Clinton's to Blame for Iraq!!

Amy Proctor has an article posted on her site which is extremely interesting, and highlights the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party (or at least an extremely short attention-span & memory problems).

Iraq, Iran, al-Qaeda, and the United States

Behind the curve again, but I really wanted to see how the reactions of the media, Congress, and the public would be to President Bush's speech in which he laid out plans for Iraq before I threw in my 2 1/2 cents worth in a long post...

Last week, President Bush announced that there would some 22,000 troops sent to Iraq to stabilize the region and to assist the Iraqis in securing their country. Is this too little, too late? Many people out there think that this could be the case, and that opinion includes all the political spectrum - left, right, conservative, liberal, and everyone in between. One poll stated 60% opposed, and another stated 70%.

In many respects, it depends on how the troops are deployed, and what "Rules of Engagement" (ROE) they would have to follow. Considering that the previous ROE handicapped our troops in protecting themselves and restricted what they could do, the new ROE is a welcome relief. But our troops will still need to watch their backs as the media & arm-chair generals second guess every move that they make & every round they fire while ducking sniper fire & IED explosions.

I've stated in previous posts that I am not thrilled that we are in Iraq, but in some respects, it was inevitable that the United States would be drawn into the Middle East in some sort of prolonged military action. What!?! No, I'm not kidding, but very serious. Lest you forget, the United States is extremely concerned about the stability of the Middle East. Besides the new terrorist concerns, there is still the energy sources of the Middle East that the economy of the United States (and the majority of the world) depend upon. Of course, this is only one person's opinion, but bear with me.

Those of you may remember that in 1979, the Shah of Iran fled the country as Islamic revolutionists established the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Shah ended up in the United States for treatment of cancer, and the newly established Iranian government demanded that the Shah be extradited to Iran for trial and execution. This led to the takeover of the United States Embassy in Tehran as the United States refused to hand over the dying Shah. A rescue operation was mounted By President Carter, but it failed miserably. On January 20, 1981, twenty minutes after the newly elected President Reagan's inaugural address, the hostages were released after having spent 444 days in captivity.

Iran was having other problems besides worrying about what President Reagan would do about the hostages. Iraq's Saddam Hussein, seeing the political turmoil in Iran and sensing weakness, attacked Iran in September 1980. The land war was extremely brutal, with massive casualties being incurred on both sides due to chemical weaponry and human wave attacks. Also, Iran and Iraq both attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, and the United States conducted military operations in order to protect the shipping of neutral nations as well as that of United States concerns. The war between Iran & Iraq lasted 8 years, and set up the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 2 years later.

The Iran/Iraq war devastated the economies of both countries. According to Wikipedia, Kuwait heavily financed Iraq in the war with Iran in the amount of a $14 Billion loan. Iraq was not in a position to repay the loan, and Kuwait was not going to forgive the debt. Wikipedia further states:

Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by occupying Kuwait, it will be able to solve its financial problems. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target.

Thus, Iraq invaded Kuwait as a move calculated to erase its debts, and secure the revenue generated by the Kuwaiti oil fields. Of another concern would be an expanded access to the Persian Gulf through port facilities.

Saudi Arabia was understandably nervous with potentially hostile Iraqi troops on its border. Armed with a United Nations resolution and the Saudi government's blessing, a United States led coalition began deploying to Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from invasion and to drive Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

It was during this time that Osama bin Laden, a seasoned leader of Mujahideen from Afghanistan, offered the services of his organization to the Saudi government to repel any invasion by the Iraqi forces. He was turned down as the Saudi government went with the United States led coalition. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Bin Laden considered this a treacherous deed. He believed that the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked....Shortly afterwards, the movement that came to be known as al-Qaeda was formed.

So now at the end of the first Gulf War, we have three known enemies in the Middle East: Iraq (for driving them from Kuwait), Iran (for military activities during the Iran/Iraq War), and al-Qaeda (for defiling the Islamic homeland). A dangerous mix, indeed...

During the time leading up to September 11, 2001, Iraq's Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at the world by violating numerous United Nation resolutions, genocide via chemical weapons, etc... In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred, which was financed by al-Qaeda. Iran, I believe, was quietly funding terrorist organizations like Hamas to provide distraction from it's own agenda of developing nuclear weapons and this missiles to deliver them. Various terrorist attacks such as those on the USS Cole in 2000, nightclubs frequented by US servicemen, and bombings of US embassies around the world were largely ignored even though there were casualties. That was about to change...

September 11, 2001 changed everything about how the Middle East was viewed, especially when linked to terrorism. No longer could these violent acts be swept under the rug as before - the attacks had come to our neighborhood. The War on Terrorism had begun.

Fast forward to today's events: The United States is in Iraq, having replaced Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Iran is saber-rattling with the threat of developing nuclear weapons and has it's eye on Iraq. And al-Qaeda is in the background, quietly planning the next attack.

So here's the bottom line:

The United States must succeed in Iraq, i.e., to leave Iraq with a fully functioning government able to defend itself from enemies within and outside of its borders. There are several reasons why the above must be achieved:

1) National and international pride and credibility. There, I've said it. For a superpower to enter into an engagement such as this and not complete the job destroys our credibility with the international community. Being defeated in an effort that we claim to be at the core of our country, i.e., the pursuit of freedom and self-determination, will render the US as a 2nd rate country with a cap pistol.

2) If the US does not succeed, this country will be perceived by our enemies as being weak. That will embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda to redouble their efforts to disrupt the activities of this country (private and governmental) through increasing attacks on US assets in both international and domestic locations.

3) Iran chomping at the bit to take over Iraq (or at least make it a puppet government) is a frightening prospect. If they succeed, this action would further destabilize the Middle East. It's bad enough that Iran has nuclear ambitions and an apocalyptic leader stating that another country/people should be wiped off the face of the earth. But could you image the territory and natural resources that Iran would then control? If you thought gas prices were bad last summer, get ready for some severe pricing increases both here and abroad. And the rest of the Middle Eastern countries would be forced to cater to Iran's will.

4) We've already seen Sunni and Shiite violence under these conditions, but could you imagine if there were absolutely no authority, no law, no government for keeping the peace? Civilian casualty counts would skyrocket as religious fighting would increase by leaps and bounds. The killing fields of Cambodia come to mind...

5) Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda could find homes in which to establish training camps. This would allow them to plan, plot, and train in relative peace & security to inflict casualties upon the rest of the world.

Yes, it is in all of our interests that the United States succeed in Iraq. This will mean keeping our troops there for some time, and whether or not an extra 20,000 or so will make a difference will depend on how they are deployed and the ROE that they can operate under. The United States cannot fail, not only for our sake, but for the sake of millions of people in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The real question in much of this is:

Will our politicians, our duly elected leaders, grow backbones, have the intestinal fortitude, and suck it up, i.e., put aside political agendas, to do the right thing for the United States and the rest of the world?

Cat's New Year's Resolutions

This was sent to me by "Santa Paws," who somehow found a super-secret file with the cat's New Year resolutions.  How the cats managed to type all this in is beyond me, especially since they tend to eat the computer mouse... 

My human will never let me eat their pet hamster, and I am at peace with that.

I will not slurp fish food from the surface of the aquarium

I will not eat large numbers of assorted bugs, then come home and throw them up so the humans can see that I'm getting plenty of roughage.

I will not lean way over to drink out of the tub, fall in, and then pelt right for the box of clumping cat litter. (It took FOREVER to get the stuff out of my fur.)

I will not use the bathtub to store live mice for late-night snacks.

We will not play "Herd of Thundering Wildebeests Stampeding Across the Plains of the Serengeti" over any humans' bed while they're trying to sleep.

I cannot leap through closed windows to catch birds outside. If I forget this and bonk my head on the window and fall behind the couch in my attempt, I will not get up and do the same thing again.

I will not assume the patio door is open when I race outside to chase leaves.

I will not stick my paw into any container to see if there is something in it. If I do, I will not hiss and scratch when my human has to shave me to get the rubber cement out of my fur.

If I bite the cactus, it will bite back.

When it rains, it will be raining on all sides of the house.

It is not necessary to check every door.

I will not play "dead cat on the stairs" while people are trying to bring in groceries or laundry, or else one of these days, it will really come true.

When the humans play darts, I will not leap into the air and attempt to catch them.

I will not swat my human's head repeatedly when they are on the family room floor trying to do sit ups.

When my human is typing at the computer, their forearms are *not* a hammock.

Computer and TV screens do not exist to backlight my lovely tail.

I will not puff my entire body to twice its size for no reason after my human has watched a horror movie.

I will not stand on the bathroom counter, stare down the hall, and growl at NOTHING after my human has watched the X-Files.

I will not drag dirty socks onto the bed at night and then yell at the top of my lungs so that my humans can admire my "kill."

I will not perch on my human's chest in the middle of the night and stare until they wake up.

I will not walk on the key board when my human is writing important adagfsg gdjag ;ln.

Dems First 100 Hours

The Dems are in charge, and thus far, the agenda that they have set does not impress me. There isn't much that seems to be new. The majority of the bills now before Congress have already been in committees before the first of the year, and need to be voted on. Here's the list:

• Introducing legislation intended to curb the power of lobbyists.
• Committing to no new deficit spending.
• Fully enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
• Raising the minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour. Pelosi pledged that there will be no congressional pay raises until the minimum wage is upped.
• Enacting legislation allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies over prescription drug costs for Medicare.
• Promoting and increasing funding for stem cell research.
• Cutting interest rates on college loans by 50%.
• Beginning to roll back subsidies to oil companies.
• Fighting any attempt to privatize Social Security.

What I'm afraid of is that once they run out of steam on these issues, they will turn their attention to their thinly veiled threat of impeachment proceedings. This will be the wrong action to take in my opinion. The Dems ran on a platform of being different than Republicans, and this would be an opportune moment to show leadership instead of vindictiveness. After all, what would the point be (and political advantage) of trying to impeach a sitting lame-duck President? None, if you get right down to it. All this would do is be viewed as a revenge investigation for Clinton's impeachment investigation, and would further polarize the nation. Thus, this will probably be far down on the list for the Dems to start up

But the radicals are pushing for impeachment, cutting funding for the troops & bringing them home before the job is done, Patriot Act revisions/scrapping, terrorist rights, and the like. So far, these are not on Congress's short list. And that's going to anger the radicals. Already I've heard a sound bite of Cindy Sheehan carrying on about her pet project, and I know that's only going to be the beginning. After all, the Dems stirred up the radical left base of their party to get elected, and these people want satisfaction.

But what is missing is also important. Illegal immigration, for instance, is nowhere to be found on any agenda, and probably won't anytime soon. And if possible, it will be ignored until the next election. I also don't see any "America First" programs from the economic side either to protect the American worker from unfair and predatory business practices by other countries and companies. Lost in this is any comment on world affairs & policies concerning Iran, North Korea, al Qaeda, and any other threats to the United States.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see if the Dems are really the leaders that they tell everyone they are, or the same stinkers that got voted out of office twelve years ago...

Post-Execution Iraq

Now that Saddam Hussein has been executed, it is almost anyone's guess as to what is going to happen in Iraq.

There are those who are stating that Hussein died a martyr's death.  Well, if you call hanging a martyr's death, so be it.  But don't you have to believe in something greater than yourself and be executed for that belief to qualify as a martyr?  Even though he carried a Koran to the gallows, there is no evidence that he believed in anything but himself throughout his excessive and murderous life.

There are others who celebrate his death, the execution of a Hitler-like dictator that reportedly had a hand in the killings of millions of his own people through his death squads and military.  Even though he was convicted by an Iraqi court for just a fraction of those deaths, I believe that the families of those victims are satisfied that this monster is dead.

Will there be violence in Saddam's name?  Yes, at least in the short run.  He did not die as a hero should, pistol in one hand and a flag in another, but with a noose around his neck.  Thus, his value as a rallying figure is minimal.

No, the violence in Iraq will continue along the same lines as before, Sunni vs. Shiite, tribe vs. tribe, and all the various power-hungry factions that arose in Saddam's absence.  It is this violence that the newly formed government of Iraq must deal with.  And the effectiveness of the Iraqi government in dealing with it's internal issues will determine the stability of the country, and thus, the region.

Just In Time for the New Year!

Yes, that's right, you may not have asked for it, but here it is - another new look for Tom's Common Sense!

I hope everyone likes it, and if not, let me know what you would like to see changed.  But positive feedback would be appreciated!

My thanks to Benning for letting me beg/borrow/steal his flag background for the title.

Remembering President Ford

Got the paper out of the chilly newspaper box, and saw that President Ford passed away.  A real gentlemen is gone.

One of the things that I remember of President Ford was that he was a golfer.  Not a very good one, mind you, but just a hacker like the rest of us.  Spectators took their lives into their own hands while watching him play, but they didn't care.  After all, how often could you say that you were hit by a tee shot from a President?

Another thing was that he was a klutz.  How many times have the news and parody media shown President Ford falling down the stairs of Air Force One?  Too many, and I personally think he did it better than Chevy Chase...

But above all, he was a gentleman, and laughed off the stupid stuff mentioned above.  He took over the Presidency in a tumultuous period of American history, and handled it with as much grace as anyone could under the circumstances.  He shrugged off two (!) assassination attempts with barely a comment, and went about the business of running the country.

He demonstrated the art of being a gentlemen by staying away from commenting on current and past President's policies and actions, unlike a couple of his successors.  In interviews, he steered away from making those comments, preferring to comment on other events of the period.  It's a shame that they do not follow his example.

Yes, we lost a real gentleman today...

On the Eve of Another Christmas & New Year

This was from the Christmas Eve Mallard Fillmore cartoon:

In an age in which Christians around the world are persecuted, tortured, and killed for daring to utter their Lord's name...Thank God for a Nation in which people of all religions may worship in freedom.

The country we live in, no, blessed with, is truly wonderful.  This nation of ours has freedoms that most of the world does not enjoy.  One of those is the freedom to worship (or not) according to your conscience.  However, there are those who want to force you to bow to a black rock in the middle of a foreign land five times a day.  If you don't, then your life is worth nothing.

I watched the Glenn Beck special in which Islamic Extremism was featured.  The images presented in this program as created by the Muslim clergy, news, and entertainment media were most disturbing.  It's not easy to watch crowds being whipped into a frenzy, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."  Nor is it reassuring that people considered to be "infidels" are not considered to be people, but must be killed wherever they are found.  And let's not talk about what they really think of the Jewish people and Israel simply because it is so dehumanizing as to be ridiculous.

What bothers me the most is that our media ignores the reality of this threat.  We do not hear of or read about very often the anti-American & anti-Israeli rhetoric, calling for the destruction of our respective countries.  Nor is it brought to the forefront that they truly hate us with all of their hearts, and wish nothing but death for us. 

This hate runs deep.  Talking will not solve our differences.  This is a belief system that does not have room for compromise, not even for slight differences within their own religion.  Otherwise, why are the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other in Iraq?  If it were otherwise, the word "tolerance" would be used, not abused.

And yet, there are those who think that the United States should leave Iraq, ignore the terrorist threat of radical Islam, and bury this country's head in the sand.  Indeed, they wish to withdraw American influence from the world and reduce this country's status in the world to that of a third-rate nation instead of the superpower that this country truly is.  I thought that Bill Whittle in his essay, Power, expressed it best: 

Those that would have us disarm, withdraw, apologize and retreat make the assumption that by removing American Power from the world, the planet will become a harmonious village of diversity and mutual respect. Remove American capitalism, and the world’s people will trade solar cars for indigenous beads, our European moral betters will hand over their cash to the third world until all are perfectly equal, and everyone will live in a sustainable ecological paradise. Remove American cultural power and Britney will be replaced with Beethoven, and an exquisite and reasonably priced Pate de Foi Gras Existentialist Meal can be had at a corner drive-in where the former McDonald’s once stood.

This is utter nonsense. It has never been true for a single page of the history of the Damned Human Race. There has never -– never –- been a day in human history when some form of power has not flooded the world, or competed to do so; and those times when the power was most one-sided reveal themselves to be the times of greatest relative peace, stability, and advancement of that quaint notion known as civilization.

This is not merely a European construct. We see this iron rule in Inca and Aztec histories in South America, in Shaka’s Zulu nation, in Chinese empires and Japanese Shogunates, Native American tribal relations, and wherever else we turn our eyes.

The idea that all would be well if only America would retreat from the world and stay at home is a pernicious and seductive one. It appeals not only to those that hunger after the freedom to do mischief in our absence as it does to our natural sense of isolationism. It has been the mantra of communists, totalitarians and elitists of every vile stripe for well over a hundred years. It is utterly and completely wrong. Political power has never been removed from the world -– it has only been replaced. And so our choice –- now pay attention you No Blood For Oil types -– is not between power and no power. It is a choice only of what kind of power will fill that vacuum. Chinese? Russian? European? We have seen all of these before. The horrors they have inflicted, with far less absolute power than the US wields, do not leave me pining for those alternatives. Someone is going to be the world power, or tear the world apart fighting for it. And no matter how hard we may wish it, the winner will not be a Blindfolded Jury of Archangels.

 And yet, we blunder on down a path that leads to self-destruction.  Our media and politicians make excuses for Islamic terrorists, thinking that they are misunderstood and that we, as a country, need to understand why they hate us.  That way, we can change so that they will "like us," and will stop the killing. 

Unfortunately, the killing has been going on for centuries, and will not stop anytime soon.  A religion that goes ballistic over cartoons and cannot stand scrutiny is a religion that doesn't need excuses, but accountability for it's actions and justification for its existence.  To state that it is a religion of peace and yet foment violence against non-believers is hypocritical in the extreme.

A famous American said in a speech:

"We, the American People… find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us…We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them -- they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader…to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

"How then shall we perform it? -- At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? -- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln, Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838.

Whether we like it or not, I believe that the Islamic terrorists are going to do their damnest to make this into a religious war from whatever it can be called now.  They will use the classic good vs. evil argument, an us-vs.-them conflict in the name of a jihad (religious war, for those of you in Rio Linda).  They will plot, plan, and execute attacks that will cause large numbers of casualties.  And the elites idiots among us will wring their hands crying, "We don't understand!  We were talking!"  Understand this, you Brie-eaters - there are people in the world that want to kill you just for the reason that you exist!!  And we still seem to pursue the idiotic mantra of appeasement to those who wish nothing more than to destroy our country and subjugate us to their religion.

I know that this isn't the traditional Christmas Eve post, but Christ stated:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34, NIV

Slightly out of context with the passage, but it does illustrate that there will be conflict & war brought in the name of religion and belief in God & Christ.  And I believe that this war has come upon us, although slowly and very low key until recently.

I do pray that I am wrong, that reason will prevail among our political leaders and those in the Middle East.  That there will truly be Peace on Earth.  But that will only happen if everyone decides that it will be so.

May everyone find Peace within their own hearts, and so enlighten the world.

Tis the Season...In Iraq

You know it's the season when your routine gets interrupted trying to find just the right gift. That impacts the blogging schedule. Oh well...

Today I heard that President Bush is considering sending more troops into Iraq & Afghanistan.  To which I say that there had better be a plan in place for those troops to win this conflict instead of walking around with targets on their backs.  There is a goal in mind - a self-sustaining democratic Iraq - but the current strategy is not working.  If the current strategy is not working to achieve the goal, then change the strategy and not the goal.

The Iraq government must step up & work harder in taking control of their own country.  Yes, the United States can assist in setting up their law enforcement & government, but it will be up to them to sustain their own country.  And unfortunately, talking alone will most likely not accomplish this.

As pointed out in the Iraq Study Group's report, there are many various power & religious factions in operation in Iraq.  Not all of them want to be part of the newly formed government, but would much rather set up their own country within a country.  How the Iraq government wants to deal with this situation will be very interesting, and whether they succeed or not will determine the stability of the country and the region.

President Bush may give the Christmas present of more soldiers to Iraq, but I pray that this gift would be put to good use and not wasted.

Iraq Study Group - Work In Progress

While reading this report (I'm not done yet), it struck me that the Iraq people do not have a national identity nor a loyalty to their country.  Saddam and the dictators through the years have taken care of that.  The Iraq people have loyalties to their tribe, their religious sect, and their country (in that order).

The Iraqi politicians have their work cut out for them.  Resolving centuries-old feuds with religious sect differences is an almost insurmountable task.  Adding to the problem is that each of these different groups is not willing to compromise with any of the others.  Then there are the Saddam loyalists that are lurking in the background...

The Iraq police and military do need to step up and take control of their country.  How soon is the question.  It does beg the question of how much training do they need - I am presuming that some of them had training & credentials under Saddam's regime, although the question of loyalty does pop up.  And there is no question that these policemen and soldiers have taken far more casualties than the US military as a result of terrorist activities.

The bottom line is that none of this is going to happen overnight.  While the US can kick butt militarily, it's after that battle is won that the real war, the political one, must be fought and won as well.  My question is:  Will the politicians, both Iraqi and US, have the wherewithal to get the job done?