The Surfing Conservative

Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T17:22:00Z

America is 233 years old and going strong. Let us not forget that, despite all the haters abroad and apologists at home, America remains the guiding force for freedom throughout the world and has a long and proud history of standing up to tyranny that no other nation can even hope to rival. So be proud to be an American today and everyday.

Warning: Socialism Ahead!

2009-06-11T23:36:00Z

The Left in Washington has become increasingly emboldened after the massive expansion of government intervention in the economy under the Obama administration. First, Uncle Sam began taking over banks. Next it was auto companies. Now, uber-liberal extraordinaire Barney Frank is proposing to legislate compensation for corporate executives in companies, regardless of whether that company has accepted federal bailout money.

Frank claims that the current financial crisis was prompted in large part by excessive executive compensation. That assertion is absolutely baseless and Frank provides no statistics or evidence to support his claims. What's most troubling is that Frank believes that it's the role of government to dictate to companies how they do business and he is trying to use populist anger at the state of the economy to press forward an agenda that can best be described as socialist. While the Obama administration has not gone as far as Frank in proposing regulation of all executive compensation, administration officials do not appear to disagree with Franks fundamental thesis that the government should determine what is best for private companies. Let's take a look at what Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's adviser had to say on the matter:

Gene Sperling, adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said in testimony to Frank's committee Thursday that the administration does not want to impose caps on executive pay, but compensation must be better managed to prevent the sort of risk-taking that jeopardizes the economy.
Sperling laid out a list of guidelines calling on publicly-held companies to link compensation to long-term performance, not short-term gains.
The administration believes compensation practices "must be better aligned with long-term value and prudent risk management at all firms, and not just for the financial services industry," he said.

So, essentially, the Obama administration and Frank are saying the same thing, that the government knows what's best for running a company. Capitalism is based on the free market. Regulating how companies do business is not free enterprise. Whether or not we like the high salaries that corporate executives receive, if we cherish our rights of free enterprise, then companies themselves how they compensate their employees, not the government. The government should also stop propping up failed businesses and financial institutions and let the market force companies to be profitable or reshuffle on their own. If the Left has its way, one cannot help but wonder if European-style socialism is just around the corner.

P.S. The Obama administration has little credibility to provide financial advice to private sector companies when the White House has embarked the country on the course to a nearly $2 trillion budget defecit for the foreseeable future. That's hardly fiscal responsibility.

A Sane Voice at Newsweek

2009-06-01T05:10:00Z

I was stunned today to read an article by a columnist at the reliably left-of-center Newsweek that actually--gasp!--called out the mainstream media for its fawning coverage of Obama. That columnist is Robert Samuelson. I haven't been a regular reader of Newsweek since it took a decidedly left turn politically several years ago, so I was shocked to see that the magazine allowed someone to deviate from the liberal schema in its pages (or virtual pages). The column is an excellent and fair-minded critique of the dangers posed when the media loses its objectivity:

The Obama Infatuation

WASHINGTON -- The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press -- on domestic, if not foreign, policy -- has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.
Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."

...The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That's well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire....

Read the rest.

Turns out he's published some other pieces that view the new presidential administration's big government spending proposals with a rightfully skeptical eye, such as Obama's Dangerous Debt

At least someone in the media is still doing his job. More journalists should learn from his example.

Capitol Hill Dems Ready Torches for "Torture" Witch Hunt

2009-04-23T04:47:00Z

The inmates are officially running the asylum in Washington now. Those pillars of black smoke wafting down Constitution Avenue are from the torches lit by the far left Democrats on the Hill have for a partisan witch hunt . Now unencumbered by any shred of fairness or concern for national security, the congressional Democratic leaders are racing to outdo each other in setting up committees to publicly investigate Bush administration and intelligence community officials involved in authorizing "torture" of captured al-Qa'ida terrorists by the CIA. I use "torture" in quotes because the hyperbolic, red-faced allegations by Democratic leaders such as Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi--and even President Obama--that the interrogation methods authorized by the Bush administration to use against terrorists constitute torture are beyond laughable; by their definition, anyone who has ever served in the military, or even rushed a fraternity has been tortured. Here's a list of the so-called "torture" techniques detailed by the Senate Armed Services Committee:

- Waterboarding (Yeah, it's uncomfortable and freaks people out, but hundreds of US servicemen get waterboarded in survival training every year)
- Face-slapping (I guess the Three Stooges must have also been torture aficionados)
- Sleep deprivation (Hmm, well I guess thousands of college students are "tortured" every year when they pull all nighters; or for that matter parents are "tortured" by their newborn infants who deny them restful sleep for weeks on end)
- Sitting in uncomfortable positions (has anyone ever been stuck in a crappy government office chair day in and day out?)
- Exposing prisoners to hot and cold temperatures (well anyone who has ever been in the infantry has thus been tortured...)
- Food deprivation (ditto)
- Hooding prisoners during interrogation (reminds me of my fraternity initiation)
- Stripping prisoners naked (ditto)
- Shaving heads and beards (Really? This is torture? Well, by all means, let's go ahead and arrest every military barber)
- Slamming prisoners against walls (what is often omitted from press reports is that prisoners were slammed against false walls that were softer than normal walls and the prisoners were restrained to prevent injury from the impact...and again just like fraternity initiation)

If you like the Stooges, then you must like torture...

It seems that the Armed Services committee omitted the part about the prisoners being struck in the hindquarters with large wooden paddles while being forced to say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" or being forced to make 3 am runs to 7-11 to pick up hot dogs for the guards at Gitmo. Just as a mental exercise, imagine for a minute if you took someone who survived being in an Iraqi prison under Saddam and asked him whether he would chose being subjected to the American interrogation playbook or Saddam's interrogation playbook, which one would he choose? I can almost imagine the laughter. And let us not forget, these were techniques employed against terrorists who are committed to our destruction. What's even funnier is that Obama's own Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair admitted in private memo to intelligence employees that the interrogations had yielded "high value information" against al-Qa'ida.

Make no mistake, this is about political retribution, pure and simple. And Nancy Pelolsi and the rest of the Democratic leadership are committed to press forward with their "Truth Commissions" (read: show trials) to villify the Bush administration, no matter what the cost to national security by revealing to all the world--including our enemies--how our nation conducts intelligence operations and what the government will and will not do to captured terrorists. As a candidate, President Obama promised to "reach across the aisle," but that appears to be an empty promise as he appears to be content to just stand idly by while these partisan witch hunts move forward. This is worse than politics as usual, this is just outright shameful. The American people should be outraged at this abuse of power and, even worse, the endangerment of American national security.

UPDATE (4/23/2009):
An unnamed Congressional staffer leaked to the media today an outline of how Speaker Pelosi's Truth Commission will be implemented:

Laugh of the Day: Obama Wants to Halve the Defecit by 2013

2009-02-22T07:22:00Z

This gave me a laugh tonight when I read it: Official: Obama wants to halve budget deficit

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama wants to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term, mostly by scaling back Iraq war spending, raising taxes on the wealthiest and streamlining government, an administration official said Saturday as the president worked to finalize his first budget request.

Obama's proposal for the 2010 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 projects that the estimated $1.3 trillion deficit he has inherited from former President George W. Bush will be halved to $533 billion by 2013. That's a difference of 9.2 percent of the overall economy now vs. 3 percent in four years.

"We can't generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that seemed to preview his intentions. He said his budget will be "sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don't, and restoring fiscal discipline."

Really? Doubling it with wasteful spending is a good way to start. Fiscal discipline? Did he actually even read the stimulus bill? I keep waiting for him to say "Aw, I'm just kidding, we have no fiscal discipline, just shut up and open up your wallets..."

An Unheralded Symbol of Victory in Iraq

2009-02-13T07:04:00Z

Here's another illustration showing that victory has been achieved: Iraq held provincial elections almost completely free of any insurgent or terrorist violence last week. What's more almost no one noticed because the elections were so peaceful. Whether the anti-war Left here likes it or not, George Bush's war has produced a functioning, if flawed, democracy. This just reinforces that.

Anyone who truly cherishes freedom and democracy should be elated that democracy is taking hold in a nation that had been subjected to tyranny for so long. But, of course, the mainstream media largely glossed over the story since they are not that interested in reporting good news in Iraq. And there's so little bad news that they've largely just stopped reporting about Iraq in general.

What's more disappointing is that President Obama was less than enthusiastic about the elections' peaceful outcome, apparently because to tout the elections as a success would only publicly vindicate the achievements of a war that he opposed. That's not the way the leader of the United States should react to the furtherance of democracy in a new ally. Charles Krauthammer sums it up best in an op-ed in the Washington Post today: Iraq: Good News Is No News

The big strategic winner here is the United States. The big loser is Iran. The parties Tehran backed are in retreat. The prime minister who staked his career on a strategic cooperation agreement with the United States emerged victorious. Moreover, this realignment from enemy state to emerging democratic ally, unlike Egypt's flip from Soviet to U.S. ally in the 1970s, is not the work of a single autocrat (like Anwar Sadat), but a reflection of national opinion expressed in a democratic election.

This is not to say that these astonishing gains are irreversible. There loom three possible threats: (a) a coup from a rising and relatively clean military disgusted with the corruption of civilian politicians -- the familiar post-colonial pattern of the past half-century; (b) a strongman emerging from a democratic system (Maliki?) and then subverting it, following the Russian and Venezuelan models; or (c) the collapse of the current system because of a premature U.S. withdrawal that leads to a collapse of security.

Averting the first two is the job of Iraqis. Averting the third is the job of the U.S. Which is why President Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections, a perfunctory statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future," was shockingly detached and ungenerous.

When you become president of the United States you inherit its history, even the parts you would have done differently. Obama might argue that American sacrifices in Iraq were not worth what we achieved. But for the purposes of current and future policy, that is entirely moot. Despite Obama's opposition, America went on to create a small miracle in the heart of the Arab Middle East. President Obama is now the custodian of that miracle. It is his duty as leader of the nation that gave birth to this fledgling democracy to ensure that he does nothing to undermine it.

Wall Street Journal: The Stimulus Tragedy

2009-02-07T19:38:00Z

The Wall Street Journal published a great commentary spelling out why the Democrats' $800-900 billion economic "stimulus" bill is a bad deal for the country and is unlikely to work. The Stimulus Tragedy

Here's an excerpt:

Everyone agrees that some kind of fiscal stimulus might help the economy, and that running budget deficits is appropriate in a recession. The stage was thus set for the popular President to forge a bipartisan consensus that combined ideas from both parties. A major cut in the corporate tax favored by Republicans could have been added to Democratic public works spending for a quick political triumph that might have done at least some economic good.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done.
Speaking to a House Democratic retreat on Thursday night, Mr. Obama took on those critics. "So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)"
So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it. He has to know that it matters what the government spends the money on, as well as how it is financed. A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP.

But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Some Democrats claim these transfer payments are stimulating because they go mainly to poor people, who immediately spend the money. Tax cuts for business or for incomes across the board won't work, they add, because those tax cuts go disproportionately to "the rich," who will save the money. But a saved $1 doesn't vanish from the economy, unless it is stuffed into a mattress. It enters the financial system, where it is lent to others; or it is invested in the stock market as capital for businesses; or it is invested in entirely new businesses, which are the real drivers of job creation and prosperity.

Walid Phares on the Dangers of Gitmo Detainees

2009-02-07T19:33:00Z

Walid Phares published an excellent Op-Ed in today's Washington Times highlighting the dangers posed by terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay and why closing the prison is fraught with peril for the United States: PHARES: Guantanamo's manipulators leading the new jihad

Here's an excerpt:

The Guantanamo Bay detention center has been ordered to be shut down within a year. Unfortunately, jihadism as an ideology does not respond to the political culture of democracy nor are the indoctrinated jihadists impacted by the moral and legal debate within what they see as the sphere of the infidels.

Two men released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadi site. The most notorious of the two, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been "elevated to the senior ranks of al-Qaeda in Yemen," a U.S. counterterrorism official said. The other man on the video is Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an al-Qaeda commander. He was prisoner number 333.

Reviewing the video provided by the Laura Mansfield monitoring group, I analyzed the statements made by al-Shahri and al-Oufi in original Arabic.On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men under a flag of the "Islamic State of Iraq," Al-Qaeda's regional command in Mesopotamia. The other two jihadists in the video were identified as Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (aka Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani). Al-Shihri was transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007, six years after his capture in Pakistan, for "rehabilitation" by the Saudi government. But this week a statement posted on the site declared he is now the top deputy in "al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," the regional command for bin Laden's organization operating from Yemen with cells across the peninsula. The terror group has been responsible for attacks on the U.S. embassy in Yemen's capital Sana.

"Al-Shihri allegedly traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, provided money to other fighters and trained in urban warfare at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan," according to sources. But more troubling is the fact that al-Shihri was a contact person between al-Qaeda and Iran. As reported by AP, he was "an alleged travel coordinator for al-Qaida who was accused of meeting extremists in Mashad, Iran, and briefing them on how to enter Afghanistan." Such a person - operating in the most strategic area of jihadism, the most dangerous bridge of (potential) cooperation between al-Qaeda and the Khomeinist regime - was released from Guantanamo on the basis that he said "bin Laden had no business representing Islam, denied any links to terrorism and expressed interest in rejoining his family in Saudi Arabia."

History Will Be a Kinder Judge for President Bush

2009-01-20T05:48:00Z

Now that President Bush has spent his last night in the White House, an era comes to a close. George W. Bush will fade into the ranks of ex-presidents. He leaves office with low poll numbers and as the favorite kick-me doll for the liberals in the media, in Hollywood, and on the Hill, who attacked him at almost every turn during his presidency. It was only for a brief few months after 9/11 that the left took a respite from vitriolic attacks. And as he exits the White House for the final time, the left has worked overtime to paint his presidency as a failure. If one read the New York Times or the Washington at any point over the past six years, but especially in the past few months, one would be left with the impression that Bush accomplished nothing. But fair-minded historians will most likely be kinder judges of President Bush's legacy.

A objective assessment of Bush's presidency must look at the degree to which he advanced the interests of the nation and protected it from harm. And in that, history will largely vindicate the now ex-president. While history will certainly not elevate President Bush to the iconic status of the greatest presidents, such as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, or even Ronald Reagan, it will show him to have been a president who led this country through its most serious crisis of the post-Cold War era and who stood firm against America's enemies. Here's why Bush's presidency will, or at the very least should, be viewed more positively in the future:

1) Since the 9/11 attacks, al-Qa'ida and its Islamic terrorist allies and aspirants have been unable to conduct another attack against the United States. This is no accident. It was only through aggressive actions against America's terrorist enemies abroad through a campaign against Bin Laden's minions and al-Qa'ida's affiliates across the globe, from Afghanistan to the Horn of Africa to South East Asia. Additionally, tough counterterrorist measures implemented at home through the Patriot Act--a favorite bugaboo of critics on the left, but an unquestionably effective tool--and improved coordination between intelligence and law enforcement agencies both at home and with those of our allies such as Great Britain. Dozens of key al-Qa'ida leaders have been killed or captured, including al-Qa'ida's former #2 Muhammad Atef and 9/11 planner Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. Several plots against the homeland have been disrupted--the Lackawanna Six, the Fort Dix plot, the 2006 plot to smuggle explosives aboard several transatlantic flights.

2) The United States liberated two countries from brutal regimes that harbored terrorists and threatened the stability of the region. Bush's greatest lasting legacy will be planting the seeds of democracy in a region that previously knew only despotism. While the WMD threat posed by Saddam's regime proved not to be as imminent as feared in 2003, 29 million Iraqis are now free from the tyranny of the Baathist regime. Despite some tough going for the first three years, the Iraq War has become an unquestioned success story. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and its Sunni extremist allies have been eviscerated and no longer command any popular support. Most mainstream Sunni insurgent groups have hung up their weapons and now cooperate with US forces and the Iraqi government to secure their towns. Muqtada al-Sadr's militia has been beaten and splintered. Elections competition within the parliamentary system is becoming the norm in Iraq--the first true Arab democracy. With continued US support and mentoring, Iraq stands to become a model of democracy--however imperfect that democracy may be--for the region and an ally against militant Islamic extremism of both Sunni and Shia varieties. President Bush's decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007--in the face of strong domestic political opposition--rather than accept a humiliating defeat is the ultimate testament to the courage of president with strong moral convictions and patriotism, and it should properly stand up in history as an exemplary act of presidential leadership to which other presidents should aspire.

The Taliban's days of ruling Afghanistan are long gone. It is true that the Taliban and it's militant Islamic allies are leading a resurgent insurgency in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan,but they will never again take power in Afghanistan so long as the US and NATO commit themselves to the fight. Democracy does face a more troubled future in Afghanistan than Iraq, due in large part to the decentralized, tribal nature of that country and decades of civil war that has left the country bereft of the physical and intellectual infrastructure for civil society, but the strides that the country has taken toward modernity are still striking. Afghans now vote for parliamentary representatives for the first time in the country's history. Women hold elected office in a country where they were once beaten or killed for leaving their houses unaccompanied or uncovered. Despite the resurgent Taliban insurgency, infrastructure projects continue to move forward to bring electricity, water, and education to more Afghans than ever before. While the Taliban threaten to drag Afghanistan backwards to a dark abyss, but they can only do so if our nation loses its nerve. If Barack Obama continues the trajectory set by President Bush, Afghanistan will not be doomed to failure.

3) Because of US diplomatic pressure after Operation Iraqi Freedom, Libya dismantled its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and Syria withdrew its army from Lebanon. After years of defying US-led sanctions over its WMD programs and support for terrorism, Libya's Muammar Qadhafi made a stunning about face in December 2003 and agreed to US demands to dismantle its chemical and biological weapons programs, opening those sites to inspection. A Libyan diplomat told Italian government leaders that Qadhafi did not want to suffer the safe fate as Saddam Hussein. Moreover, in the opening months of 2005--less than two years after Saddam's regime was toppled--Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad yielded to international pressure orchestrated by the Bush administration in the wake of the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister and withdrew Syria's army from Lebanon, ending an occupation that dated back to the Lebanese civil war in the 1980's. This was an historic opportunity for Lebanon to chart its own course, even despite the lingering influence of Syria's terrorist ally Hizballah in the country.

4) The United States will finally have a missile defense program to protect it from rogue regimes armed with long-range ballistic missiles. President Bush followed through on a promise to develop a missile defense system to protect the homeland from attack, with the ground-based interceptor phase of the program becoming operational in Alaska and California a few years back, and with the other components on their way to operational status.

5) The Bush administration cemented a strong relationship with "New Europe"--the new democracies of Eastern Europe. Where many Western European powers--with the exception of our stalwart allies the British--faltered in their resolve to stand up to the tyranny of the Iraqi regime, the democracies of "New Europe" stepped to the plate, driven by close relationships fostered by President Bush. Countries such as Poland, Romania and Hungary deployed troops to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan in larger numbers than almost every other ally save the British. While Western Europe has largely chosen to turn a blind eye to resurgent Russian autocracy, the democracies of Eastern Europe remember all too well the threat of an authoritarian Russia and accepted Bush's overtures to them to make them the front line to contain Moscow through NATO expansion and the deployment of missile defenses. These countries now see the US as a strong ally and will likely be loyal friends in the years.

There are other examples that could be cited as well, but the above accomplishments are sufficient enough to redeem the presidency of George W. Bush as one of a president with profound moral convictions who was determined to do whatever it took to guide this country through one if its toughest crises and keep the nation safe.

Farewell, President Bush. Thank you for keeping us safe.

Vomit Alert!

2009-01-16T06:17:00Z

This sort of cheesiness just makes a person sick to his stomach:

Obama tells daughters he ran for president for them, all children

He said this all in an "open letter" to his daughters. Really? Is anyone buying that this letter was just intended for his daughters' eyes? Of course not, except for the liberal media, which gobbled up this obvious publicity stunt faster than my Labrador can gobble up a Milk Bone. What the heck is an "open letter" anyway? If the thoughts to your daughters were really private and deeply personal, you wouldn't put them in an open letter if your real intent is express your emotions to them. How personal is a letter if it is shared with tens of millions of people. So, it's an obvious intent to play into the media's Obamamania to wow them with overly wrought cliches. Come on, running for president just for all the children? That's as cliche as the plaintiff's attorney who claims to the woman he's trying to pick up a bar that he only does his job--suing hospitals and doctors--to protect the children. If you're not already queasy, take a gander at a snippet from the AP article:

"I realized that my own life wouldn't count for much unless I was able to ensure that you had every opportunity for happiness and fulfilment in yours. In the end, girls, that's why I ran for President: because of what I want for you and for every child in this nation," wrote the soon-to-be Dad-in-chief.

Sadly, this is what passes for journalism these days.

Gaza Will Be HAMAS' Graveyard, Not Israel's

2009-01-03T18:35:00Z

For all its fiery rhetoric about turning Gaza into a graveyard for the Israeli military during the renewed Israel-HAMAS war, it is HAMAS that will most likely be left moribund by the war. Emblematic of HAMAS bellicose claims is this statement by HAMAS' spokesman today:

"You entered like rats," Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan told Israeli soldiers in a statement on Hamas' Al Aqsa TV. "Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing," he said.

The truth, however, belies HAMAS' promises. In the first three days of the new year, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed two of HAMAS' most important leaders in the Gaza Strip. And these killings followed five days of airstrikes that killed more than 400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were HAMAS members (or members of HAMAS' terrorist allies, such as the Popular Resistance Committees), and eviscerated HAMAS' governing infrastructure and probably many of its terrorist training facilities. And now, the IDF has moved into Gaza with three brigades on the ground to root out more of HAMAS' terrorist infrastructure, such as rocket production and storage facilties, as well as to probably try to kill or capture more of HAMAS' terrorist leaders.

Israeli Apache attack helicopter operating over the Gaza Strip.

Clearly, HAMAS thought that it would gain politically by provoking a new confrontation with Israel. HAMAS' leaders probably calculated that it would gain prestige on the Arab street for standing up to Israel in the same manner that Hizballah gained prestige following the 2006 war with Israel. However, HAMAS clearly miscalculated. It is apparent the HAMAS leadership believed that Israel would go back to the usual rules of the game for its battle with HAMAS and retaliate for renewed rocket fire with tit-for-tat airstrikes against HAMAS rocket crews or HAMAS terrorist leaders. But, Israel surprised HAMAS by responding with a fierce air campaign that dwarfed any of Israel's previous military responses. Israel's leaders knew that the time would come when HAMAS would either break the truce agreement or resume its rocket strikes after the truce expired, so they began planning for a major air and ground campaign to cripple HAMAS even as it negotiatied the truce in June, according to Haaretz. Israel undertook a major intelligence gathering campaign to pinpoint the locations of HAMAS bases, training camps, weapons caches, smuggling tunnels, and the locations of HAMAS leaders' homes. And they coupled their military planning with political planning to orchestrate a deception to plan to surprise HAMAS as to the timing of the air campaign--bluntly named Operation Cast Lead--to maximize the effects of the initial airstrikes, which resulted in a high early death toll among HAMAS members. Not only was the initial feoricty of the IDF air strikes on Gaza a shock to HAMAS, so was the sustained nature of Israel's air campaign, spanning several days and flattening pretty much every known HAMAS facility.

HAMAS talked tough in the face of the Israeli airstrikes and responded with an initial flurry of rocket attacks against Israeli towns, killing a handful of Israeli citizens, and launching a propaganda campaign to claim that most of the people killed in Israeli strikes were Palestinians. It is clear that HAMAS' leaders believed that the Arab world and international community would come to their assistance and press Israel to cease their offensive, resulting in a PR win for HAMAS, who would then be seen as having faced down Israel. But in this HAMAS' leaders again miscalculated. The United States--which has long been the sole effective broker of peace efforts in the Middle East--placed the blame for the current war squarely on HAMAS for provoking the conflict with its rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. European powers also responded tepidly, calling for restraint on both sides but doing little to put real pressure on Israel. It is apparent that HAMAS' deliberate targeting of civilians with its rockets undercut its claims to be victims of Israeli aggression in the eyes of the West. Even many Arab countries failed to take HAMAS' side. Egypt essentially shrugged its shoulders, with its soldiers standing on border guard posts watching the Israeli strikes with indifference. Ditto for Jordan. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers also have been unusually quiet. Only Syria and Iran--HAMAS' long-time allies--predictably came to HAMAS' defense politically. But it appears that most Arab leaders are tired of HAMAS' antics and are probably even secretly cheering for Israel to deliver a strong blow to Iran's ally. Even the Palestinian people seem to be tired of HAMAS' provocations of Israel. Instead of creating a groundswell of public support for HAMAS, the Israeli strikes and current ground offensive have simply prompted a sense of fatalism among a Palestinian public weary of nearly a decade of war. Yes, HAMAS made a show for the international media in the opening days of the war with several large, and obviously staged, demonstrations of thousands of its supporters in Gaza. But these PR stunts failed to generate an outpouring of Palestinian support.

IDF soldiers preparing to cross into Gaza.

The last hope for HAMAS to salvage some semblance of victory in the political sense is from this war for HAMAS to score major retaliatory blows that inflict substantial Israeli casualties. But on this score, HAMAS' bark is worse than its bite. HAMAS leaders responded to the first round of Israeli airstrikes with threats to resume suicide bombings against Israel. Yet, in reality, HAMAS' ability to carry out is much diminished from a few years ago. The last suicide bombing conducted by HAMAS (or one of its associates) was in Dimona, Israel back in February of last year. Prior to that, the last previous HAMAS suicide bombing in Israel proper was in August 2005--which did not kill any Israelis, according to Israel's ministry of foreign affairs. HAMAS' ability to conduct terrorist attacks in Israel has been dramatically reduced by IDF operations against its infrastructure in the West Bank--where HAMAS' terrorist wing has been largely eviscerated and where it has much less public support than in Gaza--and Israel's construction of its security fence along the West Bank. Staging a suicide bombing in Israel from Gaza would be very difficult because HAMAS terrorists would have to find a way out of the tight security perimeter around the Gaza Strip, either by land or sea.

On the eve of the IDF's ground offensive, HAMAS leaders sought to raise the specter of inflicting casualties on attacking IDF soldiers in the same manner that Hizballah did back in 2006, which shocked the Israeli public. However, while HAMAS has some 25,000 fighters according to press reports, they lack the capabilties and training to conduct a guerrilla campaign against the IDF with the same effectiveness of Hizballah. In Lebanon, Hizballah had large, established training camps that were staffed by Iranian advisers, where Hizballah trained its fighters for six years following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. Additionally, although HAMAS appears to have been able to smuggle in large quantities of weapons since the IDF pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it still lacks the sophisticated weaponry (such as RPG-16s and anti-tank guided missiles) to take on the IDF effectively. With these limitations on HAMAS' forces, the only means by which HAMAS can try to score symbolic victories against the IDF on the ground in Gaza is to rely IEDs/land mines and drawing IDF soldiers into urban ambushes to inflict large numbers of casualties or capture wounded Israeli soldiers. But the IDF was careful in its initiation of the ground offensive, it preceded its thrust into Gaza with airstrikes to suppress HAMAS fighters and with artillery strikes to clear avenues of advance on IEDs and land mines. Additionally, as a result of its previous conflicts with Hizballah and HAMAS, the IDF has been the pioneer in tactics and technology to defeat IEDs. The IDF smartly initiated its attack into Gaza at night so as to maximize its overwhelming advantage in night-fighting over HAMAS. And, after its experience in Lebanon, the IDF will probably avoid sending small units into positions into which there is a likelihood of walking into an ambush and will probably avoid operating deep in the narrow streets of Gaza City, where the potential for a costly ambush would increase dramatically. Therefore, it is unlikely that the HAMAS will succeed in inflicting a substantial number of IDF casualties or capturing IDF soldiers. While there will be some IDF soldiers killed the casualty rates will probably be low, far too low to for HAMAS to credibly claim victory. Already, the casualty rates seem to support this conclusion: 1 IDF soldier killed, 22 HAMAS guerrillas, according to the Jerusalem Post.

IDF artillery clears the way for infantry and armor into Gaza.

At some point in the next couple of weeks, the IDF will eventually withdraw from Gaza--Israel knows that it can only continue military operations for so long before international pressure to wrap things up becomes irresistible. And from the fires and rubble in Gaza, HAMAS will emerge as a battered organization, with a dramatically reduced ability to function as a government. The large numbers of casualties suffered by its "security forces" will most likely reduce the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to sign up to be policemen or security guards for the HAMAS government and dramatically increase absenteeism among HAMAS' current forces. Its governmental infrastructure has been demolished by Israeli airstrikes. HAMAS also stands the risk of a backlash among the Gaza populace, many of whom are likely to blame HAMAS for provoking Israel and making their lives miserable. Additionally, HAMAS' terrorist infrastructure--in terms of leaders, fighters, and facilities--will be severely degraded. HAMAS already has been riven by internal divisions; this war might prove to be fracture point for the terrorist organization. Having battered HAMAS, Israel will probably be content to sit back and conduct airstrikes as it sees fit to constrain HAMAS' ability to reorganize and rebuild. And, HAMAS will almost certainly lose prestige in the Arab street for failing to inflict substantial Israeli casualties. Instead of rising to become an equal to Hizballah, HAMAS will limp away from this battle a shell of its former self.

Hard Times in Afghanistan?

2008-12-27T01:10:00Z

We keep hearing that times are hard in Afghanistan. But maybe the problem is that things aren't as hard as they could be over there because the CIA is reportedly handing out Viagra to Afghan warlords to secure their loyalty, according to a report on Fox News.

In an effort to win over fickle warlords and chieftains in Afghanistan and get information from them, CIA officials are handing out Viagra pills in exchange for their cooperation, the Washington Post reports.

"Whatever it takes to make friends and influence people - whether it's building a school or handing out Viagra," an agency operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told the [Washington] Post.

Too good to miss. And Kudos for American creativity. I can't wait for the day that we see the infamous warlord Abdul Rashid "Heavy D" Dostum singing "Viva Viagra!" on a TV commercial during the Super Bowl.

Pfizer's newest fan club?

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T05:56:00Z

It's still Christmas Eve right now on the Left Coast, but wanted to give a shout out to everyone and wish y'all a Merry Christmas. Not a Happy Holidays, but a Merry Christmas. Especially to our soldiers and sailors serving overseas fighting Islamic terrorists to keep us all safe.

And speaking of the whole Christmas v. politically correct Happy Holidays things, it appears things are finally starting to change. Several major retailers, including Best Buy and Wal-Mart, have been actually having Christmas ads rather than their previous "holiday ads." Yeah, I know it's a small thing, but really, if the secularists on the left hadn't made such a big deal about taking the Christ out of Christmas in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But it's good to see that things are finally starting to swing the other way.

Hopefully, everyone will get what they want and not get stuck with the proverbial fruitcake. And as the nation experiences cold weather from coast-to-coast, be sure to thank Al Gore. Oh, and be sure to drink your Ovaltine (yes, that's a Christmas Story reference).

Now here's Santa:

But, here's who Christmas is all about:

Merry Christmas to you all and God speed to our soldiers overseas.

AP: Opposing Gay Marriage Means You're a "Conservative Christian"

2008-12-24T02:01:00Z

The gay marriage issue, brought to the forefront by California voters' approval of Proposition 8 has brought out the liberal media in all its glory to paint anyone who believes in the traditional definition of marriage as being somehow outside the mainstream of American society. It's part of the liberal media's larger effort to shape the values of Americans by telling them what is mainstream. Let's take for example this article in the AP today about the Southern California pastor, Rick Warren: Rick Warren: Not anti-gay to oppose gay marriage

Now, the title seems fair enough. But once you read the article, the writer immediately infers that Warren's stance is the stance of conservative, rather than mainstream Christians.

Pastor Rick Warren, chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to pray at his inauguration, said in a video message to his church that he doesn't equate gay relationships with incest or pedophilia, but opposes redefining marriage just as any conservative Christian would.

Those aren't Warren's words to describe himself, they're the AP's. The AP writer could have just as easily have written that Warren "opposes redefining marriage just as any mainstream Christian would." But no, because the writer clearly wants to sell the message that only "conservative" Christians oppose gay marriage, when in fact it is the majority of Christians who oppose it--therefore it is a mainstream Christian stance, not one that is the exclusive providence of conservatives.

Then, at the end of the article, the writer concludes the article with yet another stab to paint Warren's belief as conservative, rather than mainstream:

Saddleback members must sign a broadly worded covenant in which they agree to follow Bible teachings. While gay relationships aren't mentioned in the pledge, it is meant to cover the spectrum of conservative Christian belief.

So, according to the AP writer, merely following biblical teachings is "conservative." Has Rachel Zoll (the writer) ever been to church? Nearly every Christian church preaches to its members to follow the teachings of the Bible. That's kind of the entire point of Christianity, after all. What's next? Is going to church now "conservative?" Who knows, next week Zoll might write in an article that "Warren, like most conservative Christians, believes in God and the divinity of Jesus."

Unbiased media is dead. Most of the mainstream media sadly now seeks to influence rather than inform.

More California Court Craziness: Don't Do Good Deeds

2008-12-21T03:31:09Z

Well, sadly, this is just plain unsurprising in for the Left Coast, California's top court has given trial attorneys an early Christmas present. The California Supreme Court has ruled that would-be Good Samaritans can be sued for attempting any good deed other than administering "emergency" medical care. Yet another door opened for plaintiff's attorneys in one the most litigious states in the country. So, when ambulance-chasing trial attorneys can't find a church, hospital or orphanage to sue, now they can sue people who just try to do the right thing. This is a big and unfortunate step that will only add to the reasons deterring people from doing the right thing and helping their neighbors.

And talk about being an ungrateful friend...

LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

Victory in Iraq!

2008-11-22T07:37:00Z

On March 20, 2003, the United States and a handful of steadfast allies (including our always loyal friends the Brits) went to war in Iraq and deposed one of the most vile dictators on the planet. Within a few short months, however, the glow of the unquestionably brilliant and successful conventional military campaign had faded as US and allied troops faced a brewing insurgency by Sunni militants and Islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qa'ida. Shortly thereafter, the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr launched a separate uprising with his army of Shia thugs and terrorists. But now, after five and a half years, we can authoritatively say that the we have won the war in Iraq. So, today we--a consortium of more than 170 blogs--commemorate this hard-won victory as a tribute to our soldiers and to mark this victory in the historical record to prevent future revisionism by politicized historians.

Declaring Victory

Some critics may claim that the date chosen for Victory in Iraq Day (or V-I Day for short, akin to V-E day in the spring of 1945 during World War II) is arbitrary. Why today? Why not last week? To some degree they are right. In fact, the United States could have claimed victory this summer or earlier this fall by all reasonable measures. Yet, that doesn't change the fundamental thesis that is born out by facts on the ground, the war in Iraq is over. And it is readily apparent to all fair-minded people today. While there will be lingering low-level violence for the next few years as pockets of regime dead enders and remnants of al-Qa'ida in Iraq choose to fight on, the "war" part of the Iraq War is over. We won.

The Iraq War, after the fall of Saddam's regime, has actually been a five-headed challenge, involving three wars (a war against Sunni insurgents, a war against Shia militants and their Iranian sponsors, and a war against Al-Qa'ida), a peacekeeping operation (to prevent a Sunni-Shia civil war) and a nation-building project. Along all those lines of operation the United States has succeeded. The United States has achieved its fundamental objectives, with the help of our British, Iraqi, and other allies: stability has been brought to much of Iraq, a democratic Iraqi government is firmly in place, the Sunni and Shia insurgencies have been effectively neutralized, and al-Qa'ida in Iraq has been decisively beaten.

Iconic 18th century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz posited that war is the continuation of politics by other means--that is to say all wars are waged for political objectives. Although Clausewitz wrote during a time when most wars were fought by organized armies on the battlefield, his historical observations hold true in modern insurgencies. Insurgencies are messy conflicts, they almost never end with a public surrender of the insurgents or a dramatic battlefield victory that is easily recognizable. The war in Iraq was especially messy as the United States faced not just a Sunni insurgency, but also al-Qa'ida and a Shia insurgency as well. Thus to gauge success in we must apply Clausewitz's maxim. And, in Iraq, the United States has achieved the political objectives that it sought to accomplish through military force. Therefore, declaring success for the United States in the Iraq war is not a political matter, it is an objective historical observation. In the spring of 2006, the United States had clearly not achieved its objectives. But now, in November 2008, it has. Additionally, firsthand reports from US soldiers on the ground and exceptional war correspondents such as Michael Yon confirm these achievements.

Let there be no mistake, victory in Iraq has come at a considerable cost in blood and treasure. More than 4,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on military operations in Iraq as well as to develop the indigenous Iraqi security forces. But, despite the breathless claims by opponents of the war, liberal pundits, and mainstream media reporters, Iraq was not and is not Vietnam. Casualties among US military personnel were but a fraction of those suffered by US forces in Vietnam. Over the course of ten years of war in Vietnam, the US military lost more than 58,000 troops, or 5800 per year. The 4,200 deaths in Iraq over five and a half years average out to 763 deaths per year--a fraction of the casualty rate in Vietnam. For another point of comparison, in the Battle of Tarawa, which lasted four days in November 1943, the US Marines and Navy lost 1,687 personnel killed. This grim arithmetic is not to trivialize the sacrifice of our brave servicemen and women, but just serves to illustrate that the human cost of the Iraq War has been much lower than other extended wars that the United States has waged in the last century.

Moreover, despite the insistence of the mainstream media on reporting mainly on US casualties as opposed to other developments in the Iraq War, taking casualties is not a good metric of winning or losing a war. The story that the media tells is essentially that the US is losing the war in Iraq because it is taking casualties. That is an absurd metric. First, no wars are casualty free, so in that optic all wars would be losses. But, more importantly, casualty figures in and of themselves are poor metrics for measuring counterinsurgency war. The true metric in an counterinsurgency war is control of the population. And in Iraq, the Sunni and Shia insurgent forces are no longer in control of much of the population, the Iraqi government--with the assistance of US forces--is in control of most of the population, directly or indirectly. So it is fair--although irrelevant at this point--for people to argue as to whether we should have gone to war in 2003 or if the costs of the war are worth it, but it cannot be argued that the war has not been a success.

Stability has been brought to much of Iraq

Much of Iraq has now been pacified. Violence in Iraq has plummeted to all time lows. Al-Anbar province--the former stronghold of Sunni insurgents and al-Qa'ida--was once the most violent province in Iraq, but now it is quiet. Local Sunnis now can walk the streets and go to the markets. Commerce has resumed. US commanders have walked through Fallujah without combat armor, unthinkable a few years ago. Baghdad, once the seen of scores of vicious daily attacks by Sunni and Shia insurgents and al-Qa'ida terrorists against US troops and fellow Iraqis, was the most violent place in Iraq in 2006, but is now quiet. Businesses are booming. Confidence in the security situation has even led the government to begin planning for a multi-billion dollar underground subway construction project. Southern areas once under the sway of Sadr's militia are now under the control of the national government.

As another metric demonstrating that stability has been brought to most of Iraq, US casualties are at the lowest level since the March 2003. In October 2006, 100 soldiers in Iraq. Last month, only thirteen soldiers died in Iraq, including just seven as a result of combat. Visit GlobalSecurity.org to check out the casualty figures yourself.

Iraq teetered on the verge of civil war in the spring of 2006. But now, the tide of sectarian violence has receded, Sectarian attacks are now isolated incidents in most areas of Iraq, where they were once daily occurrences. The days of finding mass graves of Sunni or Shia civilians executed by sectarian death squads are now in the past, and hopefully will remain as such in the future.

Iraq has a democratic government for the first time in history

The Iraq War has achieved the fundamental US goal of establishing a democratic government in Iraq, the first of its kind in the Arab world (sorry, Egypt). While the government of Iraq is far from perfect and, like most Arab countries, suffers from endemic corruption. To be sure corruption will pose a serious challenge for Iraq's democracy down the line, but that is not a problem that can be solved by the United States--it is now up to the Iraqis to get their own house in order. The established of democratic government in Iraq has brought about a monumental change in the Iraqi polity. Rival political and sectarian parties are now increasingly settling scores in the Parliament and using civil protests to assert their agenda, rather than through violence on the streets. This is a major breakthrough. Moreover, the participation of parties from all ethnic and sectarian groups--including the once reticent Sunnis--in the Parliament and in elections shows that the society is coming to accept participation in the political system--which many still view as flawed--as the way forward. Five and a half years after the fall of Saddam, Iraqis are poised to hold their second set of free elections for Parliament. After decades of being ruled by authoritarians, Iraqis now have the ability to elect their own representatives.

Certainly, there are many issues that the Shia-led Iraqi government needs to address to more firmly seal the tenuous multi-ethnic and sectarian political concord holding the political system together. A fair petroleum bill that establishes a satisfactory compromise on the distribution of Iraq's oil wealth among Sunnis (who have few oil resources in their areas), Shia, and Kurds is essential for long-term tranquility. Also, the parties must also agree on the allocation of parliamentary representation among the various ethnic and sectarian groups. Yet, again, sensitive issues such as these--as vital as they are to Iraq's long-term political future--are for the Iraqis to work out for themselves. The goal of the United States was to assist the Iraqis in establishing a sufficient level of stability so that a democratic Iraqi government can function and be free to make its own choices, and we've accomplished precisely that. The Iraqi government may end up making choices that we don't agree with, but that is what a truly independent country does.

Additionally, Iraq's security forces have made great strides. While they are far from a professional force comparable to western militaries--which is an unfair expectation only five years removed from Saddam's rule--they have made great strides. Iraqi forces have taken the lead in several provinces, including Al Anbar and now Diyala. Many Iraqi units are planning and executing their own operations, with US air and logistical support, which is a major step forward. There is still a long way to go, but with continued training and support from US forces, it is clear that, as US commanders have said, the Iraqi military is on track to take over security responsibilities in the next few years. To prevent backsliding on this progress, it is essential that even after the majority of combat troops are withdrawn under the new status of forces agreement (which will hopefully be passed by the Iraqi Parliament next week) that the United States keeps a sizeable force in Iraq to continue to train and assist the Iraqi security forces.

The Sunni and Shia insurgencies have been effectively neutralized

The Sunni insurgency, to begin with, is something of a misnomer. There was not one primary insurgent. Rather, the Sunni insurgency was comprised of an amalgam of isurgent groups with widely differing agendas and ideologies. Many of these groups spent as much time fighting each other as they did the United States. There were nationalist groups, such as the 1920s Revolution Brigades. Islamic insurgent groups such as the Islamic Army of Iraq. There were former regime elements, including the Ba'th Party. And there were notionally "insurgent" groups consisting of criminal gangs out for self aggrandizement. Over the past two years, the Sunni insurgency has been largely neutralized. The US military changed tactics beginning in the middle of 2006, under General Patraeus, shfting from period sweeps through Iraqi cities and then leaving, to clearing Iraqi cities of insurgent and terrorist cells an then remaining there to build up local security. Instead of remaining in large bases, US troops deployed forward among the populace in smaller forward bases to enhance local security efforts. At the same time, US forces co-opted local tribes and insurgent groups (many of which were based around the tribes) to get them to assist in providing local security--this started initially in Al Anbar province and became known as the Anbar Awakening--now the local Sunni allies are known as the Sons of Iraq. This model was first applied in Al Anbar but was soon emulated in Baghdad and elsewhere with great effect. The surge of 15,000 US troops to Iraq in 2007 provided US commanders the forces necessary for applying the strategy across Iraq. The US strategy was facilitated by the fact that most Sunnis by late 2006 and early 2007 had become alienated by the tactics of al-Qa'ida and its other terrorist allies, who were murdering local Sunnis with alarming frequency in assassinations and bombings of local police stations and market places. Insurgents from the 1920's Brigades and the Islamic Army (which essentially splintered) largely joined forces with the US military to fight al-Qa'ida, deciding that al-Qa'ida's desire to spark a civil war would be a calamity for Iraqi Sunnis. The realization that the United States offered the Sunni community the best means of protection against Shia depredations also drove insurgents to the American side.

The combination of the change in strategy by US forces and the turning of the Sunni populace and many insurgents against al-Qa'ida brought about the effective neutralization of the Sunni insurgency. The most powerful Sunni insurgent groups have either been co-opted, splintered or decimated by the US military and its local allies. There are still some insurgent and criminal groups that continue to fight on, launching sporadic attacks against US forces, but these groups are largely incoherent and ineffective, and most importantly they have little support among the Sunni populace. As Michael Yon writes, "Barring the unforeseen, the darkest days are behind, though we are still losing soldiers to low-level fighting with enemies that are true “dead-enders.”

In 2004, Muqtada al-Sadr spearheaded a Shia insurgency with a militia (the Jaysh al-Mahdi) that numbered in the tens of thousands across southern Iraq and in the Baghdad slum of Sadr City. The JAM was behind some of the most atrocious sectarian violence, murdering dozens of Sunnis in Baghdad and surrounding areas on a daily basis. The mullahs in Iran used the shadowy Iranian Revolutionary Guards force to supply Sadr with weapons and training, seeking to bog down US forces in Iraq. But, combined offensives by US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad and southern Iraq over the last two years, following the "clear and hold" strategy shattered the JAM. While some hard-core Shia guerrillas continue to attack, the JAM's stranglehold over many Shia areas, including in Baghdad has been broken. Sadr was forced last year to accept a cease-fire, and despite threats to break it, has continued to abide by it. Sadr himself has been rumored to have left Iraq for Iran

Al-Qa'ida in Iraq has been defeated

The war against al-Qa'ida in Iraq was a war that America had to win. And win it did. Whether or not Iraq was the central front in the War on Terrorism in March 2003 is irrelevant. Al-Qa'ida, our central nemesis in the larger war, committed itself to Iraq as the central front in the jihad against America. It set up a massive foreign fighter infiltration network to send thousands of jihadist from around the Muslim world (and even Europe) through neighboring countries, especially Syria, into Iraq to kill Americans and their apostate Iraqi allies. But even more telling are words from al-Qa'ida's leaders themselves on the importance of Iraq. In 2004, Usama bin Laden stated:

"I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation. The nation today has a very rare opportunity to come out of the subservience and enslavement to the West and to smash the chains with which the Crusaders have fettered it."

In 2005, al-Qa'ida's #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri to Al-Qa'ida in Iraq's (AQI) terrorist-in-chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

So even if Iraq was a strategic backwater to al-Qa'ida before we invaded Iraq in March 2003, it had become unquestionably the central front in the War on Terror by 2004. It was clear by that time that al-Qa'ida sought to establish a base in the Sunni areas of western Iraq from which to wage a campaign of terror to bring down the Iraqi government and from which to launch attacks throughout the Middle East and against America itself. The battle in Fallujah was not so much a battle between US Marines and Iraqi Sunni insurgents as it was a battle between the US Marines against al-Qa'ida's network in Iraq. There were more foreign jihadists in Fallujah in November 2004 than there were Iraqi insurgents. While hard numbers are unavailable, it is most likely that there were substantially more al-Qa'ida fighters in Iraq than Afghanistan in 2004. Although the majority of al-Qa'ida in Iraq was believed to have been composed of Iraqis, its leadership--including Zarqawi itself--and some 90 percent of its suicide bombers were foreigners. Even after being routed from Fallujah in November 2004, AQI continued to try to expand its reach in Iraq, forming an umbrella group with other affiliated jihad groups called the Mujahidin Shura Council and then the Islamic State of Iraq. As part of its sinister plan, AQI became focused on provoking an all-out civil war between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq. In early 2006, AQI terrorists blew up the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia shrines, prompting a wave of sectarian violence.

However, shortly after AQI had reached the heights of power, by the middle of 2006, AQI's fortunes began to shift dramatically. In June Zarqawi found himself on the receiving end of two satellite guided JDAM bombs dropped on an AQI safehouse in Diyala province by a US F-16 fighter jet. Without Zarqawi, AQI's leadership appeared to be in disarray. By the fall of 2006 and early 2007, AQI began suffering a backlash from local Sunnis who had grown tired of AQI's tactics of attacking ordinary Sunnis who wanted to just go to the market in Ramadi, vote in elections, or join the local police force to put an end to local banditry. Instead of being defenders of the Sunnis, AQI was now perceived by most Sunnis as a foreign entity that cared little about their needs. Several prominent Sunni tribes in Al Anbar, who themselves had been victims of AQI assassinations for not toeing the AQI line, decided they had had enough of AQI's murderous antics and joined forces with the US military to hunt down AQI. Aided by the unparalleled luxury of local intelligence, the US military and their new Sunni allies--many of whom were former insurgents themselves--rapdily routed out AQI's network of jihadist cells from Al Anbar and then Baghdad. By the end of 2007, Al Anbar had become one of the safest places in Iraq. Ramadi, the provincial capital, which had once been a no-go location for US forces, who only ventured into town in large, heavily armed patrols with armored vehicles now patroled the streets in squad patroled the streets on foot, side-by-side with local Sunni "Awakening" fighters. The scene was repeated in Sunni areas in Baghdad and later in areas of Diyala province throughout 2007 and 2008, killing or driving out AQI cells in those areas.

Zarqawi's demise in June 2006, the beginning of the
end for AQI

Now, AQI's once broad network throughout northern and western Iraq had been reduced to scattered and uncoordinated remnants who have no public support. AQI has lost hundreds of key operatives and local leaders. No longer can they conduct large-scale terrorist attacks at will. The foreign fighter streams have been reduced to a trickle, according to General Patraeus. And, most importantly, al-Qa'ida leaders themselves have stated that things have not gone well in Iraq and have shifted their focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. This is a remarkable change in strategy, especially when one considers that al-Qa'ida's plan for a global caliphate has Baghdad as its capital. While al-Qa'ida's leaders will try to paint any withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as a victory for them, the truth is that their organization as a whole has been defeated in Iraq. While there will continue to be scattered cells there for the foreseeable future that will conduct violent, and occasionally spectacular attacks, al-Qa'ida will not be able to resurrect its network there or regain influence over significant portions of the Sunni populace so long as the United States continues to support the Iraqi government in keeping Iraq to be hostile working environment for bin Laden's minions.

Assigning credit for the victory

So who deserves credit for this success? I think it's fair to assign credit for victory in Iraq to the following:

US Military: The success of the US campaign in Iraq demonstrates yet again the indomitable spirit of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It is due to their courage and sacrifice--sacrifice in not only blood, but in years away from family in austere conditions--that the counterinsurgency efforts succeeded, because of the unrivaled combat effectiveness of our troops against wily and determined adversaries, but also because of the amazing compassion of our soldiers, who engaged with ordinary Iraqis on a personal level, winning the admiration, or at least respect, of those whom they sought to protect. Some people may laugh at the pictures of US soldiers passing out candy or kicking soccer balls with Iraqi children. But those actions are just as important in a counterinsurgency war as raiding a guerrilla safehouse. The professionalism of soldiers to continue on in a war they realize is unpopular at home and in the media is inspiring. Many soldiers re-enlisted specifically to go back to Iraq and finish the job.

General David Patraeus: General Patraeus was the architect of the change in US strategy on the ground in Iraq from the sweep tactics used until 2006 to the clear and hold strategy that allowed US forces to consolidate security gains made by clearing insurgents from an area and give the Iraqi security forces there time to develop, and eventually assume responsibility. It was a classic counterinsurgency approach. He was the impetus behind the surge, requesting the additional troops needed to execute this new strategy on a nationwide level, despite the hostility he knew that he would encounter in the American media and among Capitol Hill Democrats. And, he quickly embraced the Awakening movements in Al Anbar that were effective in rooting out AQI and then applied that model in Baghdad and beyond. He is definitely one of the brightest American military minds in the last 50 years. His accomplishments--turning a counterinsurgency war that was at best a protracted stalemate into an unquestionable victory--are much more impressive that those of General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm or General Tommy Franks in the original Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 that toppled Saddam's regime in roughly three weeks.

The Iraqi people: Let's face it, without the support of the Iraqi people, none of these accomplishments would have been possible. Although they were at first hesitant to accept the US occupation and then were subject to mass intimidation by thugs of both Sunni and Shia varieties, they eventually got sick of the militants on both sides and what they saw to be an interminable conflict. Once the Sunni people in the west turned against AQI, bin Laden's minions were doomed. There was no one to shelter them anymore from the lethal power of the US military. And then many Shia grew tired of Sadr's thugs, which facilitated efforts by the US and Iraqi militaries to smack down the JAM, forcing Sadr's crew to accept a cease-fire.

George W. Bush: Certainly, the Bush administration does deserve blame for mistakes made early in the counterinsurgency war (i.e. not committing enough troops to provide local security, the mass de-Baathification in 2003 that alienated many Sunnis). But mistakes and flawed strategies happen in all wars that the United States has ever fought. That is to be expected. Success in wars requires recognizing the mistakes you make and overcoming them. And President Bush did just that. In 2006, he appointed General Patraeus to command US forces in Iraq based on his belief that Patraeus had a plan that would win the war. And it did. Most importantly, President Bush demonstrated amazing integrity and leadership in proceeding with the surge of troops to Iraq in early 2007 in the face of overwhelming criticism in the media, from a Democratic Congress, and even leaders within his own party. President-elect Barack Obama opposed it and still opposed it on the campaign trail, for the record. But Bush truly believed that the United States could not accept defeat in Iraq--doing so would have have been a regional calamity and given al-Qa'ida a safehaven to replace the one they lost Afghanistan--and that if there was a strategy that had a chance to prevail in Iraq it must be given a chance. That, my friends, is real leadership and speaks to the character of this president. I consider it to be probably the defining moment of his presidency. Instead of being the president who led the United States to defeat against the forces of Islamic extremism in Iraq, he will be the president who ousted a brutal regime and brought about the first real democracy in the Arab world.

President Bush meets a shaykh involved in the Awakening

One thing that is important is that no one should allow the next presidential administration to steal credit for the victory in Iraq. The war was over before Barack Obama came to office.

Now that we've won the war, we can't afford to lose the peace

Even though the war is over, the United States can still lose the peace if it acts irresponsibly. There is still fighting to be done against AQI remnants and hardcore Sunni insurgent holdouts. A precipitous withdrawal that is not based on conditions on the ground in Iraq is one of those ways. Therefore, it is important for President-elect Obama to heed the advice of our military commanders and not the liberal partisans on Capitol Hill when considering when to withdraw US forces from Iraq. Also, the Iraqi government and its military are improving, but they still need our support--a lot of it--if they are to take the lead in quelling the remaining Sunni and Shia militant elements and root out dangerous international terrorists. We must not pull the financial or military rug out from under them. A stable Iraq is in America's long-term interest in the Middle East--it can be both a strong ally and a shining example of the promise of democracy to other Arab peoples. It is important that the next administration not squander this interest in a bid to appease left-wing partisans who only want to settle domestic political scores.

So, to conclude my unintentionally long commentary, thank our troops for their sacrifices. And be proud of what they have accomplished.

Victory in Iraq Day - November 22, 2008

2008-11-21T03:23:00Z

The mainstream media has been silent. Ditto for the Democrats on Capitol Hill...and the incoming presidential administration. However, the facts on the ground do not lie, the United States has prevailed in the Iraq War. The "war" is over. Consolidation of that victory on the political and security front is all that remains for the United States and its Iraqi allies. All measures of success clearly point to the fact that the United States has achieved the political and military objectives that it has sought to do. Having followed the Iraq War from a personal and professional standpoint since its inception, I watched as the US military struggled through the early years in what appeared to be an unexpected quagmire, facing insurgencies from both Sunni and Shia guerrillas and their international terrorist allies. But the changes that began two years ago have turned the tables in Iraq decisively, to the point now where we can legitimately claim to have achieved "victory" in the war. Here are some quick facts that support the claim to victory:

- Al-Qa'ida in Iraq has been defeated, only tattered remnants remain in areas of north and eastern Iraq and have little indigenous support.
- Al-Qa'ida Central has ceded the battle in Iraq and is now concentrating on Afghanistan and Pakistan
- The domestic Sunni insurgency has been largely co-opted or destroyed
- Shia firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's army of thugs and terrorists has splintered and been largely bludgeoned into submission.
- Baghdad, which had devolved into bloody chaos during the height of the insurgency and sectarian violence, is now quiet.
- The Iraqi political paradigm has been shifted from authoritarian rue to multiparty democratic competition; Parliament, not the battlefield, is now the primary venue for political competition between the various ethnic and sectarian blocs.
- Iraq's economy has rebounded because its oil industry has been revitalized, due in large part to the precipitous drop in insurgent/terrorist violence.
- Order has been restored in al-Anbar province and areas in southern Iraq once ruled by Sadr's thugs
- American casualties are at all time lows, reflecting a dramatic drop in both insurgent/terrorist violence and the effectiveness of those attacks.

Movement is now afoot in the blogosphere to declare November 22nd Victory in Iraq Day (V-I day). I had actually been thinking for some time to write an in depth column, based on what I've read in Michael Yon's blog as well as the wealth of information I've seen from a variety of other sources, along the same lines. I think it's important for everyone who has followed the war to get the message out to the American people that we have succeeded in Iraq, despite what the mainstream media and the Democratic leaders in Washington would have you believe. It is important not just for a sense of national pride, but also for historical accuracy to prevent the historic legacy of the Iraq War from being hijacked by revisionist historians and liberal politicians. So, mark your calendars...and more importantly, thank a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine for their sacrifice.

Score One for Marriage

2008-11-06T02:07:00Z

Even though Obama won the presidency, there at least was one bright spot in this election for conservatives out here on the West Coast: Marriage has prevailed in California. And activist liberal judges were defeated. Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, was passed by California voters.

Sure, it never should have been an issue in the first place, since voters approved a proposition for a law defending marriage in 2000, which was overturned by activist judges in the state supreme court. But, still it is a victory for traditional values, and the right for society--not judges--to decide how define the cultural institutions of our society. It is heartening to see, especially in a state that went overwhelmingly in Obama's favor. And it is even more heartening that the measure prevailed despite shameful ads promoted by Hollywood celebrities and California's liberal senators that equated the proposition with racial segregation and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Homosexuality is not a race, it is a sexual behavior. Californians proved that they would not be swayed by such ludicrous caricatures.

I have absolutely nothing at all against homosexuals. It is a free country and they are free to engage in the lifestyle of their choice and not be harassed for their choice. I simply do not believe that society should be forced to consider their unions as "marriage." And, apparently, neither do most California voters. Again.

Marriage. Not marriage. Not marriage.

Obama: "Redistributive Change" You Can Believe In

2008-10-27T20:11:00Z

The more you scratch beneath the surface on Obama, the more liberal you'll find he is. Take this interview in 2001, which Fox News just made public, in which he laments that the Supreme Court did not mandate the redistribution of wealth in its civil rights rulings: Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

This is a key giveaway that Obama adheres to an extremely liberal--dare I say socialist?--ideology, that the government's role is redistribute wealth rather than permit people to prosper on their own merits. This is not the position of a moderate. It is much more akin to the socialist parties in Europe than with the American free market tradition. Our Founding Fathers never intended for the government to be in the business of taking people's wealth and giving it to others, which is why the Constitution placed strict limits on the powers of the government with respect to not just personal liberties, but commerce as well. What is more galling is that this information about Obama's true political views has been out there for years, but the mainstream media has flat out neglected--nay, refused--to even scratch the surface of Obama's political veneer. Perhaps, it's because they know that most Americans are opposed to socialist economic practices and publishing such information might cause the media's golden boy to lose his luster...

ABC News Columnist Calls Out Mainstream Media Bias

2008-10-24T21:37:00Z

It has been readily apparent, from all the puff pieces on Obama and relentlessly one-sided coverage, that the mainstream media has been cheerleading for Obama throughout this entire election campaign. Heck, even now as I am writing this I am watching on TV reporters following Obama as he visits his sick grandmother in Hawaii as if that's a major news story, yet they still can't find the time or manpower to interview Bill Ayers or investigate Obama's ties to ACORN or that organization's obvious attempts to monkey with the integrity of our election process with fraudulent voter registrations.

But, this article by ABC News columnist Michael Malone tells it how it is in the most poignant criticism of media bias from a media insider: Editing Their Way to Oblivion: Journalism Sacrificed For Power and Pensions

By Michael S. Malone
            The traditional media is playing a very, very dangerous game. With its readers, with the Constitution, and with its own fate.
            The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.
            But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer”, because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.
            You need to understand how painful this is for me. I am one of those people who truly bleeds ink when I’m cut. I am a fourth generation newspaperman. As family history tells it, my great-grandfather was a newspaper editor in Abilene, Kansas during the last of the cowboy days, then moved to Oregon to help start the Oregon Journal (now the Oregonian). My hard-living - and when I knew her, scary - grandmother was one of the first women reporters for the Los Angeles Times. And my father, though profoundly dyslexic, followed a long career in intelligence to finish his life (thanks to word processors and spellcheckers) as a very successful freelance writer. I’ve spent thirty years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor. And my oldest son, following in the family business, so to speak, earned his first national by-line before he earned his drivers license.
            So, when I say I’m deeply ashamed right now to be called a “journalist”, you can imagine just how deep that cuts into my soul.
            Now, of course, there’s always been bias in the media. Human beings are biased, so the work they do, including reporting, is inevitably colored. Hell, I can show you ten different ways to color variations of the word “said” - muttered, shouted, announced, reluctantly replied, responded, etc. - to influence the way a reader will apprehend exactly the same quote. We all learn that in Reporting 101, or at least in the first few weeks working in a newsroom. But what we are also supposed to learn during that same apprenticeship is to recognize the dangerous power of that technique, and many others, and develop built-in alarms against their unconscious.
            But even more important, we are also supposed to be taught that even though there is no such thing as pure, Platonic objectivity in reporting, we are to spend our careers struggling to approach that ideal as closely as possible. That means constantly challenging our own prejudices, systematically presenting opposing views, and never, ever burying stories that contradict our own world views or challenge people or institutions we admire. If we can’t achieve Olympian detachment, than at least we can recognize human frailty - especially in ourselves.
            For many years, spotting bias in reporting was a little parlor game of mine, watching TV news or reading a newspaper article and spotting how the reporter had inserted, often unconsciously, his or her own preconceptions. But I always wrote it off as bad judgment, and lack of professionalism, rather than bad faith and conscious advocacy. Sure, being a child of the ‘60s I saw a lot of subjective “New” Journalism, and did a fair amount of it myself, but that kind of writing, like columns and editorials, was supposed to be segregated from ‘real’ reporting, and at least in mainstream media, usually was. The same was true for the emerging blogosphere, which by its very nature was opinionated and biased.
            But my complacent faith in my peers first began to be shaken when some of the most admired journalists in the country were exposed as plagiarists, or worse, accused of making up stories from whole cloth. I’d spent my entire professional career scrupulously pounding out endless dreary footnotes and double-checking sources to make sure that I never got accused of lying or stealing someone else’s work - not out any native honesty, but out of fear: I’d always been told to fake or steal a story was a firing offense . . .indeed, it meant being blackballed out of the profession.
            And yet, few of those worthies ever seemed to get fired for their crimes - and if they did they were soon rehired into an even more prestigious jobs. It seemed as if there were two sets of rules: one for us workaday journalists toiling out in the sticks, and another for folks who’d managed, through talent or deceit, to make it to the national level.
            Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation’s leading newspapers, many of whom I’d written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
            But what really shattered my faith - and I know the day and place where it happened - was the War in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia only carried CNN, a network I’d already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse. I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel.   The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story . . .but it never happened.
            But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current Presidential campaign. Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass - no, make that shameless support - they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather - not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake - but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election.
            Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Gov. Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the Big Leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play. The few instances where I think the press has gone too far - such as the Times reporter talking to Cindy McCain’s daughter’s MySpace friends - can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha Bureau.
            No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side - or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for Senators Obama and Biden. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as President of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography. That isn’t Sen. Obama’s fault: his job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media’s fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
Why, for example to quote McCain’s lawyer, haven’t we seen an interview with Sen. Obama’s grad school drug dealer - when we know all about Mrs. McCain’s addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Senator Biden’s endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?
            The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn’t agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a Presidential candidate. So much for the Standing Up for the Little Man, so much for Speaking Truth to Power, so much for Comforting the Afflicting and Afflicting the Comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.
            I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it’s because we don’t understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide - especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50:50.
            Furthermore, I also happen to believe that most reporters, whatever their political bias, are human torpedoes . . .and, had they been unleashed, would have raced in and roughed up the Obama campaign as much as they did McCain’s. That’s what reporters do, I was proud to have been one, and I’m still drawn to a good story, any good story, like a shark to blood in the water.
            So why weren’t those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?
            The editors. The men and women you don’t see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn’t; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay-out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.
            Why? I think I know, because had my life taken a different path, I could have been one: Picture yourself in your 50s in a job where you’ve spent 30 years working your way to the top, to the cockpit of power . . . only to discover that you’re presiding over a dying industry. The Internet and alternative media are stealing your readers, your advertisers and your top young talent. Many of your peers shrewdly took golden parachutes and disappeared. Your job doesn’t have anywhere near the power and influence it did when your started your climb. The Newspaper Guild is too weak to protect you any more, and there is a very good chance you’ll lose your job before you cross that finish line, ten years hence, of retirement and a pension.
            In other words, you are facing career catastrophe -and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway - all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.
And then the opportunity presents itself: an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career. With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived Fairness Doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe, be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.
And besides, you tell yourself, it’s all for the good of the country . . .