvantage of thin into an advantage of stationed in many fronts. The politicos (politicians and their supporters) want Terror to be a campaign issue, but don't want to have us step on the battlefield now that the time is near. Shutup with "November" and focus on "Iran".

The timeframe for prevention is drawing to a close. Get ready. Get busy. Most of all open your eyes to the bigger picture...the enemy is not the American on the other side of the aisle. The enemy is on the other side of the battlefield we refuse to actually step on.

And to understand the real danger of making this issue a political topic listen to the FIRST CALL on Glenn Beck's show when it airs tonight on KTLK at 7PM. Understand that BOTH sides are guilty of that caller's ignorance for what is going on.

Please, for the sake of our survival...watch Iran more broadly and understand the difference between "enemy" and "political adversary".

Missing foreign students and WWIII

I'm sure this is nothing...I mean the government authorities say so.

[FBI Special Agent Richard] Kolko said there is no reason to believe the missing students, all men around 20 years old, represent a threat.

What missing 20-year old male students?

Eleven Egyptian students who were supposed to travel to a Montana university after flying to JFK airport late last month disappeared in New York, spurring federal authorities to issue a nationwide alert, officials said yesterday.

The students - who were traveling with six classmates from Mansoura University in Egypt - had their student visas revoked for failing to show up at Montana State University in Bozeman, the officials said.

The other six students made it to the college.

"The FBI and ICE [Immigration and Custom Enforcement] would like to locate these 11 students in order to speak with them," said FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko after the "be-on-the-lookout" alert was issued to all police in the United States.

Now, that is nothing to worry about? Really? At what point do we worry?

"At this point, all they have done is not show up for a scheduled academic program, and their visas have been revoked," Kolko said.

"We do not know of any association with any terrorist or criminal groups. There is no threat associated with these men. We have simply asked law enforcement's assistance in locating them so that the FBI and ICE may interview them."

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the situation "has to be taken very seriously."

"Having a number of students from an Arab country arriving on student visas and disappearing is cause for concern," he said.

Montana State University Provost David Dooley said 17 Mansoura University students signed up for a 32-day cultural-exchange program to intensively study English, learn about Montana history and go on several field trips.

They arrived at JFK on a flight from Egypt on July 29, but only one managed to clear immigration in time to make a connecting flight, Dooley said.

By July 31, five others had arrived in Bozeman, but the rest were unaccounted for.

I remember the outrage at various colleges and from the Left when the Student Visa programs were beginning to clamp down on their requirements. Again, it is proven that compromise on the issue was compromising our security. In all seriousness there is nothing preventing this from happening with scores upon scores of foreign students. Perhaps some more national-background profiling is necessary to help diminish the risk of this happening.

Why is this posting also listed under the WWIII category? Because this story is fishy AND it ties very nicely with my unease since the beginning of the Israeli defensive that August is going to be a very troublesome month at best.

This from Yahoo News (no link--it will be dead in a few days anyway)

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has renewed calls on Muslims to rally to the defence of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah in its war against
Israel, state television reported.

"Today it is the entire Muslim community's duty to defend Hezbollah," Khamenei told a meeting Tuesday to mark the anniversary of the birth of the Shiites' first Imam, Ali.

I have no doubt that Iran is behind the whole mess right now.

Iran helped to create and arm Hezbollah in 1982 in response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and Tehran stands accused by the United States and Israel of fomenting chaos in the region by channelling weapons to the guerrillas.

Iran denies the allegation, saying it provides only moral support to the movement.

Nevermind the fact that each rocket fired from Hezbollah right now must have the express approval from Iran...we are simply jumping to conclusions that Iran has an active hand in this offensive against Israel.

Wait, there's more.

The all-powerful Iranian leader lashed out at the
United Nations for what he called its "incompetence", and also attacked some Arab countries for "looking on in silence".

"Some Arabic states that have kept quiet should know that the United States will never consider their interests," Khamenei said.

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians have been killed in the Israeli offensive unleashed after the capture of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid from Lebanon on July 12.

Khamenei also accused the US and Britain on Tuesday of encouraging the "Zionists' crimes" and "seeking to eradicate Islam in this region".

Let me explain how this works. These guys believe that it is OK to have a stated goal of the "extermination" or "annhilation" of Israel, and any resistance to that is "seeking to eradicate Islam". Quite honestly, if these guys are the representatives of Islam in that region then the world will be a better, more tolerant, more peaceful place after their eradication. The ONLY question is if these angels-of-satan are representative of Islam.

And further proof that the end of the world is near...I agree with a Princeton professor (Bernard Lewis to be exact). Some of you have been critical of me for (1) calling this WWIII...and maybe it is not YET WWIII, but I think the liklihood of it is stronger than the liklihood it is not/will not be WWIII, and (2) of having the heebie-jeebies about August.

According to a Flash Report from Drudge I am not too far off.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "and his followers clearly believe that [the time of Armegeddon] is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the US about nuclear development by Aug. 22," which this year corresponds "to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1).

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

Now some smaller minded people have decided to use this as political fodder. Essentially, the end of the world may be beginning this month so 'vote for my party' in November. Logic...they don't need no stinkin' logic. Rationality...won't find that from them either.

Domestically what is important in all of this is that the USA is not going to do much in all of this and it is the fault of the partisans...all of them. Two general groups are to blame.

First, the Left for weakening the resolve of the nation to fight evil which threatens us. Also the Left for putting very short-sighted lenses on the whole issue of terrorism, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. Rather than look at these issues as a "what is best for the survival of the United States against evil" they turned it into a "how can we dennigrate Bush on this topic?" The Democrats turned it into a "what do we need to do to make this a political chip in our favor?" Health of the country be damned. Survival of the country be damned...because the party comes first.

Second, the Right for many reasons. They (Bush in the forefront) failed to make the brazenly honest case about Iraq...it has always been primarily about Iran. Failing to make the ABSOLUTELY HONEST case allowed the partisan Left to turn the survival of America into a political gambit. Next they failed by getting weak in the spine on national security. Yes, many of them will come back and say they were strong...but when they failed on so many fronts that are equally tied to security (border security, immigration reform, illegal immigration lockdown, etc) they hold the blame ticket as well. By having so many of the Right and the Republicans start wavering on Iraq specifically it perpetuated the domestic reality that America's survival is just another campaign issue again in yet another campaign year. Being strong on national security is more than just supporting Bush in fighting "terrorism" and "on Iraq"...it is more than repeating the talking points on those narrow topics.

Shame on 100% of the party members and partisans on both sides. And I guarantee they will continue to do it through November.

Most importantly is this: Keep your eyes firmly planted on Iran. They are the root of all that is going on right now...they are on the verge of nuclear weapons, and all the negotiations in the UN is playing into Iran's advantage.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.