I Still Love This Guy

An excellent speech tonight. An embarrassing night for Pelosi and the Democrats who could barely bring themselves to applaud the success of the surge strategy.

This was followed by the all-time worst Democratic response to a SOTU address, as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius gave a speech that would have been slightly more appropriate had it been delivered 2 years ago. Sebelius could have revealed the meaning of life in her speech, and it still would have been mind-numbingly dull. Perhaps it was all part of the Democratic Party's master plan to make Hillary appear more likeable.

Sphere: Related Content

Saddam Lied, Not Bush

CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn’t convinced that the insurgency was Saddam's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," says Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

Sphere: Related Content

Follow The Source

Today,CBS News web page posted a story, proclaiming in big bold letters that "False Pretenses Lead US to War: Journalism Groups' Research Finds 935 False Statements By Bush Administration"

The implication of course is that Bush lied and we expect that kind of dishonest reporting from left-wing blogs and other Bush-bashers. This however is CBS News. Generally CBS is to the left, but not misleading.

Apparently those days are over.

The "journalism group" which the story cites is

"The Center For Public Integrity"

is little more than a liberal watchdog group, funded by none other than George Soros and Bill Moyers.


So now the AP, who started this story rolling, is getting its info from left-wing web-sites and then handing them off to CBS who doesn't even mention the fact that the study in question was being handled by an organization which is funded by two of the biggest Bush-haters in the business.

This hit-piece has been picked up by The New York Times, CNN and NPR.

Once again dishonest voices in the media are using unreliable, partisan sources in order to push the lie that there was an "orchestrated deception" created by the administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Pass it on.

Sphere: Related Content

Yeah. That Makes Sense.

Let's trust the guy who once said "Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 election and the events of September 11th?" to make a fair and balanced film on President George W. Bush.

Then we'll let this notoriously liberal director cast Barbra Streisand's stepson, Josh Brolin, as the president in the movie.

Ok. That's fair.

Let's hope the writer's strike continues for a couple more years.

Sphere: Related Content

KUCINICH WINS MUNCHKINLAND PRIMARY

FALLING PANDA ALERT:


With 15% of precincts reporting, Falling Panda is ready to declare Congressman Dennis Kucinich the winner of the little noticed Democratic primary in Munchkinland.

Kucinich, who campaigned hard in the state as part of his "Munchkinland strategy", is hoping that the win gives him the momentum necessary to catapult him into contention for the Democratic nomination, now largely considered a two-way battle between Hillary Clinton and "Uncommitted" who had a surprisingly strong showing in Tuesday's Michigan Primary.

Kucinich is considered a "favorite son" of sorts in the area, having been born and raised in Munchkinland before moving to Ohio and beginning his political career.

His father was Munchkinland's Mayor for two terms during the late 30's. He was soundly defeated for a third term after, he called for the creation of a Munchkinland "Department of Peace" in response to several attacks from the Wicked Witch of The West.

Kucinich won nearly 70% of the vote here with 25% going to Mike Gravel and the remaining voters writing in the name of the Munchkinland's popular coroner.

Exit polls show that among voters who were "looking for a candidate who understands the problems of people like them" Kucinich won a whopping 99%.

Many pundits credit his campaign slogans:

"Things Are Looking Up With Kucinich"

and

"Dennis Kucinich. He Can't Reach That Either"


for appealing to Munchkin sensibilities. No word on how it will play in the rest of the country.

Kucinich also had strong support from unions, receiving endorsements from the Lollipop Guild, The Lullaby League and Lenny, the sole Munchkin representative of United Steel Workers Local #315.

By contrast, among voters whose top concern was security from flying monkeys and falling houses, Kucinich only received a 3% of the vote.

Gravel scored a big majority of security voters. This is largely thought to be due to his answer at the Munchkinland debate when he was asked how he would prevent future flying monkey attacks, to which Gravel simply replied, "Monkeys are delicious!" And then began laughing wildly.


This answer was perplexing but most Munchkins found his response far more satisfying than that of Kucinich, who when asked the same question answered:

"Well, if flying monkeys are attacking Munchkinland, it's probably because of something you guys did. I'd just ignore it and hope it goes away."

Despite this, Kucinich sailed to an easy victory in this largely Democratic area where security falls just behind the issues of filling the potholes in the Yellow Brick Road and Oz Warming, on the list of voter concerns.

Kucinich is ready to take the podium and make his victory speech. Let's listen in.

"Thank you Munchkinland."

(Wild Applause)

"Tonight we scored a great victory for the little guy."

(Applause)
"Tonight Munchkinlanders said no to the military industrial complex which targets innocent Oz Munchkins for the benefit of big oil and multi-billion dollar corporations."

(applause)

"Tonight you said no to a culture of fear, that tries to scare up votes by repeatedly reminding you that over 300 Munchkins have been taken by flying monkeys in the past year alone."

(slightly less enthusiastic applause)


"And you said yes to a bunch of crazy ideas, that are not possible and will never be implemented."

(confused mumbling)

"Tonight is a great victory for America. But this is only the beginning. We will ride this wave of enthusiasm and support all the way to South Carolina, then to Florida, through Super Tuesday and all the way to The White House, where I will go up to whoever actually wins the presidency, shake his hand and take a picture of it.
I will then send an autographed copy of it to every single one of you that voted for me."

"So friends, when you look up into the sky and see an object flying towards Munchkinland, don't fear. It's not a house that will flatten you or a monkey that is coming to take your family. It's just me and Shirley MacLaine, in my UFO, which has come to whisk you away to a brighter tomorrow.So fly away with me Munchkinland and together we can build a ladder, to that out of reach cabinet which holds the American dream."

And there you have it folks. Dennis Kucinich is the winner or the 2008 Munchkinland primary and its half-a-delegate.

Stay logged onto Falling Panda for all of the latest on the 2008 presidential race.

Sphere: Related Content

Mitt-chigan

Wow! Romney just cut off McCain to give his victory speech. Those two guys just don't get along.

Sphere: Related Content

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change.....

As the viability of Barack Obama proves, many Americans are suckers for rhetoric. Representing the party of rhetoric, the three leading Democratic candidates have insisted that each one of them can bring about "change" and in typical Democratic fashion they prove it by saying the word "change" as much as they can. The four Democrats said the word over 60 times at their recent debate in New Hampshire. I was watching the debate with some friends and we turned it into a drinking game, taking a swig every time the magic word was uttered. By the end of the debate, we were hammered.

Well, I've got some really good news for all of you change-obsessed Dems. Are you ready? Next year, we will have a new president of the United States. It's true. I guarantee it. We will make a change. On Jan 21st 2009, the occupant of the Oval Office will change.This will happen regardless of how many time Hillary Clinton says the word "change".(23)

So when Barack Obama says the word "change" it's completely meaningless and a waste of everyone's time, even though it sounds really, really good when he says it.

But while the Democrats love talking about "change" what's their record when it comes to actually changing things?

Hillary Clinton failed to change our health care system in the early nineties.

She was never able to change her husbands cheating ways.

She voted against a change of strategy in Iraq, which ended up being incredibly successful.

The only things that Hillary Clinton has ever changed is her hairstyle and her accent when visiting southern states.

John Edwards changed from a moderate Democrat with potential to take back the Clinton coalition of southern states for his party, to a socialist who couldn't get elected dog catcher in his own state.

He changed from a supporter of the Iraq war to one of its biggest detractors.

And then there's the golden boy, Barack Obama.

As far as I know Barack Obama has never changed squat. He sure can dance though.

The reality is, that the leading Democrats have no experience in bringing about change and when they try to bring about change, they generally fail.

So, what about the GOP candidates?

John McCain was the major force behind the surge strategy, the change that was needed in Iraq.

Rudy Giuliani took a city that was busting at the seems with crime, corruption and pornography shops and changed it from the inside out. He changed the city's reputation and made it so that Michael Bloomberg can walk the streets at night without fear.

Mitt Romney changed the 2002 winter games from a money losing debacle sprinkled with allegations of bribery, to a profitable Olympiad that Salt Lake City could be proud of. Curling and all.
He has also changed his positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.

Mike Huckabee changed the governors office in Arkansas from one which was ridden with scandal from the Clinton and Tucker years and restored dignity to the position.

He also changed his lifestyle when doctors told him he would die if he didn't get healthy. He lost 110 pounds. Take note Bill Richardson.


So for all of you folks thirsty for change, logically it only makes sense that you would vote for one of these four guys, since their record in bringing about change is far superior to that of their Democratic counterparts.

The most worrisome thing about all of this meaningless talk of change is that it's clouding over the most important issue of our time. An issue in regards to which change is not preferable to the status quo.

Thanks to President Bush, the Patriot Act, The United States military, Michael Chertoff, Tom Ridge and others, America has not been attacked since 9/11. If a change in leadership means that this fact will change, then perhaps we should amend the Constitution and give W. a third term.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Reading The Granite

Last night we were treated to one of the most surprising nights in modern political history as Hillary Clinton beat the Obama juggernaut, defying polls that showed her losing handily, perhaps by double digits.

Despite the fact that guys like me who try and read political tea leaves are eating a heaping helping of crow this evening, I'm going to take a stab at why New Hampshire went down the way it did. I believe the reasons are as follows:

1. The Hillary Machine beat Obama's momentum. For months we have heard that Hillary's ability to find her voters and get them to the polls was going to make this primary process a rout for Clinton. The machinery in New Hampshire that Hillary has been oiling up for the past eight years proved effective and my guess is that she was able to get just about every one of her voters out last night.


2. Obama voters didn't come out. At least not in the numbers we thought they would. There are a couple of reasons for this. Obama might have suffered from the sense that he was inevitably headed for a big win last night. Therefore his legions of young, college age supporters, decided not to wait in the long lines at the polling station and went straight to the victory party.

In addition to this, many of the independents who were supporting Obama, may have concluded that he was going to win with or without them and they therefore went where their votes would mean more. Namely, to the GOP primary, where they cast their ballots for John McCain.

3. The Edwards factor. Edwards came out well behind Clinton and Obama last night, but he still scored 17%. Most believe that the Edwards vote is, like the Obama vote, an anti-establishment, anti-Clinton vote. Therefore it only stands to reason that more Edwards voters would go to Obama if he were to drop out. Some of his union support would probably go to Hillary, however I would guess that he would have easily been able to make up the three or four percentage points that he needed, had Edwards not been there.

This leads us to what happens next in Nevada and South Carolina. In an attempt to regain some of my pundit credibility I am going to take a pass in trying to predict the outcome of either, however, depending on the factors which I pointed out above: Hillary's machine, the presence of Obama's young voters and whether or not Edwards is still in the race, we will either see a very close race or a sizable Obama victory. Especially in South Carolina.

On the Republican side let me just say this to Mitt Romney. You're a smart guy Mitt. You are clearly a brilliant executive and an able leader. Unfortunately, the fact that you put the majority of your focus and spent obscene amounts of money into Iowa and New Hampshire and still got handily beat in both, doesn't give me a lot of confidence in your ability to put together a winning campaign for November. I mean you lost New Hampshire. It's practically the same state as Massachusetts, where you were governor. They get all of their media from Boston. Maybe if you had cried more, it would have turned out better.

If you don't win Michigan, the state where your father was a popular governor, then it's time to call it quits. We'll take another look at you the next time around, but it's almost time for you to step aside and make an endorsement.

Oh, and Ron Paul. You can go too. It's been real.

Sphere: Related Content

I Give Up...

You hear that? That's the sound of every political analyst and pundit in America simultaneously being fired.

More tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary's Obama Problem

Hillary Clinton is not completely responsible for what is shaping up to be her meteoric fall from her status as the Democratic front-runner. In fact it's really not her fault at all. There's probably nothing she can do about it, which I would imagine is a very discouraging position for an uber-ambitious individual, such as Mrs. Clinton, to be in. She's crying at her rallies. Not a good sign.

Mr. Obama is running solely on his charisma. This completely undefined concept of "hope" and his incredible speaking skills have catapulted him ahead of Clinton in every early primary state. That's all! There's nothing else to it.

By contrast, Mrs. Clinton has no charisma, and her presentation style ranges from phony to shrill with very few points in between. However, to give this charisma dividend all of the credit for Clinton's troubles would be a vast oversimplification, even when handicapping a Democratic party which frequently favors style over substance. Especially younger members of the party.

If you watch the five GOP front-runners, they're attacking each other non-stop, for minutia such as who raised taxes, when and by how much or what their policy regarding immigration was 15-years ago, before anyone cared, and make no mistake, these attacks are effective, as is evident in the GOP logjam which has developed in the primary polls and national polls as well.

Clinton doesn't have this luxury. She can't attack Obama on his record, because he doesn't have one. That puts her at a huge disadvantage. He's only been in the Senate for 3 years and has spent a huge portion of that time running for president. He was not a senator for the initial vote on Iraq and he can therefore say that he opposed it when he was a State Senator. In reality, I believe he would have voted as Clinton did if he was in the Senate at the time, as most of the perspective POTUS candidates did. Regardless of this, Obama has benefited immensely from the fact that no one really cared about where he stood on Iraq when Clinton was casting her vote for the war.

Another big Clinton disadvantage is that the two are really not that much different from each other in terms of their ideological beliefs. Both are liberal Democrats. Their voting record in the Senate is similar, as is the platform on which they are running for the presidency. Clinton can't attack Obama on policy, because by doing so, she would essentially be attacking her own policy positions.

These two factors, the lack of an Obama paper trail that Hillary can criticize and the fact that Obama holds the same positions as Hillary on every issue that could potentially benefit her, are making things very difficult for the Jr. Senator from New York. Not that I'm complaining. Having Obama take care of Hillary early is fine with me, and I can guarantee that the GOP will have plenty of ammunition when it comes to convincing Americans as to why the young upstart from Illinois should not be president.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

A Substance Free Caucus

Hillary Clinton ran as the candidate with the experience to run the country. Iowa Democrats decided to go with the least experienced of all the candidates, in either party, in Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton ran as the inevitable and invincible candidate who could take on a Republican in the general election. She came in third.

Mike Huckabee won because of his charisma and support from evangelical Christians.

Obama won simply because of his charisma.

The only way either one of them is electable is if they run against each other.

John Edward's speech last night was ridiculous. I hope we never have to hear from this man again after New Hampshire.

Iowa voters said “yes” to “change” last night, but more importantly, they said “no” to the way in which certain individuals have run their campaigns.

In saying “no” to Clinton, Dems said no to a representative of the past, in favor of a representative of the future.(By "representative of the future" I mean, someone who they don't know as well as Clinton.

They said “no” to a robotic, uncharismatic, establishment individual in favor of a talented speaker with a clean slate. (He’s barely had any public service experience, how could the slate be dirty?)

In saying “no” to Romney, Iowa Republicans told him that you can’t buy an election, especially if there are questions about your dedication to Republican orthodoxy.

Just some thoughts.

More after New Hampshire.

Prediction:

McCain will win, knocking Romney out and turning it into a three-way race between McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani.

Obama will win New Hampshire with Clinton coming in second. Two way race the rest of the way.

Sphere: Related Content

The Worst Americans of 2007-Part 1

Mark Cuban/Brian De Palma


First the Dallas Mavericks owner funds the wacky, albeit creative, 9/11 conspiracy theory film Loose Change. Then he goes on to finance the awful, anti-troop, Brian De Palma flick, Redacted. My, how things have changed since the WWII era when Hollywood was actually rooting for our side and making films which made our soldiers look like the brave and noble individuals that most of them are.
Meanwhile, we don’t see anything coming out of Hollywood portraying the Jihadists as the bad guys. That wouldn’t be PC now would it?

You’d think that with all that this country has given to millionaires such as Cuban and De Palma they could give a little back when America is fighting a war against dangerous fundamentalists. But alas, they choose to make dishonest films, which are taken as fact by every Muslim who's looking for any excuse to hate us, and that individual now beileves that they are perfectly justified in blowing up more of our fighting men and women. You two truly exemplify what it means to be bad Americans.

Harry Reid

Another crummy American this year was the Senate Majority Leader who, in his overly zealous attempts to undermine the President, has consistently stuck his thumb directly in the eye of our troops .
There is no question in my mind that Leader Reid has wanted us to fail in Iraq from the moment he sensed that there were political points to be scored from a defeat at the hands of the terrorists.
In order to ensure such a defeat, he has used his prominent position behind the Senate podium to send the following messages to our soldiers in Iraq.

“I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.”

"As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."

These quotes wouldn’t be a big deal if they had been found on the pages of Move.On or the Daily Kos, but the fact that they were uttered by one of the most powerful elected officials in Washington, says a lot about where the Democrats' priorities lie. I don’ t know what’s scarier: the fact that the Leader of the Senate was so very wrong about the surge strategy or the fact that he wanted so very badly to be right about it.

My favorite Reid moment, however, was when he referred to illegal immigrants as “undocumented Americans.” Funny, funny, scary stuff.


Rosie O’Donnell

This blog spent a good part of the spring in an effort to get Rosie O’Donnell removed from The View, a campaign that was ultimately successful. I’m sick of talking about her, so instead I will focus on what she came to represent.

O’Donnell was the central figure in the exposure and subsequent humiliation of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What makes this group so intriguing is that it showed us all how powerful the Internet can be when used as a tool by gullible, albeit creative individuals who long for excitement and conspiracy, even at the expense of their own nation.

I covered a 9/11 truth rally, and it was little more than an extension of the Bush-hatred that has become so prevalent over the last seven years. The sign waving conspiracy enthusiasts outside of the CNN building on Sunset Boulevard were, for the most part, vapid and yet were all united in their belief that the American government was covering something up in regards to 9/11 and was probably behind the attacks in the first place.

As cars honked their support for the “Impeach Bush/Cheney” signs held by many of the participants, it became clear just how damaging bad information can be when seen on a well laid out website.

Thankfully, Rosie’s departure killed the chances of these particular conspiracy theorists gaining any credibility, whatsoever.

The Paparazzi/Perez Hilton/TMZ

I’m just going to come out and say it. If you read People Magazine, Us, In Touch or any of the other supermarket checkout rags focusing on the personal lives of celebrities, you’re part of the problem.

I will never understand it, but if you purchase one of these mindless magazines, or log on to one of the celebrity-obsessed sites that have grown in popularity as of late, you are putting money in the pockets of the paparazzi.

At least 15 photographers follow the Britney Spears train wreck everywhere it goes. Gas stations, fast food joints. She’s not that interesting. Neither are Brangelina or any of the other public figures who would probably be homeless if not for their good looks and hotel money.

My question is, do the people who care about this stuff vote? If they do, whom do they vote for? Can we stop them from voting? Perhaps if every awards show was broadcast on election day... Just a thought.

Sphere: Related Content

When Terror Strikes, The Choice Is Obvious

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

Or maybe......

Who else?

Sphere: Related Content

Tim Weiner and The New York Times Get It Wrong Again

Tim Weiner of the New York Times doesn't let facts get in the way of his

story

on J. Edgar Hoover's plan to incarcerate Americans during the 1950's. While Hoover may have indeed had such a plan, Weiner makes an unfair and inaccurate comparison of Hoover's plan to the Bush administration's Military Commissions Act of 2006. He writes:

"After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

Of course if Weiner had actually read the bill, specifically section 7 of the bill, he would know that the suspension of Habeas Corpus only applies to "aliens" deemed enemy combatants. This is far different from the president having the ability to deem any American an "unlawful enemy combatant" and throw them in prison.

The New York Times ladies and gentleman. Informing the terrorists and misinforming Americans since 2001.

Sphere: Related Content

Barone On Putin as POTY

"Yes, he's a consequential figure, who has just nominated a successor who looks like his pawn (at least for now; for a contrary view, see this speculation). But Russia ain't what it was when Time saw Ronald Reagan and Yuri Andropov as a dynamic duo. And who are Time's runners-up? Al Gore, who exaggerated the IPCC climate forecast by a factor of 20 to say that New York and London would be flooded by global warming (they weren't in the 13th century, when the weather was a lot warmer than it is now). J. K. Rowling, who has made millions writing books that children and adults love to read; all power to her, but she's not exerting the kind of influence over human affairs that Hitler did in 1938 and Stalin did in 1939. Or Hu Jintao, who is presiding over a system whose initiation, in 1978, was rightly honored by Time as a turning point in history. I have on my bookshelves somewhere (actually, it's not there, because I've just moved and haven't reshelved my books) a book by a China scholar entitled 1587: A Year of No Significance. I bought it because of the title and haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Hu Jintao is, so far as I can tell, like that book, of no significance. David Petraeus, No. 4 on Time's list, has made a much greater—a huger—difference. But Time doesn't want to acknowledge that, because to do so would be to admit that George W. Bush is not an ignorant tyrant and that the United States is not on the losing side of history. Better to elevate Vladimir Putin to a significance he does not deserve. Shame."

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabust?

Huckabee Sees WH 'Bunker Mentality'

By LIBBY QUAID


CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Mike Huckabee, who has joked about his lack of foreign policy experience, is criticizing the Bush administration's efforts, denouncing a go-it-alone "arrogant bunker mentality" and questioning decisions on Iraq.

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor now running for the Republican presidential nomination, lays out a policy plan that is long on optimism but short on details in the January-February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. A copy of his article was released Friday.

"American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out," Huckabee said. "The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists."

In one specific criticism, Huckabee said Bush did not send enough troops to invade Iraq. And he accused the president of marginalizing Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, who said at the outset of the war that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion. "I would have met with Shinseki privately and carefully weighed his advice," Huckabee said.

He said this year's troop increase under Bush has resulted in significant but tenuous gains, and he said - much as Bush has - that he would not withdraw troops from Iraq any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. The military has now slowly begun to reverse the troop increase.

Huckabee has previously joked about his lack of experience in international affairs. "I may not be the expert as some people on foreign policy, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night," he said earlier this month.

While the Foreign Affairs article is missing the one-liners he is known for, it does have a few folksy comparisons to illustrate his points. On Iran, for example, he makes a case for diplomacy by saying, "Before we put boots on the ground elsewhere, we had better have wingtips there first."

He adds that the U.S. can exploit the Iranian government's hunger for regional clout, saying, "We cannot live with al-Qaida, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran."

Last week, Huckabee missed a report the White House released saying Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program; one day later, the candidate said he was unaware of the report and had been campaigning too hard to read the newspaper or be briefed. The Foreign Affairs article seems to have been written before the report was released, citing "urgent concerns about Iran's development of nuclear weapons."

In his article, Huckabee also thumped Bush for failing to pursue al-Qaida in Pakistan, noting recent terrorism plans, since thwarted, that were planned there: "Whereas our failure to tackle Iran seems to be leading inexorably to our attacking it, our failure to tackle al-Qaida in Pakistan seems to be leading inexorably to its attacking us again."

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Buy The Left's Spin On Iran

This has never been a very political administration. To a fault, President Bush has consistently done what he believes to be the right thing to do rather than the popular thing.

His poll numbers have tanked and he doesn't really seem to care.

Despite the fact that he has been attacked mercilessly by Democrats in an unprecedentedly vile fashion for the last eight years, he never fires back or uses the opposition's vitriol in order to gain politically.

Gone is the take no prisoners, win by any means, political style of the Clintons, although it’s trying to make a comeback.

I like Bush's style. A good President is supposed to stay above the political in order to focus on....you know.....the nation's problems and stuff.

The NIE report on Iran released last week however, gave the president the political equivalent of a massive club with which to bludgeon his political foes over the head. Repeatedly. But Bush missed it.

The fact that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 shows us that the invasion of Iraq has had incredibly positive repercussions on the Middle East and by default on the world.

One of the key goals of the invasion--to deter nations run by brutal totalitarian regimes from even thinking about buying or making WMD's--has worked perfectly.

At this point, every crazy dictator in the world knows that if he so much as acquires a weapon of mass destruction in a dream, he runs the risk of having his government toppled or having billions in nuclear technology blown up by the United States.

For all of you liberals out there: This is good. We want this kind of thing to happen, because it prevents nukes and horrible chemical weapons from being put in the hands of terrorists. It also prevents Israel being completely destroyed.

Libya.
North Korea.
Iran.

Like dominoes, the nations that we worry most about actually using an apocalyptic weapon have had to give up their dreams of holding their respective areas of the world hostage by threatening to lob a nuke into neighboring countries.

The principle of preemption has worked.

Democrats, of course, would never admit this but the increasingly positive news coming out of Iraq means that they will be unable to deny it forever. There is an incredible transformation underway in the Middle East.

The sour taste over Iraq remains in the mouths of much of the American electorate and this has allowed the Democrats to spin the NIE report as a negative. They say it is a further indictment of Bush's credibility and the sad state of our intelligence gathering abilities.

As usual, the "Bush lied" argument will never go anywhere. It's bogus. And while some will believe it now due to far-left sites that peddle misinformation, the accusation that Bush misled the American people either now or in the lead up to the Iraq war will never survive in the scope of history.


But some still don't get it. Liberal columnist Matthew Yglesias was allowed to throw this

gem

onto the pages of Saturday’s L.A. Times:

"The problem with the Bush preemption doctrine isn't merely that it's been applied when the intelligence was lacking but that the underlying idea is unsound. By casting America as the threatening aggressor, it encourages countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves, as it undermines the sort of international cooperation that's necessary to halt the spread of those weapons. On some level, Democrats seem to recognize this, but if they're politically too timid to rule out the failed policy of preemption, they can't offer a coherent rationale for an alternative approach. Instead, they sometimes seem to be offering more of the same, only a bit less so. Thanks to the latest intelligence, preemption is moot for the short run."

Clearly this is bass ackwards. By casting America as the "aggressor",rogue nations appear to be encouraged to stop in their attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction? Like in Iran? The nation that you're talking about in the article you're writing, Matt? Right? Wait.....did I miss something?


We attacked Iraq. A couple of months later, their neighbor, who policy minds were incredibly worried about in the wake of 9/11, stopped making their nuke. That seems like a fairly simple scenario that anyone familiar with the concept of "cause and effect" should be able to grasp.

The reason that the Democrats won't rule out the policy of pre-emption is because they know it works. It's like ruling out the policy of brushing your teeth as a preemptive strike against cavities.

Yglesias also claims that the discovery of the recent intelligence"....signals that the hawks inside the Bush administration have lost. No U.S. airstrikes will be forthcoming."

Who? What hawks in the Bush Administration wanted to bomb Iran's nuke facilities? Does Matthew Yglesias have some sort of inside information about what Dick Cheney was recommending the President do about the Iran situation?

Does his position as associate editor of Atlantic Monthly allow him access to that type of inside information? I doubt it.

The incresingly partisan Joe Klein makes the same accusation in this week's Time Magazine, yet he provides no evidence to back up his claim.


Making an assumption based on guesses as to what is going on in the White House and then presenting it as fact is bad journalism. I expect that kind of thing from Yglesias, but not from a respected journalist like Klein.

Bush should have launched a pre-emptive strike on liberals like Yglesias as soon as the NIE report was released in order to connect the absence of Iran's nuke program to the absence of Saddam Hussein’s vicious regime.

The modern left has a long history of being wrong on foreign policy matters and then being incapable of admitting their mistakes once they’re evident.

Many liberals are still incapable of conceding that Ronald Reagan was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Their refusal to acknowledge the success of the President’s surge strategy would be laughable if it wasn’t so depressing. In my favorite surge delusion, some liberals imply that the only reason that the civilian death toll in Iraq has dropped so dramatically over the past few months is because most of the Iraqi’s are already dead.

The fact that guys like Yglesias were so quick to spin the NIE's conclusions into a negative, in addition to the administration’s unwillingness to explain to the American people the likely reasons why Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, will probably allow for some short term political gains for the Bush haters and those against the use of military force for any reason whatsoever.

However, those of us who are able to separate the reality from the pathological spin of the left wing media, are becoming increasingly confident in the knowledge that history will cast the decision to topple the government of Iraq in a positive light and that so-called “cowboy diplomacy” has worked far more efficiently than most in the media are willing to admit.

- Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Grand Old Gang

Sphere: Related Content

News From Iran Shows Bush Doctrine Works

For several years now we have heard conspiracy theories floated by Iraq war opponents everywhere that the Bush administration had pretty much settled on attacking Iran. To hear them tell it, it wasn't simply going to be a strategic bombing of the rogue nation's nuclear facilities, but rather an all-out, Iraq-style, ground war.

Of course, there is no evidence that the administration was planning such an attack. But with the mission in Iraq going badly, it was political rhetoric which succeeded in making the far-left and the Democratic base hate the president even more and unite the left around the idea that a war against Iran was inevitable unless John Edwards or some other far-left dove was brought in immediately to stop it.

Now, keep in mind: all of this fear-mongering of another Bush war came against the backdrop of an Iran which most believed was in the process of (or close to being in the process of) building a nuclear weapon. Despite the obvious danger of such a prospect, the left showed that they were far more concerned with an imperialist America actually using its military than they were of a radical Islamic nation with a nuke.

Now a new NIE intelligence estimate tells us that Iran halted their development of nuclear weapons in 2003.

The left seized on this finding immediately and pointed to it as evidence that the Bush administration over-hyped the threat posed by Iran, with the goal of bringing us into another war. We've come to expect this type of knee-jerk reaction from the tin-foil hat crowd and Bush haters, but as is usual these days, on matters of foreign policy the opposition let their mouths get a couple steps ahead of their brains on this one.

Let the grown ups explain.

First of all, I shouldn't even have to point out that those who are trying to score political points off of this NIE report are the same folks who have been calling the President a liar or implying that he misled the nation in the lead up to the Iraq war. Of course, the intelligence that the president received which led him, as well as almost everyone else to believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was possibly well on his way to acquiring a nuclear weapon was laid out very clearly in an NIE intelligence estimate.

It's political opportunism right out of the Clinton playbook. When the intelligence estimate says something that is subsequently investigated and turns out to be wrong, the president is a liar. However, when believing the NIE estimate can help the Democrats politically, they will use it as fact to try and make the president look like a liar.

Of course, the Democrats will never admit how hypocritical this pick-and-choose politics is. They will also never admit that this news is evidence that the war in Iraq has served as a deterrent to other regimes who seek weapons of mass destruction. Of course, to hear the left tell it, this whole war was about oil anyway so they probably wouldn't have the intellectual honesty or capacity to understand that deterrence was one of the major, strategic goals of the Iraq invasion in the first place.

We now know that Iran suspended their development of a nuclear weapon around the same time that we invaded Iraq in order to disarm Saddam. Coincidence? You can make the call on that one.

Common sense would suggest that like Libya, the powers that be in Iran decided that acquiring a nuke was not worth the threat of having the United States put the smackdown on them and overthrow their government. Something that they now saw we were perfectly willing to do, with or without the blessing of the U.N.

So our show of force in Iraq worked perfectly in that sense. Recently, North Korea has also promised to end their nuclear weapons program as well. So there you have it. The Axis of Evil is no longer a threat to the world or the stability of the Middle East, right?

Not quite. We know that we can't trust regimes like Iran or North Korea in the long run. Despite the fact that both Iran and Saddam were not as far along in their WMD capabilities as we thought, both regimes felt it necessary to keep the world guessing.

Iran is still enriching uranium, North Korea lied to us once before when we made a deal with them. You simply can't trust these guys.

Therefore, President Bush is correct in his assertion that Iran is still dangerous even without a current nuke program.

While we must keep Iran on a steady diet of sanctions and carrots attached to sticks, in order to ensure that they improve their behavior in the region, today's revelation is good news for everyone.

For the time being, Iran's neighbors don't have to worry about having a bomb lobbed at them.

For now the U.S. does not have to be concerned with Iran handing off a nuke to Al-Queda or some other Islamic extremist group. The fact that it appears that Iran couldn't even possibly construct a nuclear weapon before the middle of the next decade buys us some much needed time to fight the War on Terror, without Iran having the bargaining power which a nuclear weapon would give them.

The real story here however is the left's continued attempts to spin every positive into a negative. To spin even the most promising intelligence into a gotcha moment for the administration.

But their days are numbered. As the surge in Iraq continues to work and democracy continues to evolve in the region, the Bush administrations decision to go into Iraq will eventually begin to get the credit it deserves for the dominoes which continue to fall as a result.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Iran just stopped their nuke program in 2003 because they were bored or lazy, or because they just wanted to be nice guys.

But if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this: If Iran had announced that it had suspended its nuclear weapons program a few days after the U.S. attacked Iraq, how would the media and the Democrats have reacted to that?

Whatever the case, it's time for some honesty from the Democrats and those in the media, who seem to believe that this story is more about the Administration's credibility than our sucesses in the War on Terror.



-Dan Joseph

Sphere: Related Content

Sphere: Related Content