President Bush has not been Conservative enough for some.

For others he has been nothing more than a man who stole an election with the assistance of the United States Supreme Court.

He has been vilified for his handling of the Iraq war, sometimes deservedly so, but it you read, really read the words of those who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, most seem to have a clear sense of exactly what their mission has been. I’m not speaking of the arm chair Generals who conduct war from a television studio, but those who have seen the horrors and triumphs.

Through it all and with all his mortal faults (show me any President who does not have them, or any man or woman for that matter), I have remained a supporter of Mr. Bush and there has always remained one central reason why..National Security. My position has never wavered on this and no doubt never will..it is not a matter of fear, it is a matter of this country’s survival.

It came as quite a surprise to run across this article penned by a New York City resident who did not vote for the President in either 2000 or 2004:

With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it’s notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.

This is a difficult issue for me. I didn’t vote for President Bush – twice. And as a human-rights law professor, the events at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, along with various elements of the Patriot Act and the National Security Agency’s wiretapping of Americans, are all greatly troubling to me.

Yet I live in Manhattan and I was present on Sept. 11, 2001 – admittedly 100 blocks from the murder scene, but I was here, trembling along with the rest of America. Remember those days?

Mr. Rosenbaum gets it. Very few speak of the President and his determination to carry out his primary responsibility. Does anyone honestly believe that if not for his steadfastness in the fight against terrorism we would not have been attacked again, possibly more than once?

Perhaps historians will understand the perils we faced over the past decades. It is my belief the terrorists understand that this time they chose the wrong man to “take on,” and the Professor appears to agree:

Yes, there are those who maintain that our promiscuous misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel have rendered America even less safe. That the president has further radicalized our enemies and alienated our nation. That the animosity for America now, improbably, runs even deeper. Whatever resentments and aspirations gave rise to 9/11 have grown and will not be easily dissipated. For this reason, no one should draw comfort in the relative safety of our shores.

Maybe so. But when a professed enemy succeeds as wildly as al Qaeda did on 9/11, and seven years pass without an incident, there are two reasonable conclusions: Either, despite all the trash-talking videos, they have been taking a long, leisurely breather; or, something serious has been done to thwart and disable their operations. Whatever combination of psychology and insanity motivates a terrorist to blow himself up is not within my range of experience, but I’m betting the aggressive measures the president took, and the unequivocal message he sent, might have had something to do with it.

Americans, admittedly, have short time horizons and, perhaps, even shorter attention spans. Our collective memory has historically been poor. But had there been another terrorist attack or, even worse, a dozen more in cities all over America – a fear that would not have been exaggerated on 9/12 – would we have allowed ourselves the luxury of quarreling over legally suspect counterterrorism measures, even though such internal debates are credits to our liberal democracy and constitutional freedoms?

More at the link above.

The sixty four dollar question.

While watching the endless pundit blather on TV tonight after the Republican Michigan Primary and Democratic Nevada Debate and reading the various opinion meisters commentaries online, I had one of those rare zen moments of simplicity. It all comes down to a simple question:

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

Read the rest here.

If ever there was a report which I hope is on target it is this one:

An all-out battle for control of Pakistan’s restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.

The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This would be welcome news for the coalition forces in Afghanistan. If President Musharraf is willing to take these measures just take a look at who might be eliminated from the terrorist ranks:

According to intelligence sources, during Ramadan, the Taliban’s entire top command, including Moulvi Abdul Kabeer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Nasiruddin Haqqani, and Mullah Mansoor Dadullah were in North Waziristan to launch a post-Ramadan offensive in southeast Afghanistan. The Pakistani military engaged the militants well in advance to block their offensive plan, but the same militant command is believed to still be in North Waziristan.

Hat tip to Right Wing Nut House. Stop by and read Rick Moran’s excellent post on this article. I know I agree whole heartedly with his final paragraph.

Whatever the reason, Musharraf has evidently decided to commit his army to the destruction of the Taliban. And if he’s successful, it might just turn out to be the most significant battle in the war against Islamic extremism to date.

According to this report, US interests in Germany were targeted by terrorists. Fortunately, German security forces were able to locate and arrest those who would have carried out this attack.

Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an al-Qaida-influenced group nursing “profound hatred of U.S. citizens” were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday.
German Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said the three, two of whom were German converts to Islam, had trained at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, a group based in Central Asia. They had obtained some 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide for making explosives.

“We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings,” Harms told reporters.

Harms declined to name specific targets, but said the suspects had an eye on institutions and establishments frequented by Americans in Germany, including discos, pubs and airports.

Sudwestfunk televison, citing unnamed security sources in Berlin, reported that Frankfurt international airport and U.S. Ramstein Air Base were among the targets.

This report serves as a reminder that globally no one is immune from the actions of this faceless enemy.

In very short order the verdict in the Jose Padilla case has been rendered.

MIAMI (AP) - Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration’s zeal to stop homegrown terror.

The Chicago native was once accused of being part of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” in the U.S., but those allegations were not part of his trial with two co-defendants.

Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face life in prison because they were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas. All three were also convicted of two terrorism material support counts that carry potential 15-year sentences each.

Perhaps if this judge is tough when sentencing occurs, it will encourage others to not follow the same path.

Read more

An LA Times article today reports that top US intelligence officials think that Al Qaeda has recovered, though there’s disagreement between them and the Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff, over whether this means a heightened threat to the US. The story’s here.

President Bush and other administration officials have been casting about for an historical parallel that best explain and rationalize its war in Iraq. And they’ve traveled all over time to find them.

In a speech to the American Legion last year, Ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared this time to years leading up to World War II:

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

Just before the war began, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told the Veterans of Foreign wars (pdf file) “The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror.” A few days later Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert of NBC that the Iraquis would greet US troops as liberators. And President Bush has given the same war some nods by using the words “axis of evil” and “Islamic fascists” to describe our enemies.

Or maybe the global war on terror is like the Cold War. That’s what President Bush suggested in his commencement speech last year at West Point.

Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom’s victory in the Cold War.
President Truman set a clear doctrine. . .

President Truman acted boldly to confront new adversaries. . .

President Truman acted boldly to help transform old adversaries into democratic allies. . .

President Truman transformed our alliances to deal with new dangers. . .

President Truman positioned U.S. forces to deal with new threats. . .

President Truman launched a sweeping reorganization of the federal government to prepare it for a new struggle. . .

President Truman made clear that the Cold War was an ideological struggle between tyranny and freedom. . .

Likewise, Bush argued, this administration has taken similar actions and is laying the groundwork for eventual victory in the global war on terror.

But maybe its not as general as the Cold War, but something more specific like South Korea. Here’s how the Press Secretary, Tony Snow, explained it back in May:

Q Tony, on Iraq, for the gaggle you were asked about U.S. troops and just how long the presence would be there, the vision. And you compared it to the Korean model. Can you explain that?

MR. SNOW: Yes. It was actually a question that Helen raised and Helen used to create an analogy, but the President has used it before. . . .

. . .MR. SNOW: Here is — what the President means by that is that at some point you want to get to a situation in which the Iraqis have the capability to go ahead and handle the fundamental matters of security. You have the United States there in what has been described as an over-the-horizon support role so that if you need the ability to react quickly to major challenges or crises, you can be there, but the Iraqis are conducting the lion’s share of the business — as we have in South Korea, where for many years there have been American forces stationed there as a way of maintaining stability and assurance on the part of the South Korean people against a North Korean neighbor that is a menace. . .

Or, there’s no analogy. Vice President Cheney told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Israeli lobby)

An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff — (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.) [my emphasis]

And just a few days ago, the President gave us a paradoxical take on the analogy question–simultaneously, there is and isn’t an historical parallel. Today’s troops are like our revolutionary soldiers in that they are fighting an unprecedented war Independence Day speech to the West Virginia Air National Guard:

You’re the successors of those brave men. Those who wear the uniform are the successors of those who dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty. Like those early patriots, you’re fighting a new and unprecedented war — pledging your lives and honor to defend our freedom and way of life. In this war, the weapons have changed, and so have our enemies, but one thing remains the same: The men and women of the Guard stand ready to put on the uniform and fight for America. (Applause.)

One analogy that simply won’t do, though, is Vietnam.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid have said they will announce a new plan to end the Iraq war, to which I say, Just defund the darned thing and get it over with! Stop playing games and be the transparent Congress leaders you promised in the last election.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.

Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This “deauthorization” proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.

Both leaders obviously feel strongly we should end the war so they should follow their gut feelings and end the funding, which will end the war on our part.

These games are mighty tiresome. Bring a de-funding bill to the floor of each chamber and see if it flies. If it does you have accomplished your mission. If it doesn’t then stop trying.

Just another example in an article from the AP which supports the Presidents view that we must remain vigilant against those who would do us harm.

4 charged in JFK Airport terror plot

NEW YORK - Four Muslim men were foiled from carrying out a plot to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods, authorities said Saturday.

Three men were arrested and one was being sought in Trinidad on Saturday. In an indictment charging the four men, one of them is quoted as saying the plot would “cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks.”

One of the suspects, Russell Defreitas, a U.S. citizen native to Guyana and retired JFK employee, said the airport was a symbol that would put “the whole country in mourning.”

“It’s like you can kill the man twice,” said Defreitas, 63, who first hatched his plan more than a decade ago when he worked as a cargo handler for a service company, according to the indictment.

The plot never got past the planning stages, authorities said.

My hat is off to those investigating agencies who foiled this plot and many others. Much like the US military many of these individuals at the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security risk their lives so we may continue daily with ours.

For those who believe there is a “right to know” and that leaks to the media are a positive thing, please take the time to read the whole story..I hope it leaves you with a different opinion of how we must conduct this “war” against a faceless enemy.

HT: Captains Quarters

The Anchoress has an excellent post about Congress and the stalemate we are now in regarding funding our troops.

The Anchoress used to be a liberal and says she will change her registration to Independent before the next election, but she is concerned about our troops and their needs above all else. Maybe she should be in charge of Congress, as at least she is an adult.

After reading this at Blackfive, I’m beginning to think it’s time. H/T Jules.

It’s been almost 100 days since the president sent the supplemental bill to Congress, and these “we support the troops” types are so busy playing political games, they’re starting to impact the safety of the troops…these are the same people, btw, who were carrying on about how “nothing is more important than the safety of the troops and that they have everything they need.”

Well…they’re reaching danger point. The troops should not have to scrounge because the Democrats are playing political theater.

Is it time for War Bonds? I’ll buy.

Democrats: You’re bringing yourselves to a place I don’t think you want to go - where you’ll be accountable for troop deaths, beyond your original vote to war - you’ll be accountable for NOT TAKING CARE OF THE TROOPS.

Now, just to be fair I’m going to quote the first post on her comments board and her response:

Gotta say, this whole business of castigating Democrats for “screwing the troops” is getting a little ridiculous. These and other refrains from the cheerleaders of this war are getting very tiresome, because it neglects one salient point. The Congress sent President Bush all the money he needs to fund the troops. Instead of writing a blank check for an administration who has proven that it cannot manage this war effectively, they demanded sign of progress and yes, a timeline. It was President Bush who effectively didn’t support the troops with his veto. When more than 60% of Americans want a timeline and when the Iraqi Parliament itself wants a timeline, it gets kind of hard to blame the Democrats for not wanting to support the troops. They are representing the wishes of the majority of their constituents, not the 28% who still cling to the “Commander guy” and his inept administration. And it’s interesting that you keep using the phrase “adult” as if it’s the Democrats who mismanaged the Iraq quagmire. Sorry, the old refrain that all the hippies are traitors is not resonating like it used to.

Comment by Kougar ? May 12, 2007 @ 10:10 am

——————————————————————————–

Oh come on, now, Kougar, the congress loaded that bill up with so much pork, it was a joke, and everyone knew it was a joke. And as to a timeline, it doesn’t really matter if 60% (your figure, polls are meaningless to me because I know how easily they are manipulated) of the people “want a timeline” that doesn’t mean a timeline is right or sensible. A “timeline” does nothing but tell the enemy to check their calendars for the date they can unleash hell.
‘
Thinking still trumps polling, every time!
‘
Signs of progress and benchmarks are reasonable. TIMELINES are just stupid. The stupidest way to fight any war.
‘
But progress and benchmarks cannot be fairly assessed if the troops are scrounging. So, I’m all for progress and benchmarks…but the congress has to be fair about giving the troops what they need while we’re watching the progress and marking the benchmarks.
‘
And I’m not just picking on the Dems, here. I’d be happy to yell at the GOP for screwing the troops, too…just as soon as they start. Until - ALL of these people voted the troops into harms way. They have to take care of them now. It’s really that simple.

Comment by TheAnchoress ? May 12, 2007 @ 10:35 am

As long as this doesn’t require Congressional approval and can be done without them I’ll gladly buy war bonds even if they don’t have a return.

I can remember having a stamp book for war bonds when I was in grade school. Maybe they were called savings bonds then, but either way, if it gets our troops the equipment and hot food they need at the end of a long day I’ll pitch in.