ATTACK IRAN NOW: MORE EVIDENCE

BACK ME UP ON THIS: Events relating to Iran's nuclear program continue to spiral out of control. The last entry of this blog called for Iran to be struck now instead of waiting for the Obama administration to assume power. Since then, nearly every significant news headline screams for action against the world's largest state sponsor of terror before it's too late.

Iran is currently conducting a six-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf stretching all the way to Oman. Apparently intended to reinforce Iran's threats to shut down the Gulf to oil traffic in the event of an attack, the exercises cover some 130,000 square kilometers of ocean. Iran appears able to deploy at least a somewhat credible naval force despite the United Nations sanctions limiting their ability to acquire new equipment and spare parts for their military. How surprising that the U.N. is totally ineffective. Iran's naval forces should be a high priority on the target list for an attack, and this week's exercises are more proof of that.

The United States military in Iraq has captured over 30 Iranian suspects in Iraq in the last four weeks. Just today, two members of Ketai'b Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist network, were detained in Baghdad while a third was killed when he unwisely chose to fire on American forces. No more evidence of Iranian interference in Iraq is needed. The proof already amassed in sufficient to warrant military action. Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of United States military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. To date they have suffered very few consequences as a result.

Israel continues to draw up plans for an attack on Iran with or without American assistance. A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would not be in our best interests. It would place Israel in an untenable position. At least the IDF recognizes the threat posed by Iran and their unchecked nuclear program. The United States should coordinate with Israel and prevent the IDF from having to take action on their own. The United States has already deployed a sophisticated X-band radar system and the troops necessary to operate it to Israel. The system would give an earlier warning of an Iranian missile launch. What could be done to intercept a potentially nuclear-tipped projectile at that point is unclear. What is clear is that the threat exists. Shouldn't we be willing take action to prevent the possibility of such an attack instead of waiting for an actual launch? By that time it would likely limit Israel's response to defensive measures, and a single nuclear strike on Israel would be catastrophic given their size.

Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, aggressive rhetoric, and continued flexing of military power all point to one possible response for the United States: strike as soon as viable with as much violence as possible to at least significantly delay their hostile intentions. President Bush could take one more measure to enhance our security before leaving office, and that would be to launch a comprehensive air and naval attack on Iran and their nuclear facilities. The longer he waits, the worse the situation becomes. Should he leave office without taking action, he would be abandoning our defense to a President and group of advisers naive enough to think diplomacy is the answer. Talking with Iran will only allow them more time and space to develop the weapons and missile technology necessary for them to launch the attack they have already loudly and clearly announce is their aim. Let's hope Bush has the foresight and intestinal fortitude to take care of one last item before he departs. Giving Obama the keys to the Oval Office is no less than giving Iran the keys to the nuclear Pandora's box.

BAILOUT NONSENSE: Our government is approaching full-blown socialism, and very few seem willing to oppose it. Private industry relying on the federal government for financial support is the very definition of socialism. Businesses should succeed or fail of their own accord, not be propped up by taxpayer money. American consumers are the ones in need of assistance, not corporations who have poorly managed their affairs for decades. Newt Gingrich has proposed a several month long taxpayer holiday that makes far more sense than shoveling money into poor business models. Unions have done their share in pushing the auto companies into near bankruptcy. Everyone is for fair labor practices, good benefits, and higher wages, but those too have limits. Businesses can only pay what they can afford. The autoworker unions have forced U.S. car companies into paying labor costs that are simply unsustainable. That coupled with lack of innovation and shoddy products have created the problems that now exist. Asking the government to now step in with potentially trillions of taxpayer dollars in relief in unacceptable. Businesses should be allowed to fail or succeed of their own accord. Government's only role should be to create an environment in which business is permitted to succeed without excessive interference or regulation. That's it. Requiring taxpayers to compensate for bloated CEO salaries and fifty years of incompetence is beyond the pale. Let these banks and corporations fail if we must. The result will be companies wiser and more in tune with consumers. Forget the bigwigs, it's the working men and women of this country who need relief. Adding the burden of government bailouts is precisely what they don't need. Congress should turn their back on bailouts and instead concentrate on how to help average men and women. Now that would be real change.

GERMANS FAILING: Recent German parliamentary reports indicate that Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan are drinking too much, not exercising enough, and are too fat. Little surprise then that they are allegedly failing miserably in their mission to train Afghan police. This is the kind of support we can routinely expect from Old Europe. Allowing them alcohol while deployed in a Muslim country speaks to their lack of commitment to the effort. At last count, German troops in Afghanistan consumed 896,000 pints of beer in the first six months of 2008. Pathetic indeed for a military deployed to counter the Taliban.

TEN REASONS TO STRIKE IRAN NOW

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." George S. Patton

There is a looming threat on the horizon. All those with knowledge of the situation are aware of its existence. It has been approaching for some time without significant action being taken to stop it. The consequences for not acting could be disastrous or even apocalyptic. Most of the world stands idly by, also cognizant of the threat, but seemingly paralyzed. It is as if a gigantic destructive asteroid is approaching our planet while everyone stares at the sky in disbelief. Some are screaming at the top of their lungs while most remain stunned.

Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of much debate for years. Media reports this week indicate they now have enough material to build at least one bomb, needing only to refine it. Experts predictions place the time frame at anywhere from one to seven years until refining is possible and complete. The point of no return for the rest of the world, and especially the United States and Israel, is nigh. Now is the time to strike Iran with all our collective might before events overtake us and such a mission is not possible. Here are ten reasons why:

1. The United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have made little to no progress in slowing or even successfully monitoring the Iranian nuclear program. In its latest report, the IAEA and Director General Mohammed ElBaradei admit that after six years, they are not one bit closer to determining the purpose of Iranian nuclear intentions. The Iranians allegedly have nearly four thousand centrifuges running to produce the necessary material, with another two thousand plus ready to come on line. Iran continues to defy Security Council demands to halt enrichment, claiming the program has a purely peaceful purpose. Other intelligence sources indicate Iran is testing high explosives and missile re-entry vehicles. The entire fiasco is shrouded in mystery, has been all along, and the U.N. is powerless to do anything about it. Three rounds of U.S. sanctions restricting the export of military technology to Tehran have been roundly ignored. Those who claim that further enrichment would tip off inspectors are whistling past the graveyard. No amount of U.N. resolutions or sanctions can stop them at this point. There can be no remaining doubt about the intentions of their development. It is military in nature and aiming for a weapon capable of striking with little to no warning.

2. Iran's leaders have made repeated threats, especially against Israel. The rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to be menacing and even borderline insane. Wiping Israel off the map and striking Iran's enemies are a normal part of his statements. It seems the majority of the world continues to turn a deaf ear to his rantings. He continually rejects Israel's right to exist and is a known Holocaust denier. Apologists question his hold on power and assert he is not actually in charge, both suggestions dubious at best. Ahmadinejad should be taken seriously. Future victims of an Iranian nuclear attack may wonder why he was so long ignored. His re-election, once in question, now seems assured.

3. Iran's support of terrorist movements around the world is documented and well known. Their support of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and interference in Lebanon is not a matter of debate. Iran has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, had prior knowledge of the kidnapping and murder of USMC Colonel William Higgins in Lebanon in 1988, and directly supported the group responsible for the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed nineteen American servicemen. Should they succeed in developing a weapon, they could easily pass it on to one of their terrorist allies and place their guilt for an attack in question.

4. Iran continues to interfere in Iraq. They have provided advanced armor-penetrating IEDs to Iraqi insurgents, directly resulting in the deaths of American forces. Iranian agents have occasionally been detained in Iraq while they provided weapons and training to terrorists battling Iraqi and U.S. forces. Their recent vocal opposition to the Iraqi security pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American forces shows their level of interest.

5. An attack now would be somewhat unexpected. The sense of relief they may feel over the election of Barack Obama should be exploited now before it dissipates.

6. Israel is ready and capable of helping. The F16-I now in the Israeli arsenal has made a long distance attack more feasible. Considering the level and frequency of threats against the Jewish state, their cooperation and assistance is assured.

7. Obama is coming. His promise to engage in direct talks with Iran will only result in further delay that would allow the Iranian nuclear program to proceed apace. Further diplomatic discussion with Iran is pure tomfoolery. Their repeated and continued defiance of the United Nations and the international community as a whole is not likely to be reversed with a few high level chats. Involvement in photo ops with Obama would only legitimize their delusions of grandeur and give them more time for enrichment and missile development.

8. The Bush administration, now fully in lame duck mode, would pay little or no political price domestically or internationally for an attack now. The election is over. The Republican candidate already lost. There are only a few months left to act before Obama takes office. Should the President-elect decide to talk with the Iranians as promised, his position would only be strengthened by a successful attack he could somewhat distance himself from later.

9. An attack, while possibly not completely devastating to Iranian nuclear plans, would provide an additional measure of time for further international action if any is possible. Their facilities may well indeed be widely dispersed and deeply buried, but many of them are readily apparent and above ground. Claiming that an attack might not be one-hundred percent successful does not justify doing nothing at all. Broadening the target list to include Iranian oil refineries would further handicap their efforts.

10. American naval forces are now deployed in the Persian Gulf in sufficient numbers to both launch an attack and counter any Iranian attempts to block the flow of oil. The fact those forces are already in place also provides an additional edge of secrecy. The threat to the U.S. Navy from Iranian naval forces would be minimal, especially if the targets for an attack included ports and harbors used by them.

Options for countering Iranian nuclear development narrow as time progresses. The United Nations and other international organizations are feckless as usual. The time to effectively strike is now, but the window is rapidly closing. When it eventually slams shut, the world will have no choice but to rely on the good intentions of men like Ahmadinejad. The United States and Israel cannot take the chance that Iran will either build a usable nuclear weapons platform or pass a weapon off to their terrorist allies. The risks of acting are indeed great, but the risks of not acting are potentially devastating to millions of people for many years to come. Strike while the iron is hot, and surely it's flaming right now.

OBAMA TO KILL MISSILE DEFENSE?

President-elect Obama has more than one major military decision to make, not the least of which is what to do about missile defense. He'll have to decide whether or not to continue the Bush administration's plans to deploy ten missile interceptors in Poland and a set of radar stations in the Czech Republic, set to be operational by 2014. Obama was not specific about his plans for the program during the campaign, obviously designed to leave him some flexibility. As with most military issues, Obama seems less than fully informed. Any reasonable person who has followed the issue should be aware of the success of recent tests, the threat posed by Iran, and the apparent viability of a system first proposed by Ronald Reagan.

Today, LTG Henry Obering III, head of the Missile Defense Agency, wondered about Obama's intentions for the program and its pending deployment. It is remarkable that more than a week after his election, neither Obama nor any of his minions have reached out to the general. Of course, Obama has yet to consult SECDEF Gates and has only had a brief conversation with JCS Chairman Mullen, so why would one suspect he has delved any further into other vital defense issues. Obering expressed confidence in the European leg of the system to function properly and provide a viable defense against missile launches from rogue nations, namely Iran. Just yesterday Iran test fired a new generation of missile and continues its inexorable march toward acquiring nuclear capability. Their latest missile provides them another option should they decide to strike Israel or Europe.

Given the increasingly disturbing rhetoric coming from Tehran and their pace of weapons development, European capitals would be wise to consider full deployment in the shortest possible time frame. The proposed European deployment does not defend the continental U.S. and would only provide protection against a limited number of strikes. Opposition from European peaceniks is puzzling considering it is a system that is purely defensive. Do they prefer to be left naked to Iranian aggression? As usual, Old Europe seeks to oppose any American efforts to shore up collective defense, more proof that NATO is moving headlong toward becoming completely useless. They won't provide additional troops for combat in Afghanistan, preferring instead to keep their precious and relatively small troop contingents in REMF roles and allow U.S. forces to bear the brunt of fighting and thus casualties. They're fine with supplying a few additional troops, so long as they don't have to participate in actual combat. Old Europe as a bloc tries to act as a counterbalance to American power even while enjoying the nuclear and defense umbrella we continue to provide. So much for gratitude and commitment to collective defense.

The Kremlin also seems somewhat uninformed about missile defense. The system nearing deployment is not designed to counter a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia's or provide an offensive capability. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said last week he plans to deploy nuclear missiles closer to Poland to counter a possible deployment to interceptors. This is nothing more than paranoia, not an unusual reaction from Russia. Anything that comes within a thousand miles of their border is seen as an imminent threat. Russian nuclear forces could easily overwhelm the proposed system. Perhaps they're still terrified by Reagan's vision. They should be more concerned about Iran and the destabilizing nature of their threats. Russia has provided technology and equipment to further Iranian missile development, so maybe they think they are immune from potential attack. Moscow has also threatened to deploy jamming equipment to counter any defensive systems, but we don't hear Berlin or Paris howling about that.

President-elect Obama's inexperience may lead him to kill the program as part of a gutting of the Pentagon budget to provide funds for ridiculous social spending. That would be a dangerous path to follow. Iran's missile program has placed Europe squarely in the cross hairs. Leaving them without any defense, even if they don't see the wisdom of it, is simply foolish. The Iranians should know that there is a good possibility that a missile strike against Israel or Europe would likely result in an intercept and an overwhelming response may be enough to deter them from doing so. That is the real purpose of the system.

Obama has some time to make the decision, but he doesn't have forever. Stepping up to the plate on this issue would be a strong move. Whether or not he has the guts is another issue. The whole idea of missile defense, having been conceived by the Gipper, elicits a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats, as do most high tech defense programs. Their desire to divert the funds to domestic spending could leave Europe and Israel short in the event of an Iranian attack. Obama needs to show he has the ability to take actions necessary for national security opposed by the pacifist left. Future Presidents may be hamstrung by the decision Obama makes on this issue. He should aggressively pursue development and deployment not for others, but for American national security. None of us knows what the future may hold, and it would as always be prudent to prepare for a worst case scenario. Missile defense has come a long way, the test firings are increasingly successful, and deployment is simply the next stage. Delaying or cancelling deployment would indicate Obama's plans for other Pentagon programs necessary for our defense and the protection of others. Let's hope he makes the right call. We'll be watching to see how he moves on this one.

TAP DANCING ON A LANDMINE

President-elect Obama is already showing his naivete concerning military matters. So far he has only spoken briefly to JCS Chairman Mullen and not at all to SECDEF Gates. One would think these two gentlemen would already have been extensively consulted by the man about to take the reins of the world's finest military currently fighting two wars. His campaign promises do not bode well for our armed forces or their efforts. His intent to exponentially increase spending on domestic programs spells certain doom for Pentagon efforts to maintain and improve our forces. It is hard to fathom that this was truly the intent of the American people.

The subject of the enemy combatants held at GITMO has already arisen. Obama seems headed toward allowing these miscreants civilian trials, an outrage considering they have been detained as suspected Al Qaeda members or were taken prisoner on the battlefield while actually engaging U.S. forces in combat. Allowing them all the rights and privileges of American citizens is beyond the pale. The only logical policy is to hold them until the war is over or begin military tribunals that would lead most if not all of them to the gallows. Does anyone think our Al Qaeda enemies would be kinder than we have been? I wouldn't dare suggest we start cutting off heads on the Internet as they have often done, but fair is fair. Why should they be treated any differently than prisoners taken in past wars? Obama should resist the urge to placate the rest of the world and handle them with velvet gloves. They should be treated with an iron fist instead, if nothing else to dissuade others from joining their cause of killing Americans. Enemies of the United States should know that if they attack American forces in the field, they will be swiftly tried and executed if they are fortunate enough to be taken prisoner. The Geneva Conventions, which should be followed during their captivity, certainly do not require anything close to what Obama is suggesting. Enemy combatants not in the uniform of a recognized nation are accorded absolutely nothing. Obama's plan could set a dangerous precedent for our military. The idea of Al Qaeda members taken prisoner immediately demanding lawyers for their defense and being given the exact same rights as American citizens is unthinkable.

Media reports Tuesday indicate the Taliban are urging Obama to discontinue our efforts in Afghanistan show what course should not be taken. The President-elect has repeatedly indicated a willingness to send more forces to Afghanistan lest he appear a total defeatist. Unfortunately he has also indicated a desire to quickly withdraw American forces from Iraq at a time when victory appears imminent. A hasty retreat from Iraq could result in a total collapse of all the efforts there so far. That would be a waste of all the blood and treasure invested over the last five years. Iraqi forces are largely in control of the country now, but our forces are still needed to support and train them. Obama should defer to General Petraeus on both these conflicts, and most assuredly the general would not recommend such a plan. He should also pay close attention to the lessons of history concerning Afghanistan. Both the Russians and the British before them attempted to control the country with massive amounts of troops, and both failed miserably. Some additional forces may be needed, but certainly not the numbers we have seen in Iraq. Instead, Obama should recognize his total inexperience and allow Petraeus to continue the policy of negotiating with the reconcilables while battling the less agreeable insurgents. Obama has certainly not made the prospects of victory any more likely by suggesting we take more aggressive action across the border in Pakistan. We need the Pakis as allies, not enemies as the result of increased action. Some strikes withing Pakistan may be necessary, but it is a far wiser policy to continue pressuring the nuclear-armed Pakis themselves to take the required actions. Obama was rather careless during the campaign in his comments about Pakistan, a fact not lost on the them or others in the region. He should tread carefully when suggesting we bomb an ally, an idea that reveals his lack of understanding of military matters.

The Pentagon budget is just as tricky. Obama will have to balance the maintenance of current forces against programs for future weapons systems, just as every President before him has done. Defense projects take many years to complete and thus must be wisely planned. Both the new F-35 fighter jet and the sorely needed new generation of ground combat vehicles for the Army have been identified as possible budget casualties. Every time Obama proposes some new government cheese program, he is putting the future defense of our nation at risk. Seeking to trim budget overruns and speed up procurement delays would be the wiser policy. Today Obama promised to care for America's veterans, but that seems doubtful considering the amount of new domestic spending he proposed during the campaign. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have wise counsel on these issues, because he certainly doesn't have the personal experience to handle them alone. It's unlikely his Cabinet will be stocked with Pentagon hawks, making the outlook for desperately needed military equipment programs cloudy at best.

Our nation is taking a potentially dangerous risk by placing Obama in the Oval Office. Rumors of a twenty-five percent Pentagon budget cut floated last week indicate the depths to which he may be willing to go to fund his domestic spending. One can hope that was only a rumor. At a time when we are engaged with the enemy on multiple fronts and faced with increasing threats at home, Obama risks devastating our armed forces for decades to come. He is without a doubt the emptiest suit ever elected to the highest office in the land. Those who supported him will bear direct responsibility for the consequences of his defense policy. The tragic part is that our men and women in uniform and in harm's way will pay the price more immediately.

FRESH START

I will admit I have been completely demoralized by the election results. I considered deleting this entire blog and ignoring politics.

I can't do it.

There are too many important issues, especially concerning our armed forces. I will begin posting again tonight. Rest assured there will be no quarter given to the Hussein Obama administration. Thanks for reading.

JINGO REPORT 10/20/08

COLON POWELL UPDATE: Now we get a little insight into General Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barak Obama yesterday. “He will have a role as one of my advisers,” Obama said on Monday. So that’s it. Powell’s poor judgment of presidential candidates is a naked attempt to gain further high office. He chose to endorse Obama over McCain, a man whose judgment on military matters has been shown to be wise. At a time of war for America, Powell’s endorsement was at first puzzling. Obama’s comment from this morning reveals the truth and reflects very poorly on the general. Were the general truly a genuine supporter of Obama, why did he wait until the last hour to endorse? Surely he had an opinion before this time. Worse was Powell’s condemnation of Sarah Palin as unqualified to serve. Compared to who, General, a one-term Senator from Illinois with about as much experience as my teenager? General Powell has now lost whatever scraps of credibility he had left.

SARAH PALIN UPDATE: Governor Palin did well on SNL this past weekend, much to the dismay of her critics. The media, locked in a passionate kiss with Obama, cannot stand the sight of Palin. She turns their philosophy upside down. Dems are always claiming to be in favor of the mothers and working mothers of America, until they find out she’s a conservative that is. Then the full weight of the press comes down in an attempt to smear and discredit. It’s fine to be a working mom as long as you’re a pro-abortion liberal. Conservative women break their model and thus cannot be tolerated. It’s been a real joy to see Governor Palin take on the media and hecklers. They have no answer for her.

AFGHANISTAN BANANA STAND: The press is up to their usual hi jinks concerning Afghan war casualty figures. Deaths caused by Taliban attacks or suicide bombings are trumpeted from the highest mountain, but numbers of Taliban killed by allied forces are posted on the back page. The reality is that the Taliban have been taking a pounding for some time now, and the only actions left for them are pathetic suicide attacks focused largely on civilians. Every time an American soldier is killed, the story leads and casualty figures for the entire war are restated. As of Friday, American deaths totaled 542. Certainly every loss is tragic and every soldier irreplaceable, but considering we pushed out the Taliban and established a new government in a nation on the other side of the globe, the total is remarkably low. The liberal press just can’t stand to see any good work from the military and will do their best to obfuscate the real battlefield situation should we be winning. Heard much news from Iraq lately? You won’t, because it’s generally good news of progress, and that doesn’t serve to help elect Obama.

FORT DIX TRIAL: The trial of five foreign-born Muslim men accused of plotting to sneak onto the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army post and kill soldiers begins today in Camden. All face possible life in prison. The question is why they are not facing the death penalty. It seems to me plotting to attack a U.S. military installation in time of war would qualify for the ultimate penalty. Liberals and other apologists for terrorists are saying this type of preemptive prosecution troubles them. Perhaps we should have waited until an actual attack took place and soldiers were killed. The most troubling aspect of this is the fact that these foreign terrorists are being accorded full legal rights just like any other American citizen. The five should be in GITMO until the war is over.

KIM JONG IL ILL?: North Korea is poised for a “major announcement” concerning the health of its leader, 66 year old Kim Jong Il. The little dictator hasn’t been seen since mid-August amid rumors of a stroke or a military coup. We can only hope the “dear leader” is dead or incapacitated. We eagerly await further news from the isolated and starving communist nation.

FALLING OIL PRICES HURT CHAVEZ: Earlier this year crude oil prices topped $145 a barrel. That price had dropped to $71.85 by Friday. Oil profits had allowed Venezuela’s leader to play the big man in South America, spreading money around to nearby nations and financing massive social spending in his own country. Estimates suggest oil would have to stay at or above $95 a barrel for Chavez to balance his budget. Chavez’s promised oil refinery for Nicaragua now sits rusting among the weeds. Hopefully oil prices will continue their downward trend, easing the pain on American consumers and putting the screws to petty tyrants like Chavez.

NOBAMA: TOO RISKY

NOBAMA: TOO RISKY

Presidential elections are usually a choice between the lesser of two evils, and this cycle is certainly no exception. It is extremely rare to find a candidate that exactly matches our own philosophy. Only once in my voting lifetime have I had the opportunity to cast a ballot for a President I knew would nearly identically match my own ethos, and that was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Every other election since has been a compromise, some big, some small. As this election nears, every voter must consider both the times in which we are living and the experience and attributes of those running. Most of us can name someone else we would rather have as our next President, but that is fantasy. The reality is that there is only the one choice, unless you care to waste your ballot on a third party candidate who will not win.

The first factor is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. We are involved in two wars on the other side of the globe. Our national economy and indeed that of the entire world has been rocked by the mortgage mess and falling home values. Politicians of every stripe have been caught being naughty or outright corrupt. Congressional approval ratings are abysmal thanks to the complete incompetence of Democrat leadership on nearly every issue. More than seven years have passed since 9/11, and Bin Laden remains alive and free to taunt us with an occasional video tape. Our ports and borders remain unsecured, allowing a free flow of illegal immigrants and possibly Al Qaeda members. Iraq has improved but isn’t quite completely secured yet. Iran continues its seemingly inexorable march toward nukes while their leader preaches the destruction of Israel. Pakistan holds nuclear weapons under suspect security arrangements with a military heavily infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers. North Korea is a continuing problem with no clear leader and no firm resolution in sight. Africa is beset by AIDS, political violence, and famine despite decades of international assistance. In South America, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela consorts with our enemies and behaves like the petty tyrant he really is. Anywhere one looks around the globe there are situations that directly threaten our national security. That only scratches the surface. In short, this is no time for amateurs nor is there time for learning on the job. The new President will have a full plate from day one.

Barak Hussein Obama has done next to nothing. If his brilliant new ideas were so hot, why has he done absolutely nothing in the Senate since arriving? He has authored no important legislation and made no significant progress on anything. Remember that this is at a time when his own party controlled both the House and Senate with significant margins. It would be different had a Republican majority prevented him from accomplishing his goals, but that was not the case. Even if his record as an Illinois legislator is paper thin. Reaching further back into his history, I still have no idea what a “community organizer” is.

Senator Obama’s associations from the past are at least concerning. He still has not answered to how he could sit in church year after year and not have a problem with Reverend Wright’s sermons damning the United States. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor” until scrutiny forced him to distance himself from the reverend. Then there’s the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama boldly lied when questioned about Ayers during the last debate. McCain pointed out that Obama had begun his political career in Ayers’ living room, an established fact that Obama falsely denied. Ayers is a man who participated in the bombing of the Pentagon and a New York City Police station and to this day expresses no regrets. Senator Obama constantly claims all the violence took place when he was eight years old. That is a diversion and doesn’t explain or excuse their associations in more recent times. Obama is certainly the most inexperienced man ever to receive the nomination of a major party for President. One term as United States Senator, a stint in the Illinois legislature, and time as a “community organizer” (whatever that means) is the extent of his resume. He has no military experience, not even indirectly. He has no experience as an executive. What he has is the ability to say nothing better than anyone in quite a while. Certainly his rise to prominence is impressive politically but not enough to qualify him for the office.

John McCain has not been a reliable conservative in the past, nor is he espousing uniformly conservative policies now. He has made a career of defying the party when he was needed to pass important legislation. Far too often McCain sided with Democrats and proposed or furthered bills on matters that were not exactly on the top of the Republican agenda. He has spent his political career not as an executive, but as a legislator. He has shown a disturbing propensity to compromise on important issues, an important tool for a Senator, but not necessarily as good for POTUS. Some of his recent proposals, like $300B to buy up home mortgages, smack of unadulterated socialism. McCain has spent the last decade poking a finger in the eyes of conservatives at every opportunity. Now he comes asking for our votes and laying a dubious claim to Reagan conservatism. McCain is fortunate that he is running now, when America needs a man experienced in military policy.

I must address the disappointing Obama endorsement by Colin Powell. The general was brought into the national security staff and later appointed Secretary of State under Republican administrations. Powell was a total disappointment at State, failing to secure U.S. access to attack Iraq from the north through Turkey and throughout generally opposing the policies of the very administration he served. Powell endorsed Obama today on “Meet the Press”, no surprise given Powell’s questionable behavior since he left the government. He has fashioned himself as some sort of neutral wise man. Never mind the fact that he is during time of war NOT endorsing a fellow Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war schooled in military command. No, no, instead let’s endorse a guy whose resume is transparent. General Powell lost his credibility long ago, and now it seems he is losing his mind as well.

John McCain is the only choice. It will require some nose-holding in the voting booth, but there really is no other choice. Barak Obama as President would be dangerous for America. His distorted world view, wrong-headed policies, and radical associations from the past should be enough to put off most voters. Unfortunately the media is in the midst of a torrid affair with Obama, and they spend all their ink covering over any matter that might prevent his election. It will be interesting to see how far the press will go in these last two weeks.

Fear for the republic should Obama and his ACORN defrauders manage to get him elected. Jimmy Carter, anyone?

DEBATE 07 OCT 08

DEBATE IN THE ROUND: Last night’s Presidential debate wasn’t exactly a thriller. The potential of the town hall format was wasted by moderator Tom Brokaw’s poor choice of questions from both email and the assembled crowd of allegedly undecided voters. Of course most of the discussion was concerned with recent economic matters and the home mortgage situation, dooming the entire evening to a very dry doom.

Obama predictably blamed the Bush administration and deregulation policy of the last eight years, ignoring the role of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He continued to make his outrageous promise to go through the federal budget with an axe “line by line”. Anybody want to tell the Senator that money bills must originate from the House? The President does not have the line item veto to do such a thing. Even more disturbing was Obama’s reference to “coordinating with other countries” on matters of economic policy. That sort of internationalism is the last thing we need right now. Another part of Obama’s mantra is pointing out that the federal budget was in surplus when George W. took office. Never mind that little, um, WAR that came along. Naturally no Democrat could discuss economics without engaging in a little class warfare, and the Illinois Senator is no different. He continues to harp on “middle class” tax cuts and appears oblivious to the fact that most small businesses are sole proprietorships that file federal taxes as individuals. These businesses would be crushed by Obama’s tax hikes and massive new spending. Senator McCain said some of the right things, but more disturbing was his proposal to sink the federal government $300B deep into the home mortgage market by having Treasury buy up mortgages. The taxpayers are sure to get soaked to the bone on that one. It is remarkable that leaders of both parties have an instant reflex to deepen government involvement in the markets, fleeing like lemmings toward a high socialist cliff. Gee, the feds have done so well with all their other programs, let’s have them start taking over our economy and healthcare.

The foreign policy portion of the event was notable only in the fact that it was another display of the dangers of making Barak Hussein Obama the next Commander in Chief. He even referred to “moral interests” being a factor in determining proper use of American forces. He continues to insist upon withdrawing forces from Iraq as an answer for Afghanistan as well as repeatedly promise to strike in Pakistan if necessary. The question was actually about strategy for the Afghan front, and Senator McCain correctly responded by deferring to General Petraeus. Both gentlemen essentially backed Israel in the event of an attack by Iran, vowed to prevent the Iranians from developing nukes, and promised to prevent a “second Holocaust”.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
1. Seeing Senator McCain interact with a Navy veteran in the crowd was touching and insightful. McCain patted the man’s back and warmly shook his hand as he thanked him for his service to our nation. Obama didn’t bother to get out of his chair to thank the guy.
2. Cindy McCain wore BLUE while Michelle Obama wore RED. Shouldn’t that have been opposite? Anyone besides me notice?
3. McCain needs to get some fresh new phrases to use. He’s wearing out “my friends” and “the point is”. He even dusted off “naked aggression”, one that never fails to make me smile.
4. Both candidates willfully violated the time limits and the little green, yellow and red lights intended to guide them, and Brokaw kept whining about it.
5. At the end of the affair, Obama and McCain moved to shake hands, blocking Brokaw’s view of the giant teleprompter and nearly causing him an aneurism.

The scary part of the whole election is the idea of Obama at the controls of the mightiest military force the world has ever known in a time of war. John McCain doesn’t exactly thrill me, but there’s just no way I can vote for a man with no military experience at all in time of war. It’s nearly irresponsible. With less than four weeks remaining until Election Day, Americans face a choice they and our military will have to live with for years to come. Meanwhile our enemies continue to plan and plot to kill more of us.

Vote carefully.

MCCAIN VS. OBAMA DEBATE ROUND 1

Arizona Senator John McCain squared off against Illinois Senator Barack Obama Friday night in a spirited debate. The event, held on the University of Mississippi ("Ole Miss") campus, was originally billed as a foreign policy only debate. Unfortunately nearly half the time available was spent on economic issues currently in the headlines. The format provided for a two minute answer to each question and then a five minute period for free discussion during which the candidates were permitted to address and question each other directly.

About ten minutes before the start of festivities, I surfed over to CSPAN2 to check out their raw feed. Moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS's "NewsHour" spent seven minutes sternly warning the audience about cheering, cell phones, and other possible disruptions. He repeatedly whined about how hard and important his job was going to be. Lehrer appointed Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain as persons in charge of enforcing silence in the audience, even telling them to "take names". Can anyone in America imagine Michelle or Cindy dragging an unruly protester down the aisle and out the door? It made me glad the Secret Service was nearby: you can't miss the guys with ear pieces and slight bulges in their suits. I don't think either lady could possibly be ready to muscle someone out of the hall.

The first forty minutes of the debate supposed to be about foreign policy at a time when America is at war were consumed by discussion of the bailout bill. All of sudden and thus allegedly requiring immediate action, the Bush administration has proposed a potential $700B bailout of failing mortgage lenders to prevent the collapse of large financial institutions and the credit markets. Never mind the outrageous concept of a wholesale government takeover of a significant portion of a private market, and please don't notice that the money required to do this will be borrowed from foreign investors, largely China. The whole thing smells like Sovietization of the American economy. Since when is it a good idea for the federal government to take financial responsibility for either poor business or poor personal decisions? The Democrats assert this is all the result of eight years of Bush policy to deregulate markets, ignoring the fact that the concept of offering mortgages to people who clearly couldn't afford them began under Slick Willie. Like all government money, once it began the program snowballed into a monstrosity too big to sustain. It was disappointing such a large portion of the evening was spent on blah economics. We won't be worried about Wall Street CEO salaries if America isn't secure. Dead people don't get new mortgages or invest in the stock market.

The first foreign policy question concerned the lessons of Iraq. Senator McCain pointed out his push for strategy change early on in Iraq, praised the "great" General Petreaus, and hung the potential bad outcomes had we failed around his opponents neck. Obama originally proposed a staged, sixteen month withdrawal of American forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground, a policy clearly proven wrong by the success of the surge. The Illinois Senator also lauded Petraeus as "brilliant", odd praise from a man who didn't actually go to Iraq until the conflict was more than nine hundred days old. Obama was wrong about the surge and attempts to partially cover by jumping on the Petraeus bandwagon. Too late, Senator, you missed that train long ago. McCain brought the Iraq discussion into sharp focus by pointing out that Obama clearly doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, something the liberal media glosses over almost as much as Democrat Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's verbal gaffes. Obama continues to claim that Al Qaeda is more powerful now than at any time since 9/11, a dubious assertion at best, and that Iraq distracted us from our fight against them and our search for UBL. Senator Obama apparently thinks the American military is incapable of multiple missions.

The question of more troops brought the candidates to the subject of Afghanistan. Senator Obama painted a gloomy picture of a resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda running roughshod while U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq. He proposed an immediate boost of two brigades and warned of his willingness to strike at Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan if the Pakis are unwilling or unable to do so. Senator McCain reminded us that America had largely washed its hands of the entire region after the Soviet withdrawal and warned about the clear dangers of publicly threatening military action inside Pakistan. Obama accused the Bush administration of coddling former Paki President Musharraf, ignoring the fact that Pakistan was a failed Islamic state in possession of nuclear weapons when he took over. The candidates then conducted a "battle of the bracelets", both explaining why they wore one inscribed with the name of a U.S. soldier killed in action.

Moderator Jim Lehrer then moved the discussion to the threat of nuclear Iran. Both candidates stressed the danger to Israel and the potential nuclear arms race that would ensue throughout the region. Both gentlemen agreed that Iran with nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, but their ideas about how to get there differed sharply. Obama is sticking to his concept of direct talks. That's all well and good to sit down with whatever rogue world leader you can think of, but it lends legitimacy to them and their outrageous words and actions as well as diminishes the American presidency. Does anyone really want to see Cuba's Raoul Castro or Iran's Ahmadinejad strolling the Rose Garden or the media circus that would result from a meeting without precondition? McCain more sensibly proposed a league of democracies, an idea long overdue given the uselessness of the United Nations. No matter how many economic sanctions are proposed against Iran, Russia and China will kill them in the Security Council. Neither man was willing to unequivocally commit to military action at any point while simultaneously refusing to eliminate it as an option. The rest of the world, least of all Old Europe, will not help us with Iran, and pretending otherwise is foolhardy.

Russia was the next item on the agenda, fair enough considering the provocative military and economic actions they've taken lately. Resumption of Russian bomber flights off the U.S. coast, the occasional restriction of natural gas supplies to eastern Europe, and the invasion of Georgia have been on their hit parade recently. Obama seemed a little lost, digressing into economics and unbelievably ending his comment with a reference to global warming (huh?). Senator McCain called it like it is: Russia is a KGB-run Putin dictatorship fueled by petrodollars. McCain proposed adding Georgia and Ukraine to NATO and continuing programs to secure the "loose" nuclear weapons left from the former Soviet Union.

The final question was about the potential for another 9/11 on American soil. Both Senators claimed we are safer but not yet safe. McCain focused on border security and Obama on the danger of suitcase nukes being smuggled into the country. The question seemed like a liberal media trap to get McCain on record guaranteeing security or some such nonsense. Nice try, no bite.

McCain clearly won the foreign policy portion of the evening hands down. Whether voters clearly understand the economic issues discussed is another matter. McCain repeatedly and correctly referred to Obama as naive. The Illinois Senator shows his inexperience each time the use of American power abroad is discussed. Funny that tonight will be overshadowed by the Vice Presidential debate next week, featuring Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin versus Democrat Deleware Senator Joe Biden. Palin has become a political star and Biden is prone to make verbal mistakes. Should be fun.

TRIUMPHANT RETURN

NOTE: I am returning after a summer hiatus from writing. My normal subject matter of war and politics will return tomorrow after I vent on matters of personal conduct.



WHAT IS A GOOD PERSON?



Occasionally I will refer to someone as a "good man" or "good woman". It seems like a simple statement yet carries a specific connotation. We have all met individuals we would never call "good" for a variety of reasons. What exactly are reasonable standards of conduct for civilized folks nowadays? Of course we can generally accept the Ten Commandments standards, but a few deserve special comment.



Honesty comes to mind first. Sure, we've all told a little white lie here and there, but what I am referring to is complete honesty with those closest to you. Intentional deception is a heinous form of lying. Fooling someone into doing ones bidding or putting up a facade for whatever reason are unacceptable. Lying by omission is another sneaky form of dishonesty. Intentionally not revealing information vital to the individual involved is just as evil as a direct lie. Those who dabble around the edges of treachery are only fooling themselves and will eventually suffer the same disgrace as those who dive in all the way. It is extremely hurtful to people because each lie slowly erodes confidence and trust in the offender. Frequent liars often get caught in their own webs and are usually quickly identified. This is a deep character flaw that is not easily remedied or managed. Liars are not good people.



Most of us have suffered through adult relationships that saw some form of duplicitous behaviour that either bordered on or actually was cheating. Think about that: an individual gives a commitment, either in deed or word, to be monogamous, then later takes great effort to abandoning their own word. Breaking that vow is in itself lying, and there's usually a lot of it when a cheater is at work. Some people simply cannot commit to another individual within the framework of adult relations. They simply don't have the mental discipline or strength to conduct themselves with honor or control themselves. Others drift from new person to new person to soak up as much new attention as possible, an early sign of potential for cheating. Seeking a love relationship outside of a commitment qualifies, with or without actual sex. Cheaters are not good people.



Keeping your word is a related subject. Promises mean something. People who give a specific promise and then do not follow through are making themselves liars. There is very little hope for mankind if we cannot count on each others' word of honor. Promises were not made to be broken, they were made to allow people to trust each other. Anyone who will not keep a given promise should be viewed with a highly skeptical eye and not trusted further. Those who break promises are not good people.



Being a good person comes down to a simple element: can you be trusted to do the right thing? Good people do not require supervision or constant reminders to behave in an acceptable manner. It is their nature. People caught lying or being intentionally deceptive should not be trusted further until they redeem themselves wholly. None of us have time in our lives for the aggravation and humiliation of dealing with bad people in our personal lives. Our time on this planet is limited and shouldn't be wasted on those not even good enough to be honest or those who cannot treat other individuals with even the most basic of respect.

NANCY REAGAN HOSPITALIZED

OUR THOUGHTS THIS EVENING ARE WITH FORMER FIRST LADY NANCY REAGAN, HOSPITALIZED AFTER A FALL AT HOME. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OFFERED THESE DETAILS:




Nancy Reagan Hospitalized After Falling

9 minutes ago @ 2217 EST

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) — Former first lady Nancy Reagan was hospitalized Sunday after falling in her home in Bel-Air but is doing well, her spokeswoman said.

Reagan, 86, was taken to St. John's Health Center, where doctors determined she did not break a hip as feared, spokeswoman Joanne Drake said.

Drake said Reagan was doing well and would stay the night in the same room where former President Ronald Reagan stayed after he broke his hip at home in 2001. He died June 5, 2004.

The former first lady is "joking and visiting in her room," Drake said.

Reagan's family physician recommended the overnight stay "as a precaution," Drake said.

Nancy Reagan's last major public appearance was at the Jan. 30 Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., where she sat with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.


GET WELL SOON!

JINGOREPORT 07 FEB 08

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS FINAL WORD: Yesterday's Super Tuesday primary results make it increasingly clear Arizona Senator John McCain will be the Republican nominee for President. That does not bode well for the conservative agenda, as previously detailed. While I state once again that I have great respect for his military service, I cannot endorse or support Senator McCain. Future postings will instead focus on foreign affairs and the war.

>

TOP MILITARY MAN ABETS SURRENDER MONKEYS: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen has described American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as being tired and in need of a rest. Mullen also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Army deployments should be reduced to twelve months. Regardless of whether or not these statements accurately depict the situation, Admiral Mullen should know better than to throw that sort of red meat to defeatists on the Hill who will use any rationale to justify surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Does the admiral not have a legislative liason? Can we get him one? These are the sort of statements that should be made only in closed session to keep our enemies from picking up on them for their own use. The Pentagon's proposed budget for next year includes $20.5B to increase the Army by 7,000 and the Marines by 5,000. As always, the amount of money and troop increases are too small and very late, but none of that gives the admiral a pass on this one. And shouldn't our JCS Chairman be a Army or Marine general, since Iraq and Afghanistan are largely ground operations? Former Chairman Pete Pace, we miss you already.

>

GEE, THANKS, GERMANY: Germany continues to be a reluctant ally in Afghanistan. The Germans have announced the deployment of 250 additional troops to replace a Norwegian unit. The catch is that they will be stationed in the northern area of the country, where the Taliban are relatively inactive. The Germans and other allies in Afghanistan have repeatedly refused U.S. and Canadian requests to send troops south, much to the dismay of SECDEF. Other members of the administration have been beating that drum also. SECSTATE Condi Rice, in London for meetings with PM Gordon Brown, reinforced that message and said only a few nations have troops in the south. It's not surprising, especially for Germany. This especially dismays me, having served two years in Nurnberg during the Cold War. I expect more from a nation of an estimated 87 million people. 250, that's the best you can do? Never mind, fellas, as usual American will have to do the heavy lifting alone while alleged allies stand by fecklessly. Old Europe only helps when it benefits them, and apparently fighting terrorists isn't high on their list. What a bunch of turds.

>

IRANIAN MISSILE TEST: Iran tested a rocket on Monday it said would eventually allow it to deploy satellites. Yeah, right, and there are no homosexuals in Iran, either. The Pentagon responded by emphasizing the urgency of ongoing negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic for deployment of a missile defense system. The Polish FM said last week in Washington that agreement in principle had been reached on initial deployment. Europe might want to step up the pace a little. Iranian nuclear and missile technology is proceeding full speed ahead, and since no one in Europe will try to stop them now, they might want to take adequate defensive measures. If their not going to take a stronger stand against the Iranian nuclear program, they better start building an effective missile interceptor system and fallout shelters.

>

ANOTHER SECRET REVEALED: The existance of a secret facility at GITMO for high value detainees has been confirmed by the AP. Lawyers for Majid Kahn, a Baltimore man who allegedly plotted to blow up gas stations, originally revealed the secret facility to the media in December. They should be hung. Now those same lawyers are claiming they can't discuss the matter further because of a gag order. It seems a bit late for that. When are we going to start protecting our national secrets again? One problem is the complete lack of criminal prosecutions for this sort of damaging leak. No one is ever held accountable, so there is no fear of punishment. Those who reveal vital defense information are aiding and abetting the enemy, whether it's an attorney or a liberal, defeatist newspaper. Shame on them.

>

PAKI CEASE FIRE: Word of another cease fire is coming out of Pakistan, and that is not good news. Musharraf may be looking for a little help with the upcoming February 18 parliamentary elections. His past political deals with pro-Taliban militants have allowed them to regroup and grow stronger to launch more attacks in Afghanistan against American troops. When you're enemy asks for a cease fire, press them all the harder. It means their weak, and that means the time to eliminate them is now, not after they rest and recuperate. Musharraf better get his act together before America is forced to do the killing he seems so unwilling to undertake.

A LIBERAL KODAK MOMENT IN L.A.

Senators Clinton and Obama faced off in a political joust Thursday evening at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles. CNN televised the event under the moderation of Wolf Blitzer, assisted by Jean Cummings of Politico.com and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times. This was the last debate for either party before next week's Super Tuesday, with primary voting for both parties in twenty-two states. The audience was packed with California politicians and celebrities. I try to ignore Hollywood, but I did recognize Jason Alexander, Rob Reiner, Stevie Wonder, and Pierce Brosnan.

The Obama campaign tactically announced on the eve of the debate today that they had raised $32M in January alone, a staggering figure helped along by 170,000 new donors. Obama's South Carolina win, followed by the Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements, have him on an undeniable roll. Whether he can competee on a national scale will be tested next week. Hillary, meanwhile, has kept Slick Willie on a tight leash this week. His comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson and his previous tirade against a reporter forced the Clinton campaign to reel in Bill a little, at least for now. Don't doubt that if the race tightens further and goes on longer, the Clinton machine and it's army of private detectives will launch attacks that will make all the previous ones seem mild by comparison.

I have to issue a brief disclaimer. It is nearly impossible for me to tell who has won a Democrap debate. I have no frame of reference. I disagree with nearly everything that is said. I try to concentrate on the particular words and phrases used by the Dems that reveal their true intent or illustrate clear differences with conservative philosophy. Sure, I can tell when someone gets in a good shot, but beyond that, I'm at a loss. Listening to the talking heads just confuses the issue even more. And the truth is that there are very little policy differences between the Democrat candidates. Their contest this year is a matter of style and experience, not major policy fights.

The candidates were introduced simultaneously and walked out together, so it was a little hard to determine if there was any initial crowd bias. Some cheering occurred in response to both candidates at later points, but it wasn't dramatic. Wolf offered time for an opening statement, and off they went. Obama used the majority of his time to praise John Edwards, who dropped out Wednesday, in a naked appeal for the support of Edwards voters. Hillary instead attacked the "failed" Bush administration, and she definitely has experience with a failed adminstration. Each candidate was then given a chance to point out specific policy differences between them. Hillary started by attacking the Republican candidates, a general election pitch. She also called health care a "right", something I could not find in the Constitution. Clinton then spelled out her solution to the increase in housing foreclosures, which sounded very similar to the big government plan John McCain detailed last night in the Republican debate. Hillary's proposal to freeze interest rates is nothing less than a government takeover of the markets. Socialism, anyone? Obama admitted their health plans are "95 percent similar," but said his was absent mandates that would logically require enforcement of some kind. He declared drug company profits "oversize", an odd view of capitalism for a potential President to hold. Obama then landed a firm smack to the forehead of John McCain by pointing out the "tax cuts for the wealthy" language McCain used when twice voting against the Bush tax reductions. If McCain is the Republican nominee, we'll see that again, even though both Dems openly admitted they will surely raise taxes if elected.

The discussion then moved on to illegal immigration, and this is where they lose me completely. They both support a "comprehensive" immigration reform, and that translates to "amnesty". Obama refused to even acknowledge the effect illegals have on American jobs, terming the idea "scapegoating". Hillary was pressed on drivers licenses for illegals, a question she originally stumbled on in the Philadelphia debate. She twice attempted to run out the clock without answering by comparing Republicans to jackbooted Nazis for insisting immigration law be enforced and citing her support from a migrant farmworkers union. She eventually said she opposes licenses for illegals, but it took a while to get there. Obama cited public safety concerns for his support of licenses, and then Hillary uttered one of the most insincere and ironic sentences I have ever heard: "We have to respect the dignity of every human being." That's a real change in philosophy if she meant it. She has respect for illegal immigrants and criminals, but not for human life created yet unborn. Killing fetuses by the tens of millions is acceptable, but she "respects" EVERY human being?

The broadcast returned late after a commercial to candidate response to an apparent question about qualifications to be President. Senator Obama detailed his meager experience and said he has the skills that are needed. Hillary immediately threw out her "35 years" pitch. Again, you don't call the plumber's wife to fix a leak. She claimed visits to eighty-two foreign nations, like tourism is an executive skill, and topped off her response by maintaining she had once negotiated with (drumroll please)....Macedonia! Wow, I bet that was a tough deal to complete. The Macedonians are known worldwide for their diplomatic skills. A question about Romney's business experience gave Hillary the chance to swipe at Bush again, and Obama suggested Mitt had gotten a bad return on his investment in the campaign so far. The two played nice over the Kennedy endorsements and then Hillary was asked about the possibility of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. As in the past, she instantly defended Slick Willie's administration by citing the "surplus" when Bill left office. Never mind that war, balance the budget.

The debate again went to commercial, so I grabbed the remote like a hungry man grabbing a biscuit. Mitt Romney on Hannity calling McCain's tactics "Nixonian", and I thought that was pretty cool, as well as accurate. CNN returned from break with an exterior shot, and I saw something that warmed my heart: Ron Paul supporters. It's just good to know he's bedeviling the Democrats also.

Iraq policy arose next, with the candidates differing very little on future policy. Both are prepared to order a precipitous withdrawal, ignoring the progress of the surge and the sacrifice so far, and without regard to consequence. Hillary said the Iraqi government has "no time" remaining, strange for a member of an organization that can't issue checks in less than four months. Clinton proposed withdrawing one or two American brigades per month, but expressed a concern for the Iraqis who have supported us. She's not concerned enough to keep Al Qaeda from beheading them, but she's concerned none the less. Hillary even admitted and shrugged off the potential of further Syrian and Iranian involvement in Iraqi sectarian strife. Not only is she willing to surrender to Al Qaeda, she is prepared to abandon the battlefield to the two largest state sponsors of terror. Obama asserted our effort in Iraq has distracted us from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latin America. Okay, I get the first two, but Latin America? Senator Obama beat Hillary over the head with her vote for the Iraq war, with Wolf Blitzer helping by asking Clinton if she was "naive" for doing so. She tried to assert that her vote was for further diplomacy and not military action, but that's tired and everyone knows it's disinginuous. Both have pandered to the cut and run wing of their party, and it will be hard for them to seem responsible on the issue in the general election, especially if substantial progress continues.

The broadcast returned late from it's final break, an annoyance considering they have clocks. The final segment was a big Democrat hug. Hillary was asked about Bill's role in her campaign and potentially in the White House, and it drew a hideous cackle from her that chilled the blood. She also described the presidency as a "lonely" job, something that may partially explain how the fat intern ended up under her husband's desk. The candidates were then quizzed about running together. Obama called the matter premature, but Hillary took the opportunity and ran with it. She gave a thirty second plug for her upcoming "national town hall" on television and the web. It was cheesy and opportunistic, paralleling her entire campaign.

No more debates for a while. The next ones are after Super Tuesday, February 27th and 28th in my home state of Ohio. Who knows what kind of political carnage may have occurred by then. It's up to the voters, as it should be. Just don't begin to think next Tuesday will settle either race, because that's unlikely.

REAGAN LIBRARY DEBATE

The surviving Republican Presidential candidates convened for a debate Wednesday evening hosted by CNN in the Air Force One pavilion of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There could not have been a less appropriate setting, considering none of the gentlemen still remaining in the race quite fit the Reagan philosophy. Questions were posed by moderator Anderson Cooper with assistance from Jim Vandehei of Politico.com and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times. Instead of dividing the evening up into issue segments, I decided to score the debate like a sporting event. Yeah, yeah, I know this is about selecting the leader of the free world and all that, but the Republicans have now debated at least a hundred times. I can only take so much, so why not have some fun with it and declare a winner at the end? Each candidate was awarded one point for each time they stated something with which I agreed, and one negative point for each time they said something that I found objectionable. The scores have been tallied, so let's look at the statistics, starting with the losers.

Ron Paul earned three good, solid kicks in the testicles for the number of times he used the word "empire" to describe American foreign policy. Listen closely, grandpa: America does not now nor has it ever maintained an "empire". We just don't fit the definition. United States forces in no way rule over foreign lands as absolute authorities, nor do we go around the planet absorbing smaller, weaker nations. Paul's assertion is that we can simply withdraw from the globe behind our oceans and no one will bother us. It's both stunningly stupid and stunningly naive for a man of his experience. His foreign policy totally ignores the last say, oh, seventy or eighty years of world history. His presence in the campaign has been a sad little joke that has wasted everyone's time. I will never get back the time I wasted listening to Ron Paul's vacuous and assanine philosophy, and I deeply resent that. I cannot explain the money he has raised or his continued presence in the race. Having a substantive debate over critical domestic and foreign policy matters is not helped by the presence of some braying jackass who has zero chance of getting the nomination. And stop saying "empire".

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee scored a big three points. Now, admittedly, I may have a residual bias against Huck from Iowa. I may never get over the floating cross commercial. It made me think of a Christian version of "Big Brother". Huckabee scored a point for his strong advocacy of federalism and the right of states to more freely legislate, a largely missing subject from this campaign. He also scored for wondering about borrowing money from China to finance consumer puchases of Chinese goods in an effort to stimulate the economy. Huck didn't score for a long stretch until the end, when his reply to a question about who Ronald Reagan would endorse, he said, "I don't know if he would endorse me, but I endorse him." Governor Huckabee complained several times about the amount of time allotted to McCain and Romney, and he was right. The press always neglect coverage of real issues to gather around a fight like children on a playground.

Arizona Senator John McCain scored plenty. Unfortunately for him, all his points were negative, and by the end of the evening, he stood at negative ten. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. When asked about his record as a conservative, McCain used his stock phrase to describe compromising conservative principles and submitting to the Democrats: "reaching across the aisle to get something done". I don't want "something" done, I want the right thing done. I vote Republican to promote conservative policies, not meld them with liberal claptrap. McCain's response to California's attempts to more strictly regulate carbon emissions devolved into a rambling version of Gore-style global warming hysteria. His answer to the subprime lending situation is massive government regulation. He continues to push the absurd claim that the Republican congressional losses in 2006 were solely because of spending, a simplistic argument that ignores every other possible factor. McCain's defense of his proposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, formed in cooperation with Ted Kennedy, continues to be unconvincing and pathetic. He also could not defend his Iraq timetable sucker punch of Romney on the eve of the Florida primary, and even the liberal media so in love with McCain seem to agree it was dishonest. He lost another point for complaining about "negative ads". I call those "political ads". You'd think a man who spent five years a prisoner of the North Vietnamese could take a few jabs. Shortly after his complaint, he took a shot at Romney's experience as "for profit", characterizing his as "for patriotism". So, he seems to have a problem with capitalism and thinks commanding a naval squadron is relevant experience in dealing with the national economy? Another shot at Romney's business experience cost McCain another point when he said, "He bought, and he sold, and some people lost their jobs." Again, a shot at capitalism. When did John McCain morph into John Edwards? McCain was assessed a tenth and final negative point for constantly saying he was a "footsoldier in the Reagan revolution". He was more like a passerby or witness than he was a footsoldier. McCain's performance was flat and unimpressive. Equally unimpressive was today's endorsement of McCain by Rudy Guliani, brazenly conducted at the library as well. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will reportedly endorse McCain tomorrow as well. Big deal.

Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney finished the night with eight points, well ahead of the other fellows. Mitt's justified interpretation of McCain's record scored first, and Romney even threw in the New York Times endorsement of McCain as proof. Romney correctly disputed Huckabee's assertion that building infrastructure can help the economy in the short term, and pointed out that McCain was one of only two Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Bush tax cuts. He strongly supported deporting illegal immigrants and assailed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. Romney said Ronald Reagan would find McCain's tactics on the eve of the Florida primary "reprehensible", and he was right. He scored again over the same subject by asking McCain, "How are YOU and expert on MY position?" Mitt's last point came during his summation question about a theoretical Reagan endorsement. He concisely stated the Reagan philosophy and formula for winning elections and aggressively made his cas for the nomination. Huckabee's response to the same question was properly humble, but Romney made a good case for himself within the Reagan model.

There have been two debates since Fred Thompson dropped out, I have judged them both objectively, and in my estimation Mitt Romney has easily won them both. His challenge going forward will be to somehow slow the snowball effect of McCain's South Carolina and Florida wins. I can't say yet that I would vote for Romney, but it's looking more and more probable with each debate. If I can't vote for the candidate I really wanted, then I'll have to pick the best of what's available. The evening made clear once again that McCain certainly isn't it.

LAST STATE OF THE UNION FOR BUSH

President Bush delivered his seventh and final State of the Union speech to the 110th United States Congress Monday evening in the House chamber. The annual event is the single largest gathering of federal government authority in one place at one time, and as one would imagine, security is ironclad. The rituals of the affair are usually more interesting than the actual speech itself. The audience is always a Who's Who of Washington politics, and this time was no exception. First Lady Laura Bush was accompanied for the first time by both Jenna and Barbara. Democratic Presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were present, along with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Souder. The President entered as usual after being announced and proceeded down the aisle, glad-handing with members of Congress along the way. It's funny to see which members seem to get the seat next to the aisle every time so they can appear with the President. Some of them are sworn political enemies to the President, but no one can deny the power of television. The customary applause continued as the President delivered a hard copy to House Speaker Pelosi and Vice President Cheney. The roar from the audience continued long enough for Bush to manage three hand shakes with Pelosi. Let's all hope he has hand sanitizer readily available for just such an emergency.

The President began with domestic issues, and the economy was at the top of the list. Bush encouraged the Senate to pass the growth package as soon as possible and without a load of pork added. He also made his pitch for making his tax cuts permanent. In the best line of the night, Bush said he appreciated the enthusiasm of those who would voluntarily pay higher taxes, and said the IRS takes "check or money order". He also vowed to veto any tax increase and by executive order cut 151 wasteful federal programs, saving $18B almost immediately. Bush then laid down the law on earmarks, the spending hidden in legislation without a vote. Saying Congress had failed his request in 2007 to cut them, Bush said he would veto any spending measure that did not cut earmarks be at least half in number and total. He then threw down a gauntlet by saying he would order federal agencies to ignore spending not voted on by the Congress. This policy should have been implemented long ago, and it is one Bush can continue until he's gone. The whole section on earmarks elicited an evil Cheney smirk, most entertaining as he sat next to Pelosi and behind the President.

The remainder of the domestic agenda was expressed as a laundry list of the policies the President hopes to maintain or get at least some movement on before he exits. He called for the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, and called on Congress to provide tax-free bonds to refinance mortgages in danger of foreclosure. Bush restated his policies on health care, education, trade, and federal judges. He also supported an international agreement on greenhouse gasses, then made it a fantasy by saying all the major nations (read China and India) would have to be included. Bush challenged Congress to take action on entitlements, now that his proposals on the matter have been rejected. The President continues to to insist that our borders cannot be secured without a guest worker program, a dubious claim at best. Bush has never been shy about big federal spending on domestic programs, and his proposals Monday evening did not disappoint on that count.

The President shifted to events abroad by reviewing the events in that arena over the past seven years. Calling the war "the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century," Bush thanked Congress for it's support on Afghanistan and quickly moved to Iraq. "Some may deny the success of the surge," the President said, "but... Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, ... and this enemy will be defeated." Only the Republican side of the audience rose to cheer that, as often happens during controversial parts of the speech. The Democrat reaction to our undeniable progress in Iraq is a striking denial of reality and reveals their heavy political investment in defeat. Bush promised our military all the tools necessary to defend our nation, and pressured Congress for full funding of our troops on the battlefield. He laid out a gradual troop withdrawal plan for Iraq bringing 20,000 home this year, but only if conditions allow and commanders on the ground recommend doing so. Bush's stance on Iraq has been unwavering, and he will deserve every iota of the credit if we succeed, if for nothing else than refusing to budge.

His emphasis on democracy as a cure for terrorism continues despite dangerous results in the Palestinian territories, as does his inexplicable pursuit of a terrorist state astride Israel. The President called for Iran to abandon it's uranium enrichment and stop support for terror, neither of which is very likely. He did, however, warn Iran that we will defend our troops and our interests in the Persian Gulf. Bush stated American opposition to the genocide in Sudan and support for freedom in Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Burma. He also disturbingly requested an additional $50B over the next five years for his African AIDS efforts. That amount of foreign aid could best be used at home or for defense.

The President concluded with veterans affairs. He pointed out funding for veterans programs has increased 95 percent during his administration. Bush called for further funding and a reform of the system. Bob Dole and Donna Shalala, co-chairs of the Commission on Care for Wounded Warriors, were in attendance, and Bush also requested implementation of their recommendations. Our nation would be making a huge leap in veterans care if Congress ever does.

The speech lasted fifty-three minutes and was interrupted by applause seventy times. The networks let the microphones roll as the President made his way out of the chamber. It was a unique insight into the man and the job. It seemed every member wanted an autographed program, and they crowded the aisle and often squeezed the President's shoulder in congratulation. The very same folks will be trying to rip out his political guts tomorrow morning. Members customarily gather in Statuary Hall after the speech to snag interviews and judge the President's performance. It's a fascinating ritual of our republic, regardless of who holds the office. Bush may get some approval for his effort, but the rest will require help from Congress. That's doubtful unless the Dems see political gain in cooperating, a rarity indeed.