Before I Go...

Mrs. Common Sense and I are taking a long and well-deserved vacation.  We haven't taken a vacation for a long time, and this one will be special.  We will be celebrating our 15th wedding anniversary next Wednesday.

But before we go to a place without Internet access or cars(!), there are a few comments about the past week's events:

Fred Thompson finally announced his candidacy for the Presidency.  It will be interesting to see if his bid is as well timed as he hopes it will be.

Osama bin Laden released a tape a week before the 6th anniversary of 9/11.  It looks like he is just as vain as the civilization he wants to destroy - he dyed his beard and eyebrows!!

Cerberus has stolen or hired away a top gun at Toyota to run the sales and marketing for Chrysler.  Then the next day they hired GM's man in China to help with globalization efforts.  Does make you stop and pause and think about the future of Chrysler.

Volkswagen announced this week that they were moving their North American headquarters from Michigan to the suburbs of Washington DC.  Another blow to Michigan...

The Michigan Legislature wants to raise taxes on anything from telephones (cell, land-line, & Internet) to health clubs.  Just what a state in trouble needs - more taxes...

Another sex scandal in Washington.  This time, a Senator plays footsie in an airport stall.  Where are the politicians that actually stand for something besides themselves and their party?  Is there no one with integrity?

The financial meltdown in the mortgage industry continues.  Countrywide Financial, a major lender, is cutting 12,000 jobs from it's payroll in response to the flurry of bad loans, defaults, and the collapse of the housing market in general.  Who knows where this will end?

Luciano Pavarotti died this past week from cancer.  While not a fan of opera, his voice was one that would send chills down your spine with it's power and tone. 

Finally, the Surge appears to be working, but we'll see what General Patraeus has to say next week with his report.

Later...

Patton Speech on Today's War on Terror & Iraq

I normally don't post YouTube videos (actually, this is the first), but I heard this on Bill Bennet's Morning in America show on either Thursday or Friday (can't remember - too tired). 

Warning - In the traditional Patton style, there is profanity, but the message is excellent.

Cindy Sheehan Resigns

As many of you probably already know, Cindy Sheehan has “resigned” from the protest over the Iraq war. The event as described in a MSNBC article has several snippets that I would like to comment on.

In what she described as a “resignation letter,” Sheehan wrote in her online diary on the “Daily Kos” blog: “Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

I’m sorry that America is not the country you want it to be. I’m not exactly happy about all of the things that happen here, but I am not naïve enough to believe that if I parade around the world protesting that everyone is going to follow my lead and do the same.

“I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement.”

And that’s exactly what will happen if you go out and protest. There will be repercussions of some nature from the opposition, especially from parents in a similar situation. Whether you will be strong enough to weather the criticism is something that is not for the faint-hearted.

When she had first taken on Bush, Sheehan was a darling of the liberal left. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the 'left' started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

“…would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.” (Hardball, July 5, 2006, with guest host Norah O'Donnell)

Sheehan said she had sacrificed a 29-year marriage and endured threats to put all her energy into stopping the war. What she found, she wrote, was a movement “that often puts personal egos above peace and human life.”

Congratulations, Cindy, you just found out you was used by the liberals to further their agenda. Once you outlived your usefulness, you were discarded like yesterday’s garbage. Making statements of wanting to live in a Socialist country with an anti-America dictator running it did nothing but make you appear like a wacko and make you a liability. Politics (and politicians) do not respect personal sacrifice, nor do they care about anything but the advancement of their personal agendas.

“Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”

I can do nothing but agree with her statement (surprise!!). We are a fickle nation with misplaced priorities and limited attention spans.

Kristinn Taylor, spokesman for FreeRepublic.com, which has held pro-troop rallies and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations, said dwindling crowds at Sheehan's Crawford protests since her initial vigil may have led to her decision. But he also said he hopes she will now be able to heal.

"Her politics have hurt a lot of people, including the troops and their families, but most of us who support the war on terror understand she is hurt very deeply," Taylor said Tuesday. "Those she got involved with in the anti-war movement realize it was to their benefit to keep her in that stage of anger."

I agree with Miss Taylor. Cindy Sheehan has always struck me as a person with a deep amount of pain over her son’s loss. I think she started asking why her son died, and couldn’t come to terms with it. I do hope that she finds peace, and hopefully, heal the wounds that the loss of her son created.

Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome

For those of you who watched Heartbreak Ridge, you would recognize the title of this post.  For those of you who don't, this is the mantra of the Marine Corps Recon Unit as stated by the character Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Highway (played by Clint Eastwood).  And in some respects, it is the unofficial mantra used by all of our military forces.

If any of you remember the earlier days of the current Iraq conflict, it was reported by our media that the Marine and Army forces were welding sheet metal on the Humvees because they were unarmored and offered no protection from small arms fire and shrapnel from roadside mines.  And that's a perfect example of our soldiers improvising with local materials to adapt to a situation, and overcome potential casualties.  Now, thank God, there is better protection for our troops as armor and vests became available.

But if Screamer of the House Pelosi and Moron Murtha have their way, those days could return.  Their "Slow-Bleed" political strategy of slowly withdrawing funding & support of our troops by limiting the President's options in conducting the war would have just that effect.  Who would actually suffer would be our troops, who would do the bleeding, and not necessarily in a slow, controlled fashion.

Those of you that have read my various comments on other blogs as well as on this one know that I'm not particularly thrilled that our troops are in Iraq, but we are there.  Our troops need the support & backing of everyone to accomplish the mission.  But this back-stabbing method of forcing withdrawal through a cowardly political sham thinly veiled as a public service is a disgrace.

If the Democrats are really serious about forcing the President to withdraw the troops, then put a Bill forward cutting the funding for the War through the process and vote on it.  They don't want to do this because they do not want to take responsibility of the aftermath of the withdrawal - complete civil breakdown in Iraq.  Yes, they'll take the credit for bringing the troops home, but not the mass casualties that a civil war in Iraq would bring.  But that's not their way to directly approach their goal.

It's all a political game, a strategy designed to to embarrass the President, and to keep & solidify their power.  It's not about the troops, it's a political opportunity to advance their agenda.  But the price is going to be the blood of our troops and potentially the long-range security of our country.  After all, what enemy is going to respect a country that cannot finish what it started, and commits political & ideological suicide? 

And quite frankly, it is these political-power maneuverings that disgust me.  It is no wonder that I have low opinions of our elected politicians and concerns for the long-term well being of our country.

Non-Binding Resolution?

Earlier today, in a rare Saturday session, the Senate narrowly defeated a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge to Iraq.  Does anyone think that this is anything other than political posturing?

This whole episode is most unsettling.  We all want our troops to come home.  What we differ on is the method and timing.  Do we want our troops to come home with heads held high and the mission accomplished, or heads and tails between their legs in defeat?

What I would like to ask our "representatives" is this:  If our troops come home early, then what happens to the Iraqi people?

Consider the words of a famous Democrat:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

Should the troops leave early, I believe that Iraq will descend into chaos, and opportunistic countries like Iran and Syria would either take over Iraq in whole or in part (most likely as a puppet government).  And what happens to the freedom so recently achieved to the Iraqi people?  Gone like the wind after a sandstorm.

Perhaps one of my personal favorite Presidents had something to say about this:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. - Ronald Reagan

But where is the moral courage of our politicians? 

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. - John F. Kennedy

How prophetic!  Indeed, our chosen leaders, by and large, do not have the "quality of courage" to do the right and moral thing - see this war through to the end that needs to be done.  But then again,

Politics I supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan

I don't make it any secret that I have low opinions of our politicians.  Power politics at the expense of what is right, moral, and beneficial to this country's well-being is despicable.  There's more than one post on this particular subject.  And that is exactly what today's vote was.

Of a larger concern is where the Democrats (and some of their Republican sympathizers) along with the Liberal Moonbat media will treat the radical Islamic death-seeking terrorists (including al Qaeda).  Talking will not solve this problem - action will.  The choice of action or inaction will decide the future of this country and its citizens.

I'll leave you with two more quotes:

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. - John F. Kennedy

 

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. - Ronald Reagan

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?

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.

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?

WMDs Found!!

Sometimes it's nice to be right. I've made the comments on this blog and others that it was absolute idiocy to think that Saddam got rid of all the WMDs in his inventory. Now there is a military report that 500 chemical weapons (including Sarin and Mustard Gas) have been found in Iraq since 2003.

The Liberal talking heads are making statements that since these weapons were pre-1991 weapons and some of them are in a degraded condition, they didn't count as reasons to depose Saddam. They also made the statements that Saddam didn't have any WMDs (of which chemical weapons are). Are they nuts? What part of WMD do they not understand? Debating that the definition of what a WMD stands for is like Bill Clinton debating what the definition of "is" is...

It does not matter how old the chemical weapons are - they are still dangerous! The term "degraded condition" can mean that the weapons may not be able to be fired out of a cannon, or the contents not be as potent as they once were. But I sure wouldn't want to be around them if the contents of these weapons were released!

What bothers me is that the Liberal politicians (and we know who they are) are discounting this information when it is so obvious that they were wrong! Saddam had WMDs in his country when he said he didn't. And yet the Liberals in the media and their political counterparts insist on minimizing the evil of this deceptive dictator and the damage that these weapons could incur.

What bothers me more is that the contents of these weapons could still be used by terrorists if they found them. At this point in time, we do not know if al-Qaeda has found any, or if there are any WMDs with Saddam's fingerprints are in other countries or buried in the desert. Sooner or later, and I hate to predict this, al Qaeda will attempt to use any WMDs they find against the US. Where they will attack is anybody's guess.

A final word: We do need to get out of Iraq, but only after the Iraqi government is stable and able to take care of itself. We cannot leave prematurely, not matter how bad we want the troops to come home. To leave and have Iraq fall into chaos or another dictator's hands would negate the sacrifice of the soldiers who have fallen. And that would be a tragedy.

Thoughts on Iraq

So much has been published, debated, and otherwise discussed as to the situation in Iraq and the resulting political free for all. Here's what I think about the whole affair:

Accusations that the President has engaged in an illegal war are total BS. If you remember, Congress voted to go into the war. Only later when there was political gain to be had did the Democrats renege on their decision (remember the line "I voted for the war before I voted against it!" campaign line?). If these morons succeed in their call to impeach the President, I think they should get right on up there with him and impeach themselves on the same charges.

There have been so many reports of Iraq having or not having WMDs that it is hard to determine what the truth really is. Considering that chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq war, and by Saddam against the Kurdish uprising, anyone with an ounce of common sense would say there has to be chemical weapons with Iraq's name all over them somewhere. Saddam had 9 months to move or hide these weapons before the invasion of Iraq (which he knew was eventually coming). And yes, I know about the documents and the interviews - that doesn't mean anything since documents can be forged (a la Dan Rather) and people fudge the truth to make themselves or someone else look good.

Also along the WMD mis-information line, the intelligence gathering of the United States has been compromised by the increasing reliance on electronic assets (satellites) and a decrease in human information sources. Budget cuts by previous administrations has not helped. Information that was used & presented to Congress and the United Nations came from various other sources such as the British and Israel as well as what sources the United States still had in the region.

The violence in Iraq is mainly coming from two sources. One is from foreign fighters backed by either al-Quaeda or Saddam loyalists, and the other are Muslim religious factions looking for power and control. The first was expected, and has been present from day one. The second has only recently reared its ugly head, and reminds me of the situation in Bosnia. If you recall, when the Soviet Union pulled out of Europe, many of the ethnic blood fueds started right back up again once the Soviets left, and mass killings & genocide resulted.

The reports of a brewing civil war are at this point untrue. What is being reported is the religious strife between the Shites and Sunnis of which Saddam had previously suppressed. However, if the United States pulls out of Iraq at this time, then you can count on a civil war that will consume that country and possibly the region.

Whether or not you agree with the war and resulting occupation in Iraq was necessary, it is now the responsibility of the United States to leave in place a functional, self-supporting government. The US cannot leave Iraq until this is accomplished, which renders the calls for a withdrawel timeline irrevalent. While I understand the calls to bring the troops home, for better or worse, the US must finish the job it started out to do. Iraq is in a very delicate state.

The politicians (along with their mainstream media lackeys) that are leading the charge to pull out of Iraq have yet to put forth any plan that would leave Iraq with a government that can effectively control their own destiny. All that has been put forth is a lot of grandstanding, accusations, and hot air designed to smear & undermine that goal. And it is important that the United States leaves a fully autonomous government in Iraq when the troops do come home.

If Iraq dissolves into chaos, anarchy, and civil war, the impact on the region (and the rest of the world) would be enormous. I predict that the radical Islamic clerics would take over much as they did in Afghanistan. Any & all freedoms that the Iraqi people gained after Saddam was toppled would be gone, and al-Quaeda would find another home in which to mount attacks on the rest of the world. The United States would be percieved to be weak and vulnerable, and would have a bigger target on the country (and populous) than what it does now.

Bottom line is that the United States finishes the job and leaves Iraq when the Iraqi people are capable of supporting themselves and their government can control their own country. Any other action negates the sacrifice of our soldiers, and does nothing to secure the freedom of a formally oppressed people.

News Bytes 2

Saddam had WMDs after all. Read at Investors Business Daily. Hat tip to Anne at Backyard Conservative for finding this.

For yet another example of the biased media, look at CUG's Post on the latest CBS Poll.

What is your child learning in school? Michille Malkin has a report here, and I also heard the tape on the radio earlier today.

Yahoo! News has a report that an al-Qaida terrorist has been apprehended in Iraq and has confessed to committing 116 beheadings.

The Clarmont Institute has this analysis titled Islamic Chauvinism and the Mohammed Cartoons on what the now infamous Mohammed Cartoons really symbolize, and it's not pretty.

The National Review has this post on why the Dubai Ports World deal should be cancelled.

The BBC logs this report on the India Nuclear deal. I expect more debate on this than the Dubai Ports World deal.

Finally, for a chuckle on what dogs really think, and some interesting bumper sticker sayings, visit Really Funny Wednesday by Gunn Nutt.