Surely? Surely?

Enjoy!

HT: GodTube

This Washington Post article says some military authorities are suggesting we declare victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Others, including Admiral Fallon, head of CentCom and Gen. Petraeus think it would be a mistake to do so.

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

“I think it would be premature at this point,” a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains “the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks.” Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization.

There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group’s signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a “cascade effect,” leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Those who disagree with declaring victory over AQI say if they start another bombing campaign, no matter how small, it will give them the advantage again and would not play well with public opinion in the U.S.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command’s operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity about Iraq assessments and strategy.

Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command, along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however, Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said.

For each assessment of progress against AQI, there is a cautionary note that comes from long and often painful experience. Despite the increased killings and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, “it only takes three people” to construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can “kill thousands.” The goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the periods between them.

Right now, said another U.S. official, who declined even to be identified by the agency he works for, the data are “insufficient and difficult to measure.”

“AQI is definitely taking some hits,” the official said. “There is definite progress, and that is undeniable good news. But what we don’t know is how long it will last . . . and whether it’s sustainable. . . . They have withstood withering pressure for a long period of time.” Three months, he said, is not long enough to consider a trend sustainable.

What I think is most interesting about the whole piece is that the Washington Post is this far from acknowledging the surge is working.

I’ll go with General Petraeus. Let’s wait until we’re sure we’ve beaten and demoralized the devils before celebrating.

When you are a tiny country surrounded by enemies that would destroy you, what do you do when you find out one of your closest neighbors is building a nuclear weapon?

Do you wait for them to use it on you or do you go after it before it’s completed in order to save your country and citizens?

I’d opt to go after them in a preemtive strike.

Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state. The Bush administration was divided at the time about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, American officials said, and some senior policy makers still regard the attack as premature.

Regardless of how the New York Times tries to make the nuclear site look like a small affair by saying nuclear material can be used for weapons or for peaceful purposes, and regardless of their expert saying it would take three to six years to develop the bomb from the technology, the Israelis did the right thing.

I think most Americans believe that many chief executives are over paid and receive both retirement and compensation packages which are well outside the guidelines of most who devote the better part of their life to the workplace.

Well, some of those corporate leaders also seem to feel they are overcompensated for the actual work that they do:

Most US corporate leaders believe chief executives are overpaid and do not provide value for money for their com­panies, according to a study that will embolden critics of excessive compensation.

The findings – to be published today by the National Association of Corporate Directors – are likely to strengthen calls by investors and politicians, including George W. Bush, US president, for restraint on executive pay at a time of growing income inequality in the US.

Top executives’ criticism of their peers’ compensation levels could also encourage activist investors and hedge funds to target underperforming companies with highly-paid leaders at shareholder meetings.

Four out of six chief executives or company presidents polled by the NACD in July and August said the compensation of top executives was high relative to their performance.

Only 2.2 per cent of the nearly 70 chief executives and presidents involved in the survey said compensation was too low, while a third deemed it “just right”.

Their views were backed up by outside directors, with more than 80 per cent of them saying chief executives were overpaid.

Given all of the corporate scandals over the past few years and the difficulties faced by major companies such as Mattel as of late, one would think shareholders would be very wary of the quality of those at the helm of major US companies.

Will this “talk” lead to reform on any level, that remains to be seen. I would like to believe that some of these CEO’s etc. would agree to pay cuts so the money could be filtered down to those who actually keep the company afloat..the average 8-5 worker.

Whether this is accomplished via pay increases, better benefits packages or increased 401k contributions could be discussed and debated, but those moves could certainly help create a better motivated and content workforce.

Notice how at ease he is as he speaks to this audience.

Please watch both videos so you can hear the whole thing.

Video 1

Video 2

Please watch when he reads what Hillary has said about her ideas.

I know for many people the social stands Rudy takes are unacceptable, but would they be better under a Democratic president? They’d actually be worse.

Abortion is among my three top issues. The others are a good judiciary that is interpreting the constitution and not re-inventing it, and national security.

This is why I am listening very carefully to what the Republican presidential candidates are saying.

I have not made up my mind yet, but I put this here to inform our readers of the issues.

Hat Tip: To Just One Minute

There is a wonderful post up at Hillbilly Politics, explaining why our Constitution is just fine as it is.

Excerpts don’t begin to do this column justice, but I’ll give you the first claim by Larry Sabato and Hillbilly’s answer to it:

The presidential candidates are offering prescriptions for everything from Iraq to healthcare, but listen closely. Their fixes are situational and incremental. Meanwhile, the underlying structural problems in American politics and government are systemic and prevent us from solving our most intractable challenges.

If we really want to make progress and achieve greater fairness as a society, it is time for elemental change. And we should start by looking at the Constitution, with the goal of holding a new Constitutional Convention.

Sound radical? If so, then the founders were radicals. They would be amazed and disappointed that after 220 years, the inheritors of their Constitution had not tried to adapt to new developments that the founders could never have anticipated in Philadelphia in 1787.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, insisted that “no society can make a perpetual Constitution. … The Earth belongs always to the living generation. … Every Constitution … naturally expires at the end of 19 years” (the length of a generation in Jefferson’s time).

The Constitution remains brilliant in its overall design and sound with respect to the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. But there are numerous archaic provisions that inhibit constructive change and adaptation. These constitutional bits affect the daily life of the republic and every citizen in it. A few examples:

The founding fathers and framers of the Constitution foresaw the need for changes based upon advancing societies. Therefore, they built in to the Constitution a mechanism for making those changes while safeguarding that changes could not be made arbitrarily upon the whims of a select few. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment ,of which the founding fathers made use of, and giving us the Bill of Rights. Before I address the taking of Thomas Jefferson’s statement out of context as the premise for the articles entire argument, I’d like to address the arguments presented.

Please do yourself a favor and read this excellent piece.

The Medal of Honor is being awarded posthumously to Navy Lt. Michael Murphy of Patchogue on Long Island, NY. This is the highest medal any military person can attain and it is usually won posthumously for acts of heroism above and beyond the call of duty while trying to save a brother in arms.

You would think anyone in the New York area, or the entire country for that matter, would want to honor this hero. But not the New York Times.

Not one word was printed in their newspaper about the bravery and the honor this man earned.

“If he had killed 15 people, he’d be on the front page of their newspaper,” fumed James Casey of Malverne, a Vietnam vet and past commander of the state American Legion organization.

“It’s amazing that a Long Islander and a New Yorker can receive the highest commendation this country can bestow and the Times doesn’t see fit to mention it - especially on the heels of the Gen. Petraeus MoveOn.org ad,” said Casey - referring to the paper’s deci sion to run a full-page ad from a liberal group con taining the headline words “General Betray Us.”

In addition to the local coverage, some out-of-town papers, including The Denver Post and The Los Angeles Times, covered the news with their own reporters.

One Medal of Honor recipient, Col. Jack Jacobs of Morris County, N.J., who fought in Vietnam, said, “You’d think it would be fairly substantial news that ought to get reported. It’s kind of troubling that it’s not.”

A Times spokeswoman said yesterday afternoon that the paper does plan to run something about the award - though she didn’t say exactly what.

President Bush will present the medal to Murphy’s parents at a White House ceremony Oct. 22.

It wasn’t the first time the Times gave short shrift to such a story. The paper ran just one paragraph about the posthumous awarding of the Medal of Honor to Cpl. Jason Dunham, a U.S. Marine from upstate killed in Iraq in 2004. That paragraph ran in January in the middle of a story about congressional opposition to Bush’s Iraq war plans.

We, the American people, remember you, Lt. Murphy, and we are forever grateful for your service that was above and beyond the call of duty while serving in Afghanistan.

To his family: You raised a remarkable man. Through the pain of losing him you must have that bittersweet feeling of pride that he gave his life trying to save others. God bless you.

Lowe’s Motor Speedway is just a stone’s throw from where I live. I’m not a NASCAR fan because I don’t see the fun in cars going around in circles at high speeds, but many of my friends are NASCAR fans and I haven’t had to have any immunizations because I associate with them.

The only thing you can do is laugh at this silliness. People have been going to NASCAR races for years and no one has needed a vaccination before the Democratic staffers took the advice of their committee leader and got them. Bet they feel silly now, huh?