Congress Makes $25 Billion Auto Industry Loan

In case you missed it, in addition to the Wall Street/Mortgage/Credit guarantees, Congress has also made the US Auto Makers a $25 Billion Loan Guarantee. But after all it's only money - Your Money. More of our Tax Dollars spent. US Congress passes 25 bln loan guarantees to automakers has the details of this expendutare.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These Loan Guarantees includes Foreign Auto Makers with Manufacturing Plants in the US.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.

Our National Debt is Over $9Trillion. It is time to Rein in our Spending and fill-in the Debt Hole!!

Can we really aford to elect a President who wants to expand the National Debt? In case you aren't aware of it - Senator Obama wants to increase Taxes and Spend, Spend Spend. His programs will require spending many times what his Tax Increases Realize If you though President Bush was a spender, You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!!

Why Go To War In IRAQ?

Should we have gone to War in Iraq is a question for the historians to decide. Despite that fact, almost all of us have strong opinions about whether President George W. Bush was correct in doing so. It is a question on which the next Presidential Election may be decided.

To help separate the emotion from the fact, Today's Edition of "The Wall Street Journal" contains a First person account of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Why We Went to War in Iraq By DOUGLAS J. FEITH opens with this paragraph.

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary. [Italics & Quotation Marks in original; Emphasis mine]

The phraseology of this quote (bold portion) is important and clarifies the President's position. President Bush chose to take an action as President and Commander In Chief which was a necessity.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

This is one of the few articles which includes the first Bush as part of the problem. Considering this statement comes from someone who was a party to the discussions, it is very revealing. Mr. Feith makes it clear that he believes that As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq that if President Bush had had another choice, he would have made it.

Mr. Feith also details the views of the other Presidential advisors who participated in these confidential meetings.

In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.

It is clear from this "behind the scenes" view that many options including the risks and their consequences of the actions were considered. In other words, this was not a reckless quickly made decision. Rather it was a very deliberate, reasoned, responsible action only taken after much input form many sources.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?

This debate started before 9-11. In fact on July 27, 2001, more than a month before the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent the following memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:

"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .

"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."

It was however, the events of 9-11 which solidified the President's decision. Again it is pointed out that more evaluation and review took place before a course of action was undertaken. The President was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

Note to the Left: There is no claim that Saddam or Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks. A point often mis-stated by the left.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction. [Emphasis mine]

Again there is no claim of operational activity by Saddam or Iraq concerning 9/11, although Saddam did support terrorism and applauded the 9/11 terrorists.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

The preceding paragraph clearly summarizes what attempts had been made to contain Saddam. After a dozen years, it was clear the attempts were not working.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

The preceding paragraph makes clear that conditions were becoming worse. And more importantly, there was no indication that without intervention, conditions would improve.

5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.

Together these five reasons make clear that President Bush is a leader willing to take a risk for the benefit of the US as well as the rest of the world. Mr. Feith's makes this observation.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea. [Emphasis mine]

There will be those who debate the actions of President Bush, but based on the information available at the time, President Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq and remove a danger to all in the form of Saddam.

Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.

President Bush and his actions will be interpreted by Historians. They will use 20/20 hind site to make judgments and analyze the decisions of our current President Bush. One good place to start this process is Mr. Feith's first hand accounts of events. Don't be surprised if the decisions, judgments and analysis of President Bush's Iraq policy are favorably judged by the future.

John Murtha's Apology - AWOL

In November 2005 an incident took place in Haditha, Iraq. 15 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including seven women and three children allegedly were killed by US Marines as a deliberate act of revenge. Time Magazine reported the incident but it was Representative John Murtha (D-PA) who pronounced them GUILTY OF MURDER while the case was still under investigation. On May 17, 2006 the following story was posted on msnbc: Lawmaker: Marines killed Iraqis ‘in cold blood’.

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." [Emphasis mine]

There were also 8 "bad guys" and one Marine killed at Haditha. Charges were brought against 8 Marines as a result of the investigation which followed.

Today, according to this article Haditha charges dropped against top Marine officer, a Judge dismissed the charges against the highest ranking officer, who while not present at Haditha, was charged with Violating a Lawful Order and Dereliction of Duty.

Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

This action means that of the 8 Marines charged 6 have had the charges dropped and one was acquitted at his court marshall. None of the Marines has been found guilty of any charges, although One Marine still remains accused of wrong doing as Haditha.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

John Murtha, a former Marine himself, not only violated one of the most sacred Democratic Guarantees, (presumption of innocence), but has failed to apologize for his disgraceful pronouncement.

It is for the bad example of Democratic Principles as shown by John Murtha that he is hereby presented the Scales of Injustice. I am sure that as one of the unindited Abscam defendants he will appreciate the award.

APPEASEMENT

Take a look at this picture.


How do you conduct rational meetings with someone who does not recognize your right to exist? Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack paints a graphic picture (both figuratively and visually) of what the Radical Terrorists want to accomplish. Time is on their side. Time which pointless discussions would give them an advantage. Pointless discussions are those without preconditions.

This is what Terror Groups and Organizations dream. Let's hope it doesn't become our nightmare.

Other Related Items:

• U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
• Chertoff: Hezbollah Makes Al Qaeda Look Minor League - Greatest Risk To National Security
• Report: Iran, al Qaeda in Secret Talks

More Evidence the Surge IS Working

Besides the Leading Democrats sudden position switch, there have been a series of reports of al Qaeda Leaders being eliminated in Iraq due to Military Operations. One of the latest comes from the World Tribune online. Last letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: 'We are so desperate for your help' is the latest report from Baghdad about the success of the Surge.

Officials said several leading aides to Al Qaida network chief Abu Ayoub Al Masri have been killed by the U.S.-led coalition. They said two out of the four foreign aides of Al Masri remain alive.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the previous Democratic Position exemplified by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "This war is lost." April 19, 2007. The article makes clear that it is the Terrorists in Iraq who are losing. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Senator Reid really does want The US to Win in Iraq.

On Sept. 25, the U.S. military killed an Al Qaida chief deemed responsible for transporting foreign operatives to Iraq. The Al Qaida commander, identified as Abu Osama Al Tunisi, was killed in a U.S. air strike as he met his colleagues in Musayib, about 60 kilometers south of Baghdad.

Besides the elimination of an important member of the al Qeada in Iraq's Chain of Command, the letter which Abu Osama Al Tunisi wrote shortly before he was killed is a good indicator of the Surge's Success.

Shortly before he died, Al Tunisi wrote a letter that warned of a threat to Al Qaida operations in Karkh. The lettter, found by the U.S. military, sought guidance from Al Qaida leaders amid coalition operations that hampered Al Tunisi's network.

"We are so desperate for your help," the letter read. [emphasis mine]

Further indication of the Surge's Success comes from the declining casualty figures for the last few months and especially for the month of September. Despite the fact that about 30,000 additional troops are in Iraq, September's death toll of American Forces was the lowest since July 2006. It is hard to deny there is improvement, and this is causing the Front Runners of the Democratic Party to retreat from previous anti-war and anti-surge comments.

Al Tunisi was termed the emir, or commander, of foreign operatives in Iraq. [U.S. Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief of staff of the Multinational Corps Iraq] said Al Tunisi was responsible for the arrival of Al Qaida recruits into Iraq and their placement in operational cells.

Officials said more than 80 percent of suicide bombings have been by foreign operatives. They said most of the Al Qaida recruits arrive in Syria by air and continue overland into Iraq.

In addition to the handling of Foreign al Qaeda recuruts, Al Tunisi was ... responsible for the abduction and killing of two U.S. soldiers in June of that year. [2006]

Petraeus Gets Headlines, But Crocker Has Answer

While most of the Attention is focused on General Petraeus and his report of the Military Situation in Iraq, it is Ambassador Ryan Crocker who may have revealed the best news. While the Maliki Government stagnates, the local Politics and Political Leaders have the potential to yield a Democratic Iraq. This article details how (The Real Patreaus-Crocker Story).

Ambassador Crocker delivered the day's real news with his description of Iraq's slowly simmering political development. In his testimony, Ambassador Crocker revealed that federalism, or decentralized governance, is a concept now beginning to find favor with Iraq's Sunni-Arabs. In spite of passing a constitution by referendum in 2005, Iraqi society still has not achieved a consensus on how to govern itself. But a growing acceptance of a decentralized Iraq by the Sunni-Arabs, a previously unimaginable thought, offers a glimmer of hope for a political settlement to the war.

The local Political Theater makes sense from a Historical Perspective too. It has been local Sheiks who have historically been the Political Leaders in Iraq. If the Iraqi people can form a decentralized Democracy, that's good news. It won't be exactly like ours, but it is Democracy.

The switch by the Anbar tribes to the American side began before President Bush announced the surge strategy and was to some extent an "accidental victory." Al Qaeda's ruthless incompetence combined with American persistence to produce something positive for President Bush to tout last week.

But the "Anbar Awakening" tribal movement has created a new concept for Iraq's Sunni-Arabs to consider, namely the advantages of federalism and political decentralization.

A Troop draw-down is inevitable, at least to the pre-surge levels because we don't have the manpower to maintain 170,000 Troops without extending the Troops beyond 15 months. But, General Petraeus needs to continue to secure Iraq so the Political Solution can develop. Whether it be a centralized or decentralized Government makes no difference and should be the Iraqi decision by way of the Vote.

Decentralized governance offers a way for a political settlement in Iraq. But in order for this hopeful solution to work, both the Americans and Iraqis will have to make some significant changes to their current policies. The Bush administration (and its successor) will have to de-emphasize the goal of a unified Iraq under a strong central government. It would also have to avert its eyes as some population transfers (a.k.a. "ethnic cleansing") around the Baghdad area occurred.

For their part, the Iraqis would have to redesign their method of government finance. And they would have to accept an army recruited, trained, and commanded on a regional basis.

There are risks to this policy, however. In many respects, decentralized Iraq Government is putting all the eggs in one basket.

Such a solution obviously carries many risks. Decentralized governance may lead to a way for Iraqis to live in something like harmony. Or it may instead provide a basis to more effectively organize for renewed warfare.

The real test will come next March when General Petraeus will have to decide how the Troops will be deployed. That's when the proverbial crap hits the fan if the situation on the ground will not allow a troop reduction.

"I will not surrender/I will not submit."

“I will not surrender/I will not submit.” Courtesy of Michelle Malkin.

Fly the Flag. Always Remember.

Assessment Of Benchmarks - Sovereign Government of Iraq

To nobody's surprise, the Democrats are downplaying the success of the "Surge". This is especially necessary because, much to the Liberals chagrin, the "Iraq Troop Surge" is working. The Washington Times quotes Dick Durbin (D-IL), Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) discounting a report which has yet to be delivered.(Dems already discount war report)

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

These quotes should not surprise anyone. But this remark by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), is laughable.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus' report was potentially compromised by the White House's involvement in drafting it. [emphasis mine]

Either the Representative doesn't read the legislation on which he votes, has a memory even shorter than his ... or he is playing Politics. I suspect the latter.

Let's go for a short ride in the "Way Back" machine. The reason the Congress is being briefed on the Iraq Benchmarks is because they passed the law requiring the briefing. Section 1314 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 (Public Law 110-28) states that

[T]he President is to submit to Congress two reports assessing the status of each of the 18 benchmarks contained in the Act and declaring whether, in the President’s judgment, satisfactory progress is being achieved with respect to those 18 benchmarks. [emphasis mine]

Therefore to say the report is compromised by the White House's involvement is ridiculous. Returning to the Washington Times article, note this paragraph.

The congressionally mandated report from the administration, which will be delivered in two parts by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker, is expected to show some U.S. military advances, but limited progress from the fledgling Iraqi government toward ending sectarian fighting.

It will be prepared in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense; Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq; the United States Ambassador to Iraq; and the Commander of United States Central Command, consistent with Section 1314(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

Pres. Bush Speech to VFW Aug. 2007

Possibly in preparation for next months report to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, President Bush gave a strong speech in favor of completing the job in Iraq, at the VFW in Kansas City. The speech received a warm reception particularly because he was addressing Military Veterans during a time of War. (President Bush Attends Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Discusses War on Terror)

As members of this proud organization, you are advocates for the rights of our military veterans, a model of community service, and a strong and important voice for a strong national defense. I thank you for your service. I thank you for what you've done for the United States of America.

Because of the events since 9-11, President Bush has been, in his own words and in reality, a "Wartime President". The enemy declared war on Western Civilization long before 9-11. But what the enemy did on 9-11 not only resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 civilians, it awakened our nation.

The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale. [emphasis mine]

A struggle for civilization because if radical Islam succeeds, their Holy War will continue until the World is governed by Sharia Law. Under Sharia Law, only Muslim's are first class citizens. All other non-believers, and women for that matter, are subjugated, second class persons. This War is not just about Iraq, it is about World Civilization and Iraq is only one small part of the Global War.

Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful.

Iraq could provide an Oasis of Muslim Democracy in the middle of oppressive Radical Islamic Governments and Societies. Repressive groups like the Taliban, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Fatah al-Islam and Hamas produce much of the Middle Eastern Instability and Violence. Retreat from Iraq would result in a destabilization of the Region and provide a base for World Wide Terror operations.

At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

The question which haunts many of the West, is can a country with beliefs so different from the beliefs of the West become a democracy? History may very well give us the answer.

In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.

Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.

Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."

There are an amazing number of parallel paths over the course of history. This is absolutely true when applied to the History of the United States of America. At the start of the Korean War, Democrat President Harry Truman, faced a Congress and Public similar to Today.

Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home.

After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war."

Change the Dates, Places and reverse the parties in control of the White House and Congress, it could be the History we are making today.

Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders."

Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea."

Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word.

And then there is Vietnam. Many of the Left continue to maintain that an Iraq pull-out would have very little consequence. Just as they said at the time about Vietnam, they are wrong. If History is any teacher, Vietnam should have taught us an important lesson about leaving before a victory, can be a disaster for the people who remain behind. But unlike Vietnam, this enemy will follow us home.

Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

[...]

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

Have we not learned anything from History? Whether you believe we invaded Iraq for the right or the wrong reason, we are there right now. It is for History to judge the morality of the Iraq invasion. In Iraq, our course of action now, will enable us to face the future consequences. Prematurely leaving yields one set of consequences; finishing the task another set. History favors the latter choice.

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

The killing and torture of the "left behinds" is not the only lesson to take away form Vietnam. We are not fighting another Vietnam, and the comparison to Vietnam is only valid in referencing what would happen if we institute a pre-mature withdraw from Iraq. But the current enemy took notice and uses or Vietnam retreat as a recruiting tool.

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

Vietnam is an important part of our History. But it cannot now be changed. The present is all we have to work with, but by remembering and learning the lessons that History has taught us, the future becomes something better, for all. On the other hand, the President clearly stated what's likely to happen if we don't follow through. The view is from two men of the Vietnam era. One pro, one con.

Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

Our President is aware that History cannot fully predict all possibilities, but it can give us very good, although somewhat vague, indications of what the future will bring based on what we do today.

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

This is one lesson we don't have to learn again.

OBL Claimed To Be Alive

There have been no US confirmed sightings of Osama bin Laden (OBL) since December 2001. That's when he escaped Coalition and Afghan Forces in the Tora Bora Region of Eastern Afghanistan. The fact that he is Alive and Well comes from Mansour Dadullah, whose brother, Mullah, was a top Taliban Commander. Mullah was killed last year, and Mansour's statement is found in an article printed in West Australian Newspapers Limited (Bin Laden is alive).

“He is extremely healthy and active,” Mansour Dadullah said, according to the video’s English-language subtitles. The clip was dated June 15, according to reports.

Mansour claims that bin Laden contacted him directly. Osama bin Laden, if he really is still alive, is in the rugged, mountainous area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border. Bin Laden has released several audio and video tapes since he was last seen, and there is at least a $25 Million bounty for his capture.

There remains speculation from others that Osama bin Laden is dead.

“There’s a very high percentage chance” that bin Laden is dead, Will Geddes, managing director of the London-based International Corporate Protection security company, said in a telephone interview today.

Even if bin Laden is alive, it may not be a “massive blow” to the US, Geddes said.

As a tactical target in the Global War on Terror, OBL is not that important. But for Strategic reasons, OBL is a very important target.

“Al-Qaeda is no longer one man leading an international army. The organization has become a “generic umbrella name,” he [Geddes] said.

For the time being, we still have no reliable report about the health of Osama bin Laden. There are now, and have been for some time, conflicting opinions about his condition.

According to reports in September, Saudi Arabian intelligence officials believe Saudi-born bin Laden died from a fever in a remote region of Pakistan.

The French newspaper cited a report from France’s DGSE external intelligence agency. Saudi Arabia and Western governments, including France and the US, cast doubt on the report.

Things haven't changed much since December 2001. We Still Don't know for sure.

Sen. Lieberman Suggests Closing Iraq's Border

Today's Featured Article at the Opinion Journal of the on-line Wall Street Journal by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) (Al Qaeda's Travel Agent) is a must read.

Senator Lieberman has been a supporter of the Global War On Terror and agrees with President Bush that the course in Iraq is correct. The Senator agrees with the Republicans so often, and has received so much grief at the hands of the Democrats that he has said that he may support the Republican Presidential Nominee. More importantly, the Senator makes Sense.

The United States is at last making significant progress against al Qaeda in Iraq--but the road to victory now requires cutting off al Qaeda's road to Iraq through Damascus.

Thanks to Gen. David Petraeus's new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, and the strength and skill of the American soldiers fighting there, al Qaeda in Iraq is now being routed from its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces. Many of Iraq's Sunni Arabs, meanwhile, are uniting with us against al Qaeda, alienated by the barbarism and brutality of their erstwhile allies.

The Senator makes the case for defeating one of al Qaeda's best weapons in the Iraq War - Foreign Suicide Bombers. Since 80% to 90% of all suicide attacks are perpetrated by Foreign Fighters, most of whom come across the Iraq Border from Syria, we need a plan to stop the flow.

That is why we now must focus on disrupting this flow of suicide bombers--and that means focusing on Syria, through which up to 80% of the Iraq-bound extremists transit. Indeed, even terrorists from countries that directly border Iraq travel by land via Syria to Iraq, instead of directly from their home countries, because of the permissive environment for terrorism that the Syrian government has fostered. Syria refuses to tighten its visa regime for individuals transiting its territory.

Senator Lieberman believes that if we shut off the supply of Foreign al Qaeda Fighters, al Qaeda in Iraq would not survive. That's because they are al Qaeda's most powerful in addition to being their best weapon.

The topography and length of the Iraq-Syria border make attempts to prevent the border from being an entry point very ineffective. Ineffective, that is, because Syria makes no attempt to aid coalition efforts. In order to get into Iraq, the Foreign Recruits must first get to Syria, and most come through the Damascus International Airport. Given the Police State which exists in Syria, it is not logical to claim that the Damascus Authorities don't know what's happening.

This is not the first use of the Damascus airport by terrorists. It has long been the central transit point for Iranian weapons en route to Hezbollah, in violation of United Nations Security Council sanctions, as well as for al Qaeda operatives moving into and out of Lebanon.

Now the Damascus airport is the point of entry into Iraq for most of the suicide bombers who are killing innocent Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, and trying to break America's will in this war. It is therefore time to demand that the Syrian regime stop playing travel agent for al Qaeda in Iraq.

What should we do about this situation? Senator Lieberman suggests that when Congress reconveins next month...

Responsible air carriers should be asked to stop flights into Damascus International, as long as it remains the main terminal of international terror. Despite its use by al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists, the airport continues to be serviced by many major non-U.S. carriers, including Alitalia, Air France, and British Airways.

Interrupting the flow of foreign fighters would mean countless fewer suicide bombings in Iraq, and countless fewer innocent people murdered by the barbaric enemy we are fighting there. At a time when the al Qaeda network in Iraq is already under heavy stress thanks to American and Iraqi military operations, closing off the supply line through which al Qaeda in Iraq is armed with its most deadly weapons--suicide bombers--would be devastating to the terrorists' cause.

Simply put, for the U.S. and our Iraqi allies, defeating al Qaeda in Iraq means locking shut Syria's "Open Door" policy to terrorists. It is past time for Syria to do so.

The time for the "Do Nothing" Congress to Do Something is now. This is a good start.

Iraq From The Other Side Of The Equation

We often hear about the "Quagmire" of Iraq. Until now always from the Coalition Forces experiences. What about the Terrorist side of this "Quagmire"? This question is answered by way of an article posted at TCSDAILY (The Iraqi Quagmire You Don't Hear About).

Say there's a group of people in Iraq fighting what looks increasingly like an unwinnable war. The core of this group is made up of foreigners intent on a mission of 'liberation' in a land historically alien to their ideologies. In the process of enacting their designs, this group has suffered considerable casualties, sunk untold sums in resources, and lost many once-reliable friends. Sound familiar? This is the current state of international jihadism, an institution with a situation grimmer and an outlook more despairing than for the US-led coalition. [emphasis mine]

This is part of the Iraq good news we don't often hear about in the MSM. And looks at the situation from a view not often considered.

There is a quagmire going on in Mesopotamia. Lost in the partisan heave-ho is strong evidence of a situation that's proving intractable, perilous, and with no end in sight. Yet, it's not our war; it's the one being waged by the forces of international jihadism. For as much as the Coalition has sacrificed - over a half-trillion dollars, nearly four-thousand dead, over-drafted international political capital, and upsetting the relative stability of certain commodity markets - our enormous commitment is a relative sideshow compared with the problems facing our enemy. Pound for pound, they've lost a lot more than gained and done so at a much more grievous rate than we [have]. [emphasis mine]

To say the least, encouraging and from a perspective which most of us would not have otherwise considered. This could be a preview of the Iraq Situation Report to Congress from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Militarily, the United States and some of its allies are seen as being bruised, but this has more basis as a political talking point than as an honest reflection of events on the ground. Without a doubt, morale among US troops is high and continues to rise in proportion to the rate of successes. Where Coalition troops encounter enemy combatants, there is generally but one outcome: victory. Instead, our enemies are increasingly reliant on media misinformation and sensational campaigns to portray their war as being anything other than what it actually is: a downward spiral. Although it's true that the United States military is suffering strains from the extended rigors of warfighting and peacemaking, ours is not a broken army and the enemy sure as hell doesn't have themselves another Afghanistan; as things stand, the enemy is a long way from being able to pop the proverbial corks of (non-alcoholic) champagne and relish American military recession. [emphasis mine]

I would be willing to bet that Democrats and for that matter the General Public have never considered the view presented by "walking a mile in al Qaeda's shoes".

When Iraq War critics employ loaded terms like 'quagmire' so freely, it's done in a manner that suggests aversion to actual debate on the realities on the ground. This can be best exemplified in Sen. Harry Reid's laughably premature declaration of defeat or Sen. Barack Obama's clumsy reasoning that genocide, as the likely result of impulsive withdrawal, should be of no concern to the United States. Most importantly, such statements highlight an uncomfortable unwillingness on the part of many war detractors to see the situation in a rounder, fuller perspective - that victory is an option and that defeat isn't an exclusively American, or a partisan, problem. Yes, there is much work ahead for the Coalition. And yes, the surprising turnaround of fortune could reverse just as quickly if we do not exploit the situation. But for now, momentum is on our side and not for our enemies. [emphasis mine]

Take note.

Progress In Iraq

Michael Yon is one of the few embedded journalists I trust to report with accuracy. He doesn't sugar coat his reporting. It's all there, and it's a view you don't get from the MSM or other embedded reporters who spend 1, or 2 days or even a week with the units. Michael spends months with the troops. He has seen how the Iraq Army and Police operate. In 2005, the Iraqis ran, were as likely to shoot friend as foe, and were for the most part incompetent. The Iraqis are different in 2007. They have driven al Qaeda from Mosul although the insurgents still commute from the surrounding area to conduct ever decreasing attacks.

Today Michael has a new post about Progress In Iraq. I suggest it's a must read. Three Marks on the Horizon As we all know the National Iraq Parliament has taken the Month off. What you don't hear is the local Iraq Government is beginning to function for the benefit of the Iraq citizens. Generally the Iraqis trust what they can see. You have to earn their respect and trust, as most of the US Troops are doing. Units in Theater, earn the Iraqis trust and respect because these Troops have demonstrated that they are trustworthy.

Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide.

The Iraq Army and Police units are much more capable than a year or two ago. Especially the Army, to the point that the Iraq Army Units in Mosul are conducting their own missions. They still need US support, but that's all they need.

Because the Iraq Soldiers have progressed to this point, US Troops have been reduced in the Mosul Area. It's not completely safe yet, but it's getting there. Not because of Washington Politicians, but because of the soldiers and officers that Iraq is growing towards Independence and Democracy.

Today, the clout still is partially from the gun, and definitely the money is key, but there is an intangible and growing moral clout and it flows from an increasing respect among Iraqis for our military. Washington has no moral clout in Iraq. Washington looks like a circus act. The authority is coming from our military. The importance of this fact would be difficult to understate.

Iraq is a country that can be won. Iraq is a people who are becoming our allies.

No Smoke, No Plame

This past week, a Federal Judge threw out the Lawsuit filed by Valerie Plame and her husband Joseph Wilson IV. Valerie is a Former CIA Operative and Joe is a Former Ambassador. Together Valerie and Joe have tried repeatedly, to besmirch the reputation of the Bush White House. In addition to the President, the Wilsons have targeted Presidential Adviser Karl Rove, VP Dick Cheney and Mr. Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A considerable amount of innuendo, rumor, gossip and lies by team Wilson and their backers, have caused the General Public to suspect there must be some fire with all the apparent smoke. The smoke was really just dust. But, the din of protestations rallied the Political Anti-Bush groups to demand the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Not even this extraordinary event helped. Other than Mr. Libby's faulty memory of events and subsequent peripheral felony conviction, the Bush Administration has not been proved to have done anything illegal or even unethical.

What has taken place up to now? Joe makes an 8 day trip to Niger in late February 2002, at the request of the CIA, to determine if Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase refined "Yellow Cake" Uranium. Valerie suggests her husband for the trip on February 12, 2002. One day later, VP Cheney requested information from the CIA about attempts by Iraq to purchase Uranium. The Wilsons have hinted that Joe went due to the VP request. In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times Editorial Section. This article claimed that President Bush had politicized intelligence, because Ambassador Wilson found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase Uranium in Africa.

Later in July 2003, Robert Novak wrote a column which named Wilson's wife as CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Mr. Novak also asserts that Valerie suggested Joe for the trip. Joe later claimed that Valerie had no role in his selection and that the President had manipulated the facts for political reasons to justify going to War in Iraq. The bi-partisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee found Wilson wrong on all counts, and that it was Wilson who manipulated the facts. Concurrently Special Prosecutor Fitzpatrick was appointed to investigate allegations of criminally leaking the name of a Covert CIA Agent.

Joe and Valerie have maintained that the Bush White House had a deliberately and illegally outed Valerie Plame as a Covert CIA Agent in retaliation for Joe's editorial piece. However, Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, was the source of Mr. Novak's information about Valerie's employment. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald did not fine enough evidence to charge anyone with illegally revealing a Covert CIA Agent. In Fact Valerie was not a Covert Agent under the law.

Now, if this is not convoluted enough the Wilsons filed a Lawsuit in Federal court naming VP Cheney, Libby, Rove and Armitage as defendants. The claim according to an article (PLAME GAME LIMPS ON) in the "New York Post" dated July 21, 2007 is that the Wilsons Constitutional rights were violated by the defendants when they "outed" Plame.

They claimed a political conspiracy was hatched at the top levels of the White House to discredit Wilson for his criticizing the administration's pre-war Iraq policy - and that "outing" Plame violated the couple's constitutional rights.

Judge John Bates rejected the suit in a 41 page decision.

But the judge cited several reasons why the lawsuit shouldn't go forward - including the fact that these officials are legally immune from such suits, and that it was filed under an inapplicable act.

Judge Bates also made some substantive, non-technical points. Key among them: "Speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

The Wilsons should give it up. They have been proved wrong in every aspect of this mess. It is time to fade away, before they do themselves any more damage. But I'm betting we will hear from them again. The Post article and I agree. It is Joe and Valerie Wilson who are Politicizing Intelligence.

UN's al-Qaida/Taliban List Outdated

The UN has allowed its list of al-Qaida and Taliban leaders to become outdated. This list has not been updated since 2003.

Several dozen important al-Qaida and Taliban figures have not been placed on a list of 490 people and businesses subject to a U.N. travel ban, arms embargo and assets freeze put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, said Richard Barrett, coordinator of the monitoring team for the U.N.'s Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee.

This rather distressing information comes from an AP article, UN: al-Qaida, Taliban Sanctions Outdated, dated today. We continue to pay 22% of the UN's expenses. WHY?

Congress - Surrender In Iraq

Today the House passed a measure to withdraw US troops from Iraq by a mostly party line vote of 223 - 201. Four Republicans voted with the majority, while 10 Democrats voted against this measure.

A few hours after Bush's remarks, Democratic leaders engineered passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

This legislation still requires Senate approval before going to President Bush. The President has indicated he will veto any legislation with arbitrary time lines for US Military reduction. It is also dishonest for the Congress to play Commander In Chief of our Military. According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution this authority rests only with the President.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

There is only one honest way for the Congress to force the Withdrawal of US Forces. The Representatives in the House have the legally honest method through the power of the purse granted by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

But Congress is unwilling to take this action because the House and Senate Members do not want to be on record as refusing support to the troops in Harms Way. That is how most voters would view pulling the funding from our Troops in Active Combat.

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, or for that matter any kind of Lawyer, but it appears to me that the President would win a court challenge or Impeachment proceedings over any Congressional Legislation which did not meet the qualifications of Article I, Section 7. In other words, if Congress were to pass a piece of Legislation with arbitrary time lines, President Bush could justify ignoring said measure on Constitutional Grounds as Commander In Chief. Then we would see Impeachment and probable Supreme Court challenges to what many would call a Constitutional Crisis.

Related article on Iraq Time Lines.

Why Not -Timelines For Iraq?

When you want an answer to a question, it makes sense to go to the people who are best able to answer that question, does it not? So who is best able to answer the question "What should we do about Iraq?" I suggest that TF Boggs at Vox Veterana might be a good choice for starters. TF Boggs recently started a Milblog and in his Welcome post he asks this question.

Why is it the some of the most ardent supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the very men and women who have actually been and fought there?

TF is currently a Sargent in the US Army Reserve, who has returned to the US after serving his 2nd tour of duty in Iraq. We should give serious consideration to this question and it's answer. After all these are the men and women who are voluntarily putting their lives on the line. They not only deserve to be honored, for their service, but valued for their POLITICAL opinions on the right or wrong of future actions. In the political arena, the military are no less citizens than we are; but they have the advantage of having been there, and done that. We don't.

In TF's most recent post "What's wrong with right?", we find the answer to the question of what's the right course generally for us to follow in Iraq, and why it is the correct course of action.

If people think that by setting a time line we are somehow encouraging the Iraqi government to shape things up they are dead wrong. How many times of late have we heard Iraqi officials say that they still need our help? How many times must they ask for our help before we realize that they are serious? If we leave Iraq now not only are we condemning decent Iraqi people to prolonged and intense misery, we are losing a possible ally in the Middle East (of which we so desperately need).

Sargent Boggs gives us a chance to "Walk a Mile in His Shoes" so to speak. We all want to get out of Iraq, but the method of withdrawal will determine our nation's character and reputation in the World Community. The politicians would do well to listen to those with experience, rather than the polls. At the very least, our political leaders should balance the polls with the voices of the members of our Military.

It will take both a Military and a Political/Diplomatic solution to solve the conflict in Iraq. All war is this way. It has always been the job of the Military to make it safe enough for a Political/Diplomatic process to succeed. One cannot exist without the other. Premature military withdrawal from Iraq will condemn to failure any hope of a political/diplomatic peace.

Hopefully all of you will visit some of the MilBlogers and read what they think about the GWOT because you will not find their opinions in the MSM. I have several excellent ones indexed on the BlogRoll, read them ask questions and learn.

So many have said that those who forget History are doomed to repeat it. The History of Vietnam is the most recent applicable situation. Millions of Vietnam and Cambodian citizens died as a result of our failure there, and 58,209 US military paid for that mistake as well. As of today, 3,898 US Military have paid for the beginning of a worthwhile US undertaking in the GWOT. We have made mistakes in Iraq, but we still have a chance for victory. To our Military, we owe our support, our respect and our gratitude. Most of all we owe them the chance to complete the mission they Volunteered to do for us.

Related article Congress Surrenders Iraq

Operation Arrowhead Ripper - Day 16

Michael Yon has another dispatch from Iraq - Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007.

If you really want to know what's happening on the ground, outside the Green Zone, read it. Things are getting better and it's the Iraq government and Iraq people who are beginning to pull their weight. In other words the 'Surge' is Working.

Media coverage went from a near monopoly ... to a nearly capsized boat as journalists flooded in ... to see the fight. They managed to miss most of it.

What gives Michael the edge over the MSM is that he stays with the operations in the field. He does not go back to the safety of the Green Zone at every opportunity. He also reports it as he sees it - the good, the bad and the ugly.

...[T]he people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic ...[W]e have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

Operation Arrowhead Ripper is in its 16 day as of Michael's dispatch dated July 5th.

...[M]ost Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here ... we are not resolved to stay ... we are telling the truth.

Yes, there are encouraging signs from Iraq, but you probably will not read about them in the MSM.

[AT first] ... the Iraqi leaders seemed mostly inert. ...[Now] they are out politicking, showing their faces in public, letting the people know they are in charge.

Be sure to pay Michael Yon a visit.

Men, Women and Suicide Bombers

I have heard the oft repeated line it's human nature to explain the reason for many things Mankind does. Now we have some basis in science to justify what we intuitively know. In the current issue of Psychology Today an article titled Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature provides the answer to 10 (duh) human nature traits. Including why Muslims are more likely to be Suicide Bombers.

I expected to find a list of things like Men prefer Blonds, Women prefer Wealthy Men, Beautiful couples have more Daughters and Couples with Sons are less likely to divorce, and the explanation for those statements are there. What I did not expect was #4 "Most suicide bombers are Muslim".

The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

I don't want to steal the Thunder of authors Alan S. Miller Ph.D. and Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D., so you are left to read the full article. Besides I am sure you really want to know why men prefer blonds too.

Supreme Court will hear Guantanamo Bay Challenge

Today (June 29, 2007) the Supreme Court announced that during its next term starting in October 2007, the Court will consider the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The question of "standing" will determine the legal processes available to detainees and under what terms the prisoners are to be held and/or brought to trial. What legal rights do they have? Are they covered by the Geneva Convention Treaty and if so under which parts? Are they subject to Military or Civilian Justice. Are they Spies, Enemy Combatants, Criminals or ??? Do we need a new or amended "Terrorist" classification of detainees to properly describe a class that was not conceived when some of the legal processes were written?

Why has the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in this matter, effectively rejecting the matter this past April? There currently is an act of Congress that explicitly prohibits review of such cases. I don't know for sure, and I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me as a very interested political spectator that the Court believes the confusion surrounding this subject needs clarification prior to the 2008 Presidential Election. Whether this is the reason or not, I believe it will make for better debate by the Candidates because it will take one of the Emotional factors out of the calculus.

Between now and sometime following the Supreme Courts announcement of it decision this subject will receive much naval gazing contemplation, dissection and analytical thought by both sides. I am sure I will have further comments and references to the many other discussions on this subject. For now I would like to point you to a long (but worth the read) article by Benjamin Wittes titled Terrorism, the Military, and the Courts I found posted today at Real Clear Politics website.

In this article, which I can only inadequately represent, Mr. Wittes begins by presenting us with a story of one military battlefield interrogation. He then asks us to consider the methods and whether they represent a series of necessary and legal military techniques to obtain information.

'What followed was a protracted habeas corpus action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Lawyers representing the high-value detainee decried the coercive interrogation of his wife, the threat to his children, and the savage beating he incurred on his arrest. (The medical officer accompanying the troops who detained him had shouted to the commanding officer to call his men off "unless you want to take back a corpse.") Human rights groups uniformly condemned the interrogation tactic as torture; major newspapers weighed in on their side. The Bush administration, meanwhile, insisted that the courts had no jurisdiction over any such overseas military action, which had in any event been lawful and had yielded essential intelligence and the capture of a very big fish. As of this writing, the lower courts have deemed themselves powerless to hear the case and the Supreme Court -- for now, at least -- has not intervened."

The Irony is that last sentence has now changed. Both the Supreme Court Announcement and the publication of Mr. Wittes article bear the same date - June 29, 2007. The article continues by asking questions.

"Should the courts hear it, notwithstanding an act of Congress that explicitly precludes review? If so, what should they hold? Is such a tactic -- garnering information from a mother by threatening to have her sons beheaded by a totalitarian regime -- ever legitimate? And who, in a society committed both to law and to victory in a global struggle against terrorism, is to be the judge?"

The article continues on to describe current attitudes, conflicting emotions and ideas of what's proper and under what circumstances. I cannot do justice to the complete article, so please read it yourself. The article continues to look at the issues involved along with some suggested remedies, some gaps and some conclusions.

Stay tuned for further developments.