Monday, July 23, 2007

Congress Should Support The Surge

A recent poll reveals the lowest approval rating ever for Congress- 14%. That means that 86% of the people are unhappy with the “leadership” of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So, where exactly is this great success story we were all promised by the Media and Democrats following the 2006 elections? Could it be that the new, reigning Liberal Establishment in Washington D.C. is NOT what the American people had in mind?

You betcha!

This last election, basically, was not so much an endorsement of some new Liberal direction for the country as much as a rejection of the failed policies of compromising Republicans who had forgotten their conservative principles. The Illegal Immigration issue alone should prove this point.

The current majority is now collapsing around the horns of a dilemma: how to simultaneously please the extreme Left-wing base of their party- for which they are indebted- while not antagonizing the moderate masses they need to win elections and hold their mandate. That’s why you have folks like Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and for the current Surge Strategy, now trying to distance herself from Iraq. The Code Pink/Move On.org constituency on the Looney Left is withholding their vital campaign contributions until they get some satisfaction and performance on their primary issue of “Surrender in Iraq.” Or, maybe you didn’t notice Cindy Sheehan’s recent announcement regarding her intentions of running against Pelosi in California- on the War Issue? The Left simply can’t afford a split in their ranks if they hope to win the White House and hold onto Congress in ’08.

That’s why they had that little pajama party last week in Washington. The Liberals knew they didn’t have the votes to get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but they also knew they needed to earn some ‘brownie points’ from the Michael Moores and Rosie O’Donnells in their party. God help them. So, they staged this phony, all-night, cloture debate in an effort to prove their devotion to the anti-War Cause.

And what about the Cause? Is this the time to pull out of Iraq? Not if you believe the man in charge: Gen. David Petraeus. While the Liberal Democrats were toying with political games, Gen. Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, was giving an assessment on how the initial stage of the Surge is going- only one month into full-strength deployment.

Shouldn’t we give just a little credence to the commander on the ground? Here’s what Petraeus had to say in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on July 18, the same day as the pajama party:

“We have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground. Gains [have been made] against the principal near-term threat, al-Qaeda Iraq, and also against another near-time threat and also potentially long-term threat: Shia militia extremists. There has been considerable progress against al Qaeda.”

“The insurgents are losing many, many hundreds of their different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the Surge.”

“Our best operators in the world are here in the largest numbers of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. [It’s] very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes and very effective…[consisting of] nightly operations, far more significant than we [have] conducted for decades. [One] took down the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda Iraq.” It is also progressing with the weight of our conventional forces who cleaned Western Baquba- which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq. The conventional forces killed 80 or 90 confirmed, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well.”

Adding to the list of recent successes Petraeus continued, “we have detained some four different emirs- the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives. Anbar Province, all of a sudden, has become just a remarkable development…it could possibly evolve into a situation sustainable by Iraqis. I can assure you that the Iraqi forces are out there very much fighting and dying for their country. In fact, their losses typically are some three or more times the losses we suffer.”

Regarding the threat of civil war, Petraeus noted, “sectarian violence in June was about the lowest in a year.”

When asked why this is important Petraeus explained, “we have an enormous responsibility, because we did liberate this country. Iraq has the second or third most proven oil resources in the world [and] sits astride several crucial ethno-sectarian fault lines. A precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq [and] in the region.”

Even traditional bastions of Liberal Thought like the International Crisis Group, ICG, and the UN agree with Petraeus, (but then again, they’re not politically invested in defeat like the Democrats are). “I hated the Iraq War,” says ICG director Joost Hillerman, “[but] a hasty withdrawal would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for U.S. interests.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said, “a great caution should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt withdrawal may lead to further deterioration.”

And while brave leaders like Petraeus, Odierno and Lynch do the tough but necessary work of responsibly pursuing victory on the battlefield in Iraq, Liberal Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold continue their defeatist antics by proposing useless, diversionary,
political games like the censure resolution of President Bush. It’s enough to make one
wonder whose side they’re really on! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)

Monday, July 9, 2007

The Hypnotized Never Lie

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” so sings Roger Daltrey of the Who in the classic rock song “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.” He could have just as easily been singing about one of today’s worst psychological abuses- the Global Warming hysteria propagated by radical environmentalists like Al Gore.

Last Saturday, Gore presented the musical event “Live Earth” to raise awareness about Global Warming. Over 100 artists performed on stages on seven continents during a 24 hour period designed to help “save the planet!” Among the suggestions for keeping Mother Earth alive were: unplugging unused appliances and changing to low-energy light bulbs.

When Daltrey was asked what he thought of the project, he replied, “Bollucks, the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.” But he wasn’t the only one suggesting “the emperor has no clothes!”

Matt Helders of Artic Monkeys said, “it’s a bit patronizing for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world. It’s like, who cares what we think about what’s happening, especially when were using enough power for 10 houses just for [stage] lighting. It’s a bit hypocritical.”

Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys explained, “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t- it looks arrogant.”

Bob Geldof, musician and concert organizer for previous relief projects: “Live Aid” and “Live 8,” was skeptical of the motives behind the event. “Why is Gore actually organizing them?”

Such criticisms weren’t reserved to those opting out of the event. Live Earth-participant Chris Rock sarcastically commented, “I pray this event ends Global Warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger.”

Still, artists like Madonna and Carlo Santone shouted to the crowds, “start a revolution,
it’s a revolution, do it, do it!”

Madonna- it’s interesting to note- with nine houses, a fleet of cars and a private jet, has a “carbon footprint” a hundred times larger than the average person. She also owns stock
in several companies considered to be among the world’s worst polluters: Alcoa, Ford Motor Co. and Weyerhaeuser. But, hypocrisy can’t be too bad of a thing when the organizer himself is perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all.

Al and Tipper Gore own three houses, and although alternative energy is available to them, they don’t use it. Their 10,000 sq. ft. home in Nashville has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms; and, according to the Nashville Electric Service, (NES), they use more electricity in a month than the average household does in a year! And furthermore, incredibly, Gore’s zinc mine in Carthage, TN has been cited by the State for polluting the Caney Fork River. The symbolic “S.O.S.” signal Live Earth participants were sending out with their various drumming and handclapping in London, Tokyo and New Jersey should have been directed toward Al Gore’s own backyard!

The truth is- the earth may be warming some. Estimates suggest the temperature rise has been approximately one degree Fahrenheit over the last hundred years, but this is a far cry from “the catastrophic nightmare” that some would have us believe. The earth has periodically warmed and cooled in the past without disastrous consequences. Six thousand years ago it was 5 degrees warmer. Ten thousand years ago the temperature rose 10 degrees in one decade as we came out of a cold spell.

Professor Reed Bryson of the University of Wisconsin is known as “the father of scientific climatology.” He says Gore’s apocalyptic vision is “not science” and “not true.” Bryson knows a little about the topic since he was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison. He says we’ve “been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years,” but “there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide.”

The warming of the globe has actually leveled off since the 90s. Greenland and the polar ice caps are not in the process of melting away. According to professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, drilling has revealed that 120,000 years ago, when the earth was 9 degrees warmer, Greenland was still covered with ice.

So why does this nonsense continue? Simply put, it’s a power play for more, centralized
government control over the world.

Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic recently surmised, “as someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”

As if to illustrate this point, Dem. Gov. of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, just signed into law the first U.S. state mandate to reduce greenhouse emissions. The NJ Business and Industrial Association oppose it and the Utility managers say it will bring higher prices.

In the U.S. Congress, Dem. John Dingle, House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has just announced his plans to introduce a new carbon tax.

Both of these measures are similar to European Union (EU) laws governing energy. It’s curious how these programs are now being criticized in Europe for failing to actually reduce carbon emissions and for breeding corruption in allowing companies to “game the rules” for their benefit!

Oh well, the Pussycat Dolls did announce after their performance that they will be cutting back on their hairspray volume. I guess I’ll just pick-up my guitar and play…just like yesterday. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro,TN 37757)