The Calls We Didn’t Hear Regarding
Israel’s Battle Against Hamas

For the last few days we have heard in the news of the U.S., the U.N. and even foreign leaders calling for a truce between Israel and the terrorist group Hamas.

But why haven’t we heard more calls from these groups to support Israel in destroying Hamas? Why haven’t we heard from President Bush, who has been a huge supporter of erasing terrorist organizations, that the U.S. will be donating weapons or supplies to Israel in their fight against Hamas, as well as sending humanitarian aid to the Palestinians?

Hamas is allegedly a major political party and has a lot of seats in the Palestinian National Authority’s elected legislative council. But many of its members are still terrorists who are bent on destroying Israel and her people.

In fact, if Hamas was any type of decent political party, they would not have broken the truce that started this latest round of chaos.

Dealing with terrorists like Hamas only results in more bloodshed. They cannot be reasoned with or trusted.

And of course Israel will act aggressively against them. If someone indiscriminately fires rockets into Israeli cities or digging infiltration tunnels to send suicide bombers into Israel, then Israel is justified in its actions.

However, some restraint should be shown towards the innocent Palestinian people, even though it seems doubtful that they will condemn Hamas for starting the aggression.

But the world needs to realize that Hamas is not serious about a truce, cease-fires or even peace talks.

It is time that the world starts putting the blame on Hamas and starts finding real solutions in stopping them from constantly breaking the brief relieve between battles that Israel and the Palestinians infrequently enjoy.

India’s Attacks Reminds
Us Of Terror War

As India is in a literal grip of horror, their living nightmare should be a reminder to us all that we are still at war with terrorists.

Just because the death toll is currently not as high as it was on Sept. 11 or the destruction is not as devastating, this heinous act by alleged extremist Muslim terrorists should not be brushed aside.

While these coordinated attacks are centered on areas populated by foreign tourists, especially Americans, according to CNN, it is a grim reminder that no one is safe from these heathens.

President-Elect Barack Obama must make the terrorist threat his highest priority, in addition to a crippling economy. Just because America has been bless with no further grand terror attacks on its soil does not mean that the threat has quietly gone away. That type of ignorance can be very deadly.

Increased military action against terrorists and those who harbor or aid them and better communications and open dialogue with some extremist Islamic governments, but are seeking peaceful relationships with the West, are just some of the methods that can be used to combat the danger that has gripped the world.

Tomorrow, many Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving and be grateful for what they have in their lives. Let our prayers also be with those suffering in India and pray for a peaceful resolution.

What The Falk Is He Talking About?

U.N. official Richard Falk says that there should be investigations into the 9/11 terror attacks, believing that the destruction of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were the results of an inside job.

It’s hard to believe that Falk is the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories for the U.N. and a former Princeton professor when he talks about baseless theories.

In a Fox News interview Falk said, “I do think there are questions that haven’t been answered, questions about the way the buildings collapsed and the failure to heed a variety of signals that there was danger coming.”

Questions about the way the buildings collapsed? Apparently, Falk did not see two giant airliners slam into the buildings. That is enough right there to make a rational person realize why the buildings collapsed.

But there is no need for such a money-wasting investigation, because Popular Mechanics has done a great feature that exposes the myths about many of the conspiracy theories that surround the events of America’s darkest day.

While many 9/11 Truthers, as they call themselves, and Falk claim that the Twin Towers collapsed because of a controlled explosion, many experts say the buildings actually fell because the jet fuel and items inside, such as furniture, carpets, etc., were burning at such a high heat that the steel lost its structural integrity. Experts say this is what really caused the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Falk also wrote the forward of a controversial book, “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11,” by David Ray Griffin. The author also writes that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 at all, which conflicts with the many eyewitnesses to the attack and the wreckage found.

And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his merry band of killers took credit for the attacks. It would break their little black hearts if people began to think someone else did their dirty work.

It should be noted that in the FOX News interview that while Falk believes that 9/11 was an inside job; he says that the U.S. government was not responsible. But he does not say who is the alleged evil doer of this plot, which would make a good mystery novel.

While some are calling for Falk’s resignation as a U.N. official for his warped 9/11 beliefs, among other things, one must start questioning Falk’s senses.

While it’s easy to poke fun at people like Falk for their misguided beliefs, we have to realize that their wild, unsubstantiated theories are an insult and a slap in the face to Americans and to the victims’ family and friends.

Falk, as a U.N. official, should dedicate more time to tact and discretion than spewing insulting and groundless tall tales of 9/11.

Kucinich’s Impeachment Quest May Hurt Obama’s White House Bid

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But his quest to remove the President from office may hurt presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s own quest to win the 2008 election.

What was the reaction by his fellow Democrats? They pretty much opposed the former presidential candidate’s futile efforts. In fact, Democratic leaders are expected to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they hope it will be buried and forgotten.

The articles deals with such things as the Iraq war, global warming, allegedly holding American citizens and “foreign captives” (let’s call them terrorists) illegally, voting rights, and President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, just to name a few. But let’s focus on the Iraq war.

Now, let’s forget a few things about why the impeachment will fail, such as how the U.N. never enforced its own resolutions against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, so no one knew if he really had his weapons of mass destruction. Or that the U.N. voted in agreement to the resolution that Saddam still had WMD.

Or how former President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox to deal with Saddam’s weapons programs, after Iraq failed, again, to provide U.N. weapons inspectors with an honest account of them. Or how there were reports that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria before the 2003 war.

But let’s remember that a great number of Democrats who said many times during the buildup of the war that Saddam was a danger to America and the world with his deadly weapons. Did they lie too? They saw the same information that the President saw. So, does that mean there will be an impeachment for Bush and the Democrats?

And more importantly, this will not only shatter Obama’s chances for the White House, but the Democrat’s as well. Why?

Obama was strongly against going into Iraq from the very start. And here is a speech he gave in October 2002 at an anti-war rally that will probably come back to haunt him:

“(Saddam) has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him,” the possible future president said nearly six years ago.

Now, if Kucinich’s goal is to get rid of President Bush from the White House, it could also rid the Democrats’ goal from getting into it.

This is why House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and fellow Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that they would not pursue impeachment charges against the President. Because not only will it air the Democrat’s dirty laundry that a good number of them voted to give President Bush the power to go to war, but it will show how they are not unified if their presumed nominee was against going to war.

And more importantly, Obama’s speech is a huge weapon against him. He said that Saddam had WMD and knew that Saddam was a threat to the world and that U.N. resolutions were useless against the bloody dictator. But he didn’t think removing him was important enough for America’s safety.

Wow. What a thing to say. Because the Republicans can highlight this speech and point to Obama’s global inexperience and how he should not be the one to answer the phone about a national security threat at 3 a.m.

Granted, the President should have handled the war better. He should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors a lot more time before considering military use. His administration should not have allowed retired generals and other former military leaders to sell the war to TV networks. But it still boils down to one thing: At the time, we found ourselves in a global terror war and we needed to know once and for all whether or not Saddam had those weapons. And because Kucinich opened up this can of worms, the Democrats are going to have a hard time putting the lid back on.

Kucinich is the little engine that shouldn’t. He either does not realize or care that he is sabotaging his party’s chances for the White House. And Kucinich is showing how ineffective Obama will be as a Commander-In-Chief.

Kucinich’s impeachment crusade is like Don Quixote’s battle with the windmill: There is nothing there that warrants these charges.

Who Says There’s No Smoking Gun Between Saddam, al-Qaeda?

Many Democrats and liberals have been hell bent to say that President Bush lied about his alleged claims that former Iraqi President and dictator Saddam Hussein had connections with terrorist group al-Qaeda may want to take a peek at a recently released report.

“The Iraqi Perspectives Project Primary Source Materials for Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” was recently released and while it stated that there were no direct links (or smoking gun) between Saddam and the terror group, which claims responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, there sure does seem to be enough dots to show that the bloody dictator had Sunday Tea with a few members of al-Qaeda.

For example, it has been known for a long time, and this report mentions it, that Saddam had a long relationship with terrorist organizations and supplied them with training grounds, funds and equipment. What many Bush critics don’t want to acknowledge is that al-Qaeda and Iraq’s former dictator had common objectives and a limited working relationship.

“At times, these organizations (Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network) would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust,” stated on page 559 of the report.

And then there is the liaison with Ayman al-Zawahiri, prominent leader of al-Qaeda and leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

“Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives,” stated on page 62 of the report.

So, just using those two passages alone, the report does state that there was a strong link to Saddam and al-Qaeda. Granted, no one is saying that Saddam had bin Laden over for poker night but there was a type of link there. And that is just al-Qaeda.

At the moment, there is no proof that both parties worked on the 9/11 attacks and President Bush never stated such a thing. But the fact that Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who already had an established history of lying to the U.N. and breaking resolutions, among other things, America could not stand quietly by, waiting to be attacked again.

Going into Iraq to determine if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the right course of action. Taking military action so soon after U.N. weapons inspectors went in there is up for debate, as mentioned before in The Times Observer.

But the job of any American president is to protect the people and to ensure their safety. And that is what the president was doing. We may not agree with how President Bush went about it but it was something that had to be done to finally determine how much of a threat Saddam actually posed to America.

To read the complete report, please click here.

A Funny Thing Happened At Bill Maher’s Forum

If Bill Maher isn’t going to take any bull from an elected official, he sure as hell isn’t going to take it from 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

This past Friday on his HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher,” 9/11 conspiracy theorists from the studio audience interrupted the program by shouting that Maher should talk about the “truth” of what really happened on 9/11. Using colorful metaphors, Maher went down to the audience and helped kick these nutty jokers out. And it’s gotten quite a bit of hits on YouTube.

Now, these people are more out of it then your normal, run of the mill conspiracy theorist. But on second thought, maybe not. These people believe that either President Bush, the U.S. government or the evil “establishment,” according to some the “establishment” and the government are two separate beings, planned the 9/11 attacks.

These “9/11 Truthers,” as they call themselves, also claim everything from that there were no hijackers aboard the planes to that a missile really hit the Pentagon. And trust me there is a whole smorgasbord of other things that these yahoos claim but who has the time to name and debunk them all? Well, thank goodness Popular Mechanics has already done that for us.

But there are little things that really fly in the face of these anti-government crusaders and they’re called facts. As my father likes to say, a little common sense goes a long way. For example, the theory that there were no hijackers on the planes. It’s really funny, because there are many things that contradict this claim. There are cockpit recordings of the hijackers and cell phone recordings of the passengers telling their loved ones or 911 operators that radical Muslim terrorists have taken over the planes.

Or the little theory that a missile really hit the Pentagon. It’s a really interesting theory and it would make a great suspense movie, except for that pesky little fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw American Airlines Flight 77 slam into the United States Department of Defense building.

But if you present the 9/11 Truthers with these facts, or even mention that they should talked to the family and friends of the nearly 3,000 victims who died that fateful day, expect to be called a government shill or a sheep that should stop watching FOX News or any other news organization, even if it’s a liberal one.

Sadly, these people have no credibility. They don’t even have one government official who can back up even one of their absurd claims. At least the Roswell UFO conspiracy theorists can whip out retired government officials who claim to either have seen the alien craft or its pilots, such as Air Force Major Jesse Marcel or Elias Benjamin, an MP with the 390th Air Service Squadron.

With 9/11 Truthers though, what they say is an insult to what really happened that day and to the victims’ family and friends who suffered a great loss.

Ahmadinejad Hangs Himself In Columbia Speech

I truly believe in the old saying, “Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself with it.” And that’s what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did today at Columbia University.

When I first heard of Ahmadinejad’s visit to America, I was outraged, as were many Americans. However, after reading about his rants to audience members at Columbia University, he showed the world what an uninformed, hypocritical and dangerous dictator he really is.

In fact, he made so many outrageous statements it’s hard to decide where to start. How about the 9/11 attacks?

“If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved …” Ahmadinejad said, as reported by CNN.

“Who was really involved.” Interesting choice of words. Ahmadinejad, who in the past claimed that Iran has plenty of freedoms, needs to give more of these elusive freedoms to his country’s state-controlled media.

If he did, Ahmadinejad would know that two weeks ago Osama bin Laden again claimed responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks and presented a video will made by one of the terrorists on that fateful day. And that’s not even including al-Qaeda members, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who have confessed to planning the attacks.

Then Ahmadinejad made a statement that Iran has no gays. Considering that the punishment for either consenting man or woman homosexuality is either whippings or death, it’s a safe bet no one is going to come out of the closet any time soon.

Next, Ahmadinejad came to his favorite subject, Israel. In the past, he said that the Jewish State should be wiped off the map. Today, he wouldn’t give a “yes” or “no” answer when asked if he wanted to see the destruction of Israel. Although, it doesn’t take a genius to know what he would like to see.

But instead, the Iranian President said that “people of Palestine” should be the ones to vote on Israel’s status. Besides the fact that this flies in the face of nearly 60 years of established history that Israel is a country, many Palestinians have been “voting” on the Jewish State’s status by use of suicide bombs as ballots.

So in the end, Ahmadinejad hanged himself by saying he is misunderstood but did show that he is a dangerous man that needs to be taken seriously.

Israel’s Silence And Syria’s Quiet Rage

Hard to give an opinion when the facts aren’t fully reported as of yet or ever.

Apparently, Israel has made a nice little hole in Syria. According to the Times of London, Israel allegedly launched an air strike that destroyed weapons for the terrorist group Hezbollah or destroyed a cache of nuclear materials shipped from North Korea.

At the moment, Israel isn’t saying anything and all Syria is saying is that its “looking into a series of responses” to the attack, according to The Times of London.

There are many questions and speculations as to why Syria would have nuclear materials for weapons, assuming that’s what the destroyed items were.

Either weapons for Hezbollah or nuclear ones for either Syria or Iran, as it has been speculated, it can’t be denied that Israel made a wise move.

None of these countries or terrorist group should have any form of weapons, especially if it’s the nuclear kind.

While diplomacy has wonderful merits, it does have its limitations. In a world where weapons are being shipped to bring death to innocent lives, decisive action has merits of its own.

Bush Is Riding High After Iraq Report

Democrats, especially those running for the White House, will have a hard time selling their agenda that President Bush isn’t doing a good job in Iraq.

Just this past week Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told Congress that the President’s troop increased had a huge positive effect in Iraq: Sectarian killings are down more than 50 percent in Iraq and more than 80 percent in Baghdad, as reported by CNN.

And if that isn’t enough to get the Democrats, and the few Republicans who are against the war, red in the face, President Bush announced Thursday evening that he will take Petraeus’ recommendations and start troop reductions in December of this year.

So, what did we learn? Well, despite the number of Bush critics who say the president is too stubborn to listen to anyone; his stubbornness seems to have paid off.

But more importantly, the president didn’t bend to political pressure or drastic drops in the polls. He did what any good Commander-In-Chief does: Listen to those who know war best.

He took Petraeus’ recommendations and said that he would proceed with more troop reductions if things continue to go well in Iraq. While the war in Iraq is very unpopular with many Americans and with many whole-heartedly disagreeing with the president’s stance on the war, Bush is standing his ground.

While this is a victory for Bush at the moment and a huge blow to Democratic presidential candidates, it’s not wise to get hopes up. Anything can happen between now and December or later on.

The best thing we can hope for is that the Iraqi government and people can come together and continue to build their new way of life without the military assistance of the U.S. Once that is established, as well as major reduction in terrorists/insurgent activity, then we can celebrate. Because the war in Iraq isn’t over by a long shot.

Never Forget, Always Remember

This is a day we must remember that nearly 3,000 of our countrymen died in an attack by a group of people who want to see our destruction.

This is a group of people who don’t know the meaning of mercy, tolerance or acceptance. These terrorists have only given us one choice: Either convert to their perverted version of the Koran or be murdered.

You cannot make peace treaties with animals like this. There can be no forgive and forget if they are still actively trying to bring down our country and our freedoms.

We can’t forget the fear, shock or courage that was in our hearts or the acts of human kindness by rescue workers and regular citizens that flashed across our television screens six years ago today.

Never forget and always remember that the freedoms that make our America so great come with a heavy price.

What The Iraq Report Means

Poor Democrats and liberals. Even though they started their own war to discredit Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker before the two could present their report to Capital Hill yesterday and today, it seems it was a losing battle.

MoveOn.org placed an ad in The New York Times to discredit the general and his report. But that didn’t change the facts of what the report said.

According to the General, the troop surge that President Bush ordered back in January is actually working. The terrorists and insurgents are taking a beating. And Petraeus has also suggested significant troop pull outs in 2008.

Now Petraeus didn’t paint an entirely rosy picture, however. The Iraqi government is still “dysfunctional” and there are still problems between the Sunni and the Shiites, he said, as reported on CNN. He does say that these matters are being corrected, however.

Yet, what isn’t being touched on enough is what Crocker said about Iran.

“I think you see a collision in Iran between their long- term strategic interests and their narrow tactical desires. Their narrow tactical desires I would define as trying to administer a defeat to the U.S. in Iraq,” Crocker said, reported by FOX News. “The problem they've got is that, if they are able to create circumstances that cause us to reconsider our commitment, the result is going to be a chaotic Iraq that, over the long run, could potentially be dangerous for them, as well.”

While Democrats, and even a number of Republicans, are calling for an earlier deadline for troop withdraw, not many seem to be concerned about the threats that are in Iraq. No one seems to be that concerned over Iran and what would happened if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq without insuring they could properly defend themselves.

And al-Qaeda, according to Petraeus, seems to be focused in Iraq. For an enemy with no real country to call home and is spread out across the globe, strategically speaking, it’s great having them in one place.

We have to remind ourselves that while we all want the troops home, if we don’t handle our enemies in Iraq now, since we have the troops and support to do it, we would give them a country of their own if we pull out. And we would have to fight them eventually.

It’s important that we don’t give our enemies the chance to catch their breaths and regroup.

G.I. Joe Is A POW To PC

He has faced the Nazis, Japanese and terrorist organization COBRA and won every time. But apparently only politically correct Hollywood has done something that none of his enemies were able to do: Kill G.I. Joe.

According to rumors, the new G.I. Joe movie is taking the “American” out of a “Real American Hero.” Paramount has said that in the movie, “G.I. Joe” will not stand for (U.S.) “government-issued,” but will now become an acronym for “Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity.”

It has been said that an American soldier hero movie might not do well overseas. It almost makes me want to toss my old G.I. Joe toys in the BBQ grill and set them on fire.

But if G.I. Joe can be a target for the evils of political correctness, what other heroes are next? I guess Superman would be the next on the hit list. After all, standing for the “American Way,” can now become as deadly for the Man of Steel as Kryptonite.

But G.I. Joe gave something that Superman couldn’t give to young boys: That with hard work and the love of your country, you too can be a great American hero. Sure, Superman is great but no amount of hard work is going to make a kid fly through the air.

G.I. Joe is a believable hero that anyone can be. And once more, his enemies were also believable. His enemies belonged to tyranny, dictatorships and terrorist organizations: Real threats that America has faced in some form during its long history.

And like real American soldiers, G.I. Joe has faced many enemies in different countries, freeing many from oppression at the hands of bloody rulers. But I guess that is something Hollywood doesn’t want to remind moviegoers, and thus stripping G.I. Joe into a United Nations military force, which is a sad thing to be.

I’m not sure what type of lessons this pale imitation of G.I. Joe is going to teach our children, but it already taught them one valuable lesson: Don’t allow Hollywood to discharge our heroes!

Bush Creating ‘Islamophobia’?

According to Parvez Ahmed, who spoke to CAIR symposium at the National Press Club, the Bush Administration is creating a fear against of Islam and terrorism is too small to even bother with.

“Terrorism is a tactic. You cannot eradicate it by declaring a war against it. The war on terror is causing us infinitely more harm than the terrorists could have ever imagined,” said Ahmed, a chairman of the national board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as reported in The Washington Times yesterday.

President Bush and his group are creating fear of Islam? It appears that Ahmed is giving too much credit to Bush and taking away credit from the terrorists who have killed nearly 3,000 Americans on that fateful day.

Ahmed would have far more credibility if he actually criticized the number of people locked up for plotting terror attacks, such as Assem Hammoud. In July of 2006, law enforcement officials said that Hammoud was allegedly plotting to blow up the New York City train tunnels to flood the financial district.

Or maybe Ahmed should have blamed the six radical Islamists for spreading fear of his religion for their alleged plan to attack Fort Dix.

Better yet, maybe the chairman would like to speak with Narseal Batiste, who law enforcement officials claimed that he was allegedly creating an Islamic army to blow up the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building and a number of other buildings.

Hopefully, many have noticed that these plots and others have been foiled by what Ahmed so wisely stated as the president’s useless fight against terrorists.

Ahmed told his audience that it was important to keep in mind “that terrorists cannot destroy America.” But it’s not because of their lack of trying.

When a terrorist group of Islamic extremists have numerously called for a jihad against America and other countries and are actively plotting to kill as many innocent people as possible, that is not fear created by President Bush but the horrific reality of the enemy we are facing.

Has Iraq’s PM Finally Wised Up?

After some much needed convincing by American intelligence reports, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has finally seen the errors of his ways and has stopped supporting Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric with no great love for America, the Sunni or an Iraq governed by the people.

According to two unnamed government officials (the Associated Press story does not mention which government they are with), al-Maliki, who was a supporter of al-Sadr, finally realized that the militant leader of the Mahdi Army was really hurting the new Iraq. Apparently, the bombs, executions and bloodshed were not a tip off to al-Maliki, but then again, who knows what happens behind closed doors that made the prime minister open his eyes.

Al-Maliki, a Shiite himself, was supporting the Mahdi Army, even going so far as ending a U.S. blockade of Sadr City back in October of 2006, where the militia army has headquarters in the northeast Shiite enclave of Baghdad, according to the AP story, “Iraqi PM Ceases Protection of Anti-American Militia,” published Jan. 22, 2007.

In a previous blog (See Dec. 1, 2006, “Iraq Is Sleeping With The Enemy,” for more,) it stated how much control that al-Sadr had in the new Iraqi government and the best way to reiterate that is to quote the AP story.

“In a desperate bid to fend off an all-out American offensive, the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr last Friday ordered the 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers under his control to end their nearly two-month boycott of the government. They were back at their jobs Sunday,” reports the Associated Press.

Did al-Maliki really need U.S. intelligence information to tell him who was really controlling a good portion of the new Iraq government? When you have a radical insurgent leader, who is killing your countrymen, telling your government leaders not to go to work, that’s a big wake up call that you’re not wearing the pants, Mr. Prime Minister. (The question that needs to be asked is, why didn’t Iraqi President Jalal Talabani step in and take proper control of that matter?)

And this is the biggest problem that we should all have with the new Iraqi government. Maybe that memo about the prime minister that was leaked a few months back was true about al-Maliki. He just does not have what it takes to run the country, or maybe he just enjoyed being in al-Sadr’s pocket. What type of benefits package did he receive?

However, he is listening to the wisdom of the U.S. military about al-Sadr but it is fair to speculate that there was some arm-twisting for him to see the light. That was an impression that I received in President Bush’s speech on the new Iraq plan a few weeks back.

“In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister (Nouri al- )Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated,” the president said on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2007.

And to give al-Maliki credit, there has been significant progress. The Associated Press reported on Jan. 18, 2007, that 400 Shiite insurgents were arrested because of al-Maliki’s green light.

While al-Maliki’s loyalties should be questioned and considered, he is finally sending the right message to the Iraqi people and to the vicious insurgents who are destroying the country. Hopefully, this is the first major step in the new Iraq plan that will take down the insurgency.

Handling The Hot Potato That’s Iraq

After everyone has had a chance to allow President Bush’s new Iraq plan to sink in, there are a few things that need to be reflected on and considered.

One of the highest criticisms from politicians, military experts and just about everyone else is that the more than 20,000 additional troops are not enough to carry this plan to victory. More troops are needed. I certainly agree and I have yet to find any countries in the “coalition of the willing” who have volunteered more of their men and women. Maybe these news articles have escaped my noticed.

Before our troops fired the first shot in this war, President Bush said it would not be like the Vietnam War, meaning our troops would not have restrictions placed on them when going after the enemy. For whatever reason, this faulty policy, most likely to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens, was implemented. They would not want to see American or Iraq troops on holy land or places of worship. The president addressed this in his speech.

“In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister (Nouri al- )Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated,” the president said on Wednesday evening.

And this has been addressed countless times during the operation of the war. Hopefully now that the “green light” is on, will we see the results needed to stabilize Baghdad and the rest of the country.

The president also stressed what would happen if the plan failed or what would happen if Iraq’s leaders did not follow through with it. The insurgents and terrorists would have a strong foothold in Iraq and will threaten not only the region and the surrounding countries but America as well. The president should have thrown Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the mix as well, because of his undisclosed deal with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. (See Dec. 1, 2006, Times Observer blog, “Iraq Is Sleeping With The Enemy,” for more.)

But will this plan be allowed in Iraq? With Iraq’s president making a shady deal with Ahmadinejad and the deadly Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr having a follower in al-Maliki, it seems unlikely. Even though President Bush quoted al-Maliki as saying, “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation,” it should not give us a false sense of security.

And with Talabani and al-Maliki making deals or supporting deadly men, is it worth being in Iraq if its leaders are willing to throw everything that has been fought with blood, sweat and tears away?

In addition, it has been reported that our troops are having a hard time training Iraqis to take over security detail. American soldiers have said that a good number of Sunnis troops being trained do not want to help the Shiites and do not trust them. And the reverse is also true, with Shiite troops do not want to aid the Sunnis. Our troops have also said that both groups of soldiers refuse to follow orders, sometimes saying “if Allah wills it.”

With these two black eyes on Iraq’s defiance to unify and become a country for all the people, America could use this as a graceful bow to exit the war with some dignity. Not too many people would blame the U.S. for doing that.

But a U.S. withdraw of Iraq would collapse it and provide insurgents and terrorists a huge base of operations, giving them oil fields to either black mail other countries or use the profits to fund their jihad on all non-radical Muslims. And we cannot allow to give them, especially al-Qaeda, that kind of victory.

Iraq Is Sleeping With The Enemy

For a long time now, I have always said that the insurgents are the real cause of the mess in Iraq. But with recent events in the news and who the new Iraqi government has decided to allied themselves with, the finger of blame should be pointed to Iraq’s leadership.

It should have sent shivers down most people’s backs when Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week to discuss Iran’s possible help in dealing with the onslaught of violence created by the insurgents. The question is what type of help could Ahmadinejad offer? Maybe he could stop Iran from sponsoring terrorists in Iraq.

And likely, that’s why Talabani called his meeting with Ahmadinejad a “visit was 100 percent successful,” according to Nasser Karimi, an Associated Press Writer. Sadly, neither of the presidents gave any details of the security agreement but as Karimi reported, Talabani said, “"We discussed in the fields of security, economy, oil and industry. Our agreement was complete.”

All Ahmadinejad said in a joint press conference with reporters that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq and not naming any countries, told nations to stop sponsoring Iraq insurgents because "supporting terrorists is the ugliest act that they can do." Apparently, Ahmadinejad did not want to incriminate himself or Iran. After all, he would not want to hurt Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s feelings. The United States has said that Iran has been sponsoring Shiite militants and al-Sadr has a powerful Shiite militia force called Mahdi Army. He also has no great love for America.

And let’s not forget the fact that al-Sadr has loyalists and supporters in high places in Iraq’s government but more on that in a bit. But for more information about al-Sadr, one would only have to go to the Web archives of USA Today’s Nov. 13 issue, and they would see that the people that al-Sadr “helps” into power makes life for Sunnis deadly. It’s a great article by Rick Jervis and I highly recommend it.

What does this deal mean for Iraq and America, besides the fact that Talabani made it with a devil? Well, Bill O’Reilly, FOX News commentator, made some pretty important points last night on his program. It is most likely that part of this deal worked out between the two presidents is about oil and let’s face facts, that’s probably a big part of this deal. O’Reilly believes this will increase Iran’s power by allowing the country to charge any amount of money on an oil barrel. If they do not, Iran will threaten them with terrorist attacks, he theorizes. He continues that Saudi Arabia would be the number one target and Americans will suffer greatly.

Another important point O’Reilly makes is that there would be no stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons because of the oil threat.

Like him or hate him, O’Reilly makes important points that should not be ignored or dismissed by the general public or politicians. Adding Iran into the equation does not bold well for the Iraqi people or Americans. It would be nice to know what happened behind closed doors on that meeting and Bush’s reactions.

If making a deal with Ahmadinejad was not enough, a leaked White House memo questions if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ability to deal with the crisis that the country is currently facing. A meeting between President Bush and the prime minister was postponed (or canceled, depending on the news source) by al-Maliki himself, as the White House was quickly trying to clean up the mess on Wednesday.

Depending on who you listen to, an alleged royal source claims that talks between Bush and Jordan’s King Abdullah II went longer than expected and the meeting with al-Maliki in Jordan was canceled, reports Peter Wallsten and Solomon Moore, reporters for the Los Angeles Times. The White House also claims this. However, the same source in the LA Times story says that al-Maliki himself cancelled the meeting, in hopes of appeasing al-Sadr’s supporters, who boycotted the government on that same day. And this is when the fun really begins.

And this does cast doubt on al-Maliki’s ability to handle al-Sadr and his supporters. Because al-Maliki supported the group, it helped him win the election of prime minister. The participants of the boycott were 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers, who are loyal to al-Sadr, the LA Times reported.

The cause of the boycott was al-Maliki’s meeting with Bush and it made “provocation to the feelings of the Iraqi people and a violation of their constitutional rights,” the LA Times reports, quoting a statement. How a meeting actually caused these feelings is an interesting question and it would make one laugh out loud if the situation was not so serious.

So, with leaders of Iraq keeping strange bedfellows with known supporters of terrorists, or terrorists themselves, the real question is not how America should be leaving Iraq but how can Iraq fight insurgents when they are welcoming them with open arms? If these are the types of people that the new Iraq government wants to deal with and refuses to control, then Talabani and al-Maliki better be prepared to sleep in the bloody beds they are making for themselves.

How Saddam’s Sentence Affects Iraqis, Islamic Dictators

It was both historic and historical yesterday as former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for the killing of 148 Shi'ite men in Dujail after a failed assassination attempt against Saddam in 1982. But as we hear from witness testimony during the trial, many other crimes were carried out, such as mass murder, torture and rape of women and children. All serious and ironic charges against Saddam, considering he was the one who called the court, the new Iraqi government and undoubtedly, the U.S., the “ … the enemies of humanity” once he heard the conviction.

Quite a few over here in America said that Saddam's trial was nothing more than a horse and pony show, something for the Iraqi people and the world to see. A bit of propaganda, to show that the new democracy that America helped set up in Iraq is the best form of government for the Iraqi people. Maybe there is some truth to that. It reminds me of a scene from "Silence of the Lambs." After his drawings and toilet seat were removed from his cell, because Dr. Hannibal Lecter insulted Dr. Frederick Chilton, the hospital administrator where Lecter was kept, Dr. Lecter comments to Clarice Starling that it was a pitiful attempt at punishing him and at the same time, makes Dr. Chilton feel important, since he was the one who ordered the removal of the drawings. Dr. Lecter says about this: "Any rational society would kill me, or give me my books (back)."

Granted, Dr. Lecter says this about society's half-measures of punishing deadly criminals but there is some relevance. Instead of taking away books, Saddam was placed on trial, even though most people knew what the sentence was going to be instead of killing him outright.

However, the trial was important because we needed to show the Iraqi people, who lived under fear of Saddam for so long, that his methods of "justice" would not be that of the new government. This message was also enforced when it was reported that there is an appeals process before the final punishment is carried out. This shows that this is a government with a great sense of justice and compassion, both important aspects that were lacking when Saddam and his colleagues were in charge.

I would imagine that it also put a lot of fear in the leaders of many Islamic countries in that region who are also cruel dictators. The fear must have started when the Iraqi people were rejoicing after the major battles finished in Iraq and were seen dancing and kissing coalition troops. Then there was the famous toppling of Saddam’s statue. That sent a powerful and terrifying message to other leaders like Saddam that the people that they rule over with an iron fist would love to do the same thing to them. Having Saddam sentenced to death by hanging sends a mighty chill down their backs as well. That shows they want this form of government, where the people rule, not the ruler. If giving the decent Iraqi people the freedom and choice of government of their own would give results such as this for their former leader, what would happen if the decent people of Syria had such an opportunity? This must scare leaders in countries like Syria and Iran.

Better men than I would know if spreading democracy is good for the oppress or the world, since there are many consequences that need to be considered and many that might have unforeseen results. Only time will tell. However, for the most part, the Iraqi people finally have their destiny in their hands for the first time in a long time. They made the right choice in the government they wanted during Iraqi elections and they made the right choice with the judicial system they selected.

With this conviction of Saddam and six other defendants, hopefully it will send a strong message to the insurgents — former Saddam leaders and terrorists — that the courageous people of Iraq do not want their form of government or their presence.

What The U.S.-Mexico Fence Means To Us, Others

By now, most people will know that President Bush signed a bill, authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent illegal immigrants and possible terrorists from entering the country.

According to the Associated Press, no money has been allocated for the fence, which is only going to cover 700 miles of the 2,100-mile border. However, there is a $1.2 billion down payment.

The question that needs to be asked is this: Is this worthwhile? It certainly is not a cure all by any stretch of the imagination and it would be foolish to think so. Yet, it cannot hurt and it is a good preventative measure, if done right. And that also means having enough money for surveillance equipment and guards to patrol this divider. This will cost a pretty penny indeed but something that will help. After all, it's not like our Mexican neighbor wants to help out.

While the whole issue is causing debate, outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox is upset over this. He has wanted a new guest worker program (and that topic is for another blog, for another day) and he also wanted millions of Mexicans who are working illegally in America to be given citizenship. (It's safe to assume these people are in the country illegally as well.) And what does he say about the whole affair of this new barrier? "Shameful," according tot he Associated Press.

What's shameful is that he's passing off his own unwanted citizens and making them someone else's problem, while not doing enough to stop the corruption in his own country and fixing a severely broken Mexican economy, two main reasons why his people are leaving in droves.

America is a country that welcomes all nationalities with open arms but by no means should we turn a blind eye to those, no matter where they hail from, who come here illegally. There are thousands who go to the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to become citizens legally and it would be a crime to make their trials all in vain by giving a free pass to illegal aliens.

Originally posted on March 25, 2008.

Hillary ‘Misspoke’ About Being Shot At?

Much like her husband, who didn’t know the meaning of “is,” it appears that Hillary Clinton doesn’t know the meaning of “misspoke.”

While trying to beef up her dismal experience as First Lady, the Democratic presidential candidate, who is currently in second place, told an audience at George Washington University last week about her trip to Bosnia in 1996. But since I don’t want to do any misspeaking let’s have Hillary do it:

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base,” she told the audience.

Now, to help Hillary, I’m going to tell her what a “lie” is and what “misspeaking” really means. First, the “lie.”

As her campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson has said, Hillary has written about and spoke about her exit out of the plane before and now she misspoke. Well, the fact is, in the past, Hillary did tell the truth about the landing. There were snipers in the area but not where her plane landed. In fact, funnyman Sinbad, who was with Hillary and her daughter Chelsea, stated it was a relaxing trip.

A CBS report at the time doesn’t mention Hillary running for her life at all and that report can be found on YouTube.

So, she clearly lied about her exiting situation and certainly didn’t misspeak. Misspeaking is saying that she landed on a Tuesday instead of a Monday. Calling her daughter Chelsea “Chestnut” is misspeaking. But saying she ran for her life under sniper fire but was really walking calmly is a lie.

And here’s another lie: “… there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady.”

Well, I’m sure it’s very tongue-and-cheek because it sounds like it but with Hillary “Ran With Our Heads Down” Clinton, you never know. In that CBS report mentioned above, it states that she was the one who planned the trip to Bosnia and no one sent her.

So, why lie about risking her life at all? Maybe the fact that she’s losing so badly to Sen. Barack Obama and she wanted to really strengthen her weak foreign policy experience. Because let’s face facts: Hillary has only held an electable title of U.S. senator since 2001, while her Democratic presidential rival has been an Illinois State senator from 1996 and then a U.S. senator since 2004. Say what you will about Obama’s lack of experience but he has far more experience as an elected leader than Hillary.

And this is not some oversight on Hillary’s part or even an exaggeration that many politicians seem to enjoy doing. This was an out-and-out lie and a desperate attempt to show the delegates that she has more experience than Obama.

All politicians lie to make themselves look better and Hillary is no different. However, lying about being in danger with your own daughter in tow should leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. And if she’s doing this to a fellow Democrat, then we better start wearing a raincoat if she does get her party’s nomination, because then the mud will really start to fly.

(Editor's note: This column originally appeared on the blog Orbital Press on March 25, 2008. It can be read by clicking here.