Should Rumsfeld Go?

The drumbeat for Rumsfeld's resignation is growing louder and more intense. The calls have come from predictable places like anti-war liberals, but they have increasingly come from the military establishment and Republicans who are not rushing to his defense. The answer to the question of whether Rumsfeld should go is yes, but very careful attention to the timing and rationale are extremely important for the global war against Islamo-Fascism.

Before I delve into the reasons why Rumsfeld should go, I'd like to make it crystal clear that it has nothing to do with the war in Iraq being a mistake. It is not a mistake. It is a critical central battle in the overall war, and victory in Iraq is absolutely essential to establishing lasting peace and security in the future. Therefore, allowing the Democrats to use Rumsfeld's job performance as a hook to hang a debate over the validity of the war itself would be disastrous. That is why the President Bush should definitely not pull the trigger during the current political season.

So when should Rumsfeld go and why?

Rumsfeld should go shortly after the mid-term elections and he should go, because he has failed to win the war in Iraq in a timely manner. For this plan to be successful, the Republicans must retain control of the Senate so that Mr. Bush can get his choice for the job confirmed. Although Mr. Rumsfeld has enormous experience and provides tireless dedication, something is badly amiss when the USA is pinned down by a ragtag group of cowardly militants. It is easy to get into a debate about tactics and strategy. Was his war plan sufficient? Are there enough troops committed to the job? Are Iraqis being trained fast enough? The fact is that there is any number of rational points to be made on either side. But, the bottom line is that the war is still raging and the USA has not yet won . This should be unacceptable to the Commander in Chief, and I hope he will not allow personal loyalty to get in the way of sound judgment.

Mr. Bush should immediately begin secretly interviewing candidates to replace Mr. Rumsfeld to be available to take over shortly after the mid-term elections. He should determine the best candidate based on canvassing their views on the following questions:

1. What should the war plan be to win the war by the end of 2007 and do the rules of engagement support a quick end to the war?
2. What should the plan be to rally full political support from Republicans, "conservative" Democrats and the military establishment?
3. What plan should be put in place to engage in offensive, first strike operations against enemies around the world?

The President must insure Mr. Rumsfeld's replacement has a plan that provides a victory in Iraq to the next occupant of the White House. The future of the country and Mr. Bush's legacy are dependent upon that victory and as talented, committed and briliant Mr. Rumsfeld may be, he has not succeeded yet and there isn't any time left to wait and see if his plans will come to fruition.

Dick Morris on Bill Clinton

Dick Morris has written an excellent fact-based critique of Ex-president Clinton's infamous performance last Sunday. For a reminder of that Clinton fiasco click on the following link, then return to read Dick Morris' rebuttal.

Clinton Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Dick Morris Rebuttal
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

As you read the article, keep in mind that Dick Morris was a very close confidante of the President while he was in office, so much so that Clinton's better known advisors, like George Stephanopoulos complained bitterly of their lack of access in favor of Morris. This is a man that knows Clinton intimately and is eminently qualified to pass judgment.

Powerful Message in Support of Israel

Click below to see a powerful message in support of Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN_LxmkTSX4

Un-presidential Bill Clinton Unleashed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Bill Clinton really believes that the "right wing" is out to get him, especially Fox News. You've got to watch this clip of his interview with Chris Wallace, where he is questioned about whether his administration did enough to combat Bin Laden.

His shrill, red-faced, finger pointing response was eerily similar to another famous untruth by President Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Yeah, right.

He did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and he clearly didn't do enough to deal with Bin Laden. The proof is in the gaping hole that was once New York's World Trade Center. But promoting this fact is not a right wing anti-Clinton conspiracy. Clinton is not the only President that hasn't done enough to combat the rise of Islamo-fascism. In fact all presidents, including the current Bush (prior to 9/11) were asleep at the helm.

Clinton's angry denials are not befitting of a US President and do nothing to constructively advance the nation's knowledge of how to deal with the global threat. Ex-Presidents should never be seen to lower themselves to participating in debates about their own place in the history books. Facts, over time speak for themselves. This angry tirade degrades the dignity of an ex-President just as his actions while President degraded the dignity of the office of the President.

Republican Election Hopes Revived

You may not know it by reading the New York Times or watching CNN, but the President has dramatically revived Republican chances for holding on to both houses this November. Bush has remained consistent and strong in his leadership on protecting America and linking the Iraq war with the wider war against Islamo-fascists and Americans are beginning to pay careful attention. This has crystallized through the President's position on how to conduct surveillance, trials and detention of enemies, which is not only right, it is politically astute.

Democrats and some very mis-guided Republicans have predictably attacked the President on these issues, making outlandish claims that he is harming the US's moral position in the world and creating international enemies. Whether it was fighting the Soviets last century or fighting the Islamo-fascists today, the Democrats always make the same dumb mistake. By attacking the moral under-pinning of the US position, they embolden and legitimize obvious enemies to jump into political bed with them which always turns voters off.

Here's one simple recent example: Hollywood elites like Danny Glover denounce the President's foreign policy, claiming it is immoral and it creates enemies for America. These same Hollywood elites hold numerous fund raising events for prominent Democrats like Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. Hugo Chavez comes to America, calls the President the devil and says that he can still smell the sulfur. The next day, Hugo Chavez speaks at a church in the US, with Danny Glover present to expand on his Bush bash. Then in complete shock, Democrats run screaming from their burning political house, distancing themselves from Chavez. But it's too late.

When Democrats ask voters to take control of Congress away from Republicans in order to keep Bush in check, the opposite will happen. Voters will choose the party that stands with the morality of President Bush, and deny power to the party that stands with the morality of Hugo Chavez.

Muslims Prove Pope's Quote Was Accurate

Muslim reaction to the Pope's comments has intensified further, even in the face of his retraction. But, why all the fuss? Because what he said wasn't true? No.

I will devote the rest of this post to the words of Muslims themselves.

From: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367232-details/The+Pope+must+die%2C+says+Muslim/article.do

"The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. "Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment." Anjem Choudary

Iraqi jihadists issued a video of a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.
The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home". In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life."

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/muslims_pope

Al-Qaeda in Iraq warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that its war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world

"We will break up the cross...then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (being killed by) the sword." "You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," Mujahedeen Shura Council

Pope Capitulates to Mohammed's Sword

After the Pope bravely raised the issue of the Islamic use of violent coercion to further the Islamofascist (my words, not the Pope's) agenda, he capitulated to the very sword of Mohammed he chose to confront just 2 short days earlier. He now says that the following statement he quoted does not reflect his personal views:

'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'.

The Pope's about-face proves a very important point. The Islamic world absolutely lives by Mohammed's command, and it works.

It's spontaneous explosion of anger around the world and threats of violence are simply natural extensions of basic Islamic culture. Two days ago the Pope knew this to be true and reminded the world. Through the next 48 hours, Muslims also proved it was true through their intimidation while at the same time trying to claim it wasn't true. This they did from behind the smoke of Molotov cocktails and through the threats of escalated violence.

Mohammed commanded his people to spread the Islamic faith by the sword. Today, Al Qaeda talks about forcing conversion upon its enemies. Although the Pope wasn't made to convert his faith, he certainly was made to convert his own words. The Islamic sword is very real and very potent and the Pope's retreat is completely dis-heartening.

Vatican Stands Firm - So far

Amid a torent of predictable outrage in the Muslim world to the Pope's speech, the Vatican issued a statement saying that no offence to Muslims was intended. Some type of climb down from the statement was expected, but it is important to note that the Vatican did not take the step of "correcting" the impression left by the Pope's speech.

So far, so good. It is vitally important to the global war against Islamofascism that the Vatican not retreat now that it has joined the battle.

Pope Holds a Mirror up to Muslims

It appears that the Pope may have joined the battle of civilizations. In a speech at a German University he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emporer on the subject of jihad or holy war. The Pope recounted these words to his audience:

'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'.

In response the Muslim world has erupted in the face of this undignified insult. I guess they don't like what they see when forced to look in the mirror.

Isn't the Pope's quote quite consistent with the sentiment we hear from the 21st Century Islamofascists? Just last week an Al Qaeda video was broadcast that contained a direct threat to Americans to either convert or face death. The speaker on the tape said the following:

"To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next."

To emphasize the seriousness of his convictions and to punctuate the point, he went on to say:

"After decades of American tyranny and oppression, now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims."

If Muslims don't like what they see in the mirror, they should change their appearance. Confronting the Islamofascists head on without lame concerns for political correctness is the only way to join the battle. These people mean business and they want to kill you. I hope the Vatican doesn't go into a phase of apology and backing down.

Drugs and Terrorism

Have you ever wondered how the Taliban and Al Qaeda fund their operations? Well, here's one method. Through drug traffickers feeding the heroin habits of Americans and Europeans.

A recent report from the UN provides details of the dramatic increase in poppy production (used to make heroin) in Afghanistan. The report describes how the Taliban and Al Qaeda directly profit from the drug trade through distribution to wholesalers and indirectly by shaking down the Afghan farmers for protection money.

For more detailed information on the UN report visit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14637693/

The gut reaction to this problem might be to destroy the farms with some type of military action such as napalm attacks. But that would be wrong. Firstly, it is not possible to permanently destroy the farms and secondly and probably more importantly, it would badly alienate the poor farmers who would likely become quite attracted to Al Qaeda and the Taliban for fighting against those that destroyed their livelihoods. The benefit of temporarily wiping out farms would not be outweighed by the risk of creating more enemies.

The answer to this problem rests in the homeland. Drug traffickers must be treated aggressively and in concert with the overall war. If the money trail of an American drug trafficker is suspected to lead back to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, that trafficker should be tried for treason for cooperating with the enemy and sent to Guantanamo. Americans should not tolerate their own citizens aiding and abetting the enemy.

As inner-city, drug trafficking, hardened criminals are sent off to Guantanamo for a potential life sentence for treason, the activities of the rest of them would curtail, thus reducing the cycle of dollars flowing from American heroin users to American drug traffickers through several layers of launderers to Al Qaeda, who then use those funds to kill Americans and Europeans.

Oil Supply Fears Overblown

One of the main drivers of global conflict is fear, as it causes self-doubt and emotionally filled wrong-headed decisions. One of the most pervasive underlying fears in the west is that we are on the brink of running out of oil and that our dependency on unstable Arab states is gradually putting a noose around our necks.

While it is quite prudent to shift our dependence away form Arab oil and to develop alternative sources of energy, we should not allow the fear to spiral out of control. Consider the statement by Aramco's CEO that the world has only tapped 18% global oil supplies and that at current growth rates, we will have enough oil for the next 140 years.

The intervening 5-7 generations should be enough time for the ingenuity of the human spirit and mind to develop an answer to the problem.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=157340

From Reagan to Bush

President Reagan knew that freedom should never be taken for granted and he also knew that we must always be prepared to vigorously defend it. Though he could never have foretold the events of 9/11, his leadership and principles laid the necessary foundation for President Bush to act in the wake of 9/11.

The following quote by President Reagan is a representation of that foundation.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

At the time President Reagan made those remarks, the world was gripped by the Cold War. Though highly dangerous in its own right, most people felt fairly safe that the status quo would be maintained and never worried that the Soviets would fly planes into sky-scrapers. But the world changed very soon after Reagan left office with the Soviet Union falling and the rise of nationalism across the globe. Newly minted countries joined the U.N. and soon Islamofascism rose to new heights posing the most serious threat to freedom this generation must face.

From the moment the towers fell on September 11, 2001, President Bush acted on President Reagan's warning that freedom is fragile. Consider the following quote by President Bush:

"The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom."

In this quote, Bush demonstrated that his guiding principles are tied to Reagan's, and it should be noted that Reagan many times in the past demonstrated that those principles were in turn tied directly to the experience of the founding fathers and thus the very essence of America. That is a lofty and worthy ideal to protect.

Again, in President Bush's words,

"We're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want."

President Reagan alerted future generations that they must be prepared to act and President Bush knew that the time to act had come. There have been too many years between Reagan and Bush II where American leadership had its head buried in the sand.

Once again, in the words of President Reagan, this time in 1994, 5 years after he left office and 7 years before 9/11:

"The next time a Saddam Hussein takes over Kuwait, or North Korea brandishes a nuclear weapon, will we be ready to respond? In the end, it all comes down to leadership, and that is what this country is looking for now."

No Saddam Al-Qaeda Link? - So What!

Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda' - BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5328592.stm

That's not news. The implication that Bush fabricated the justification for going to war with Iraq is nothing more than western elitist self-hating nonsense.

Do all of the intelligent anti-war liberals really think that the President and leaders of many other nations went to war in Iraq on a whim and/or a lie? Do they forget what happened on 9/11? Do they forget that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people? Do they forget that Saddam came within an Israeli airstrike of developing nuclear weapons in the 80's?

As much as the article points out that Saddam and Al Qaeda were polar opposites of each other, so were Stalin and Hitler, who had no trouble concluding a secret deal to carve up Poland and then later ended up fighting a bloody war with each other.

There weren't any links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, but the conditions for an evil alliance were certainly present, and preventing it from taking root by invading Iraq was a crucial step in the defense of freedom against Islamofascism.

US Foreign Policy and 9/11

The entire western world seems to be employing a blame the victim analysis to the threat posed by Islamofascists. Earlier this week results of a poll conducted in Canada indicated that a majority of Canadians believe that US foreign policy was one of the root causes leading to the attacks on 9/11. What?!?!

These dangerously wrong sentiments are not exclusive to Canada. They run rampant in Europe as well. This position is no diferrent than blaming a rape victim, because she was dressed in a mini-skirt and hung around a strip club late at night. She may very well have wanted to have sex, but certainly not to be raped. The root cause is the depraved, criminal desire of the perpetrator to dominate , not the behavior, dress or any other characteristic of the victim herself. Similarly, the blame for 9/11 lies purely and exclusively with the perpetrators, not US foreign policy.

Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and others have made it abundantly clear that their ultimate aim is the establishment of a global Islamic state. The first stage of that dream (nightmare to the rest of us) is to rid the Middle East of the US and Israel, paving the way for the creation of a nuclear-armed Islamic superpower. From that base, they intend to confront the West in a true military battle of civilizations. That is why US foreign policy in the region is such a sore point for them and so important for us. Without US backing of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Suadi Arabia and most importantly Iraq, the Islamofascists would be in the driver's seat and ever closer to their goal.

Far from being a root cause of 9/11, US foreign policy is the bulwark keeping us all safe, including Canadians and Europeans. Blaming the victim is wrong and extremely dangerous as any weakening of our resolve will surely be exploited by our enemies.

Israel Lost The War - Badly

Nations should only embark on war to implement a fundamentally important strategy that will have a permanent impact. As Israel is learning, more importantly a nation should never retreat from its war aims once the war has been launched. The decision to go to war boils down to a decision to trade lives for some important objective. To lose lives and not achieve the objective can fray the fabric of society. For an example, just look at the US experience in the years after the Vietnam war.

When Hezbollah attacked Israel in July, abducted 2 soldiers and fired rockets into civilian targets, Israel was faced with a choice of responding tactically or strategically. A tactical response may have been modelled on their experience with Palestinians terror; targeted killing of leaders, limited air strikes, abduction of fighters, etc. Instead, Israel chose a much more strategic course of action, by going towar, with the objective of removing Hezbollah as a threat to the northern border. In that context there really is no debate that Israel lost the war. The trade off didn't materialize. There are dead Israeli soldiers and civilians, but nothing was gained in return.

In contrast, recall the last war Israel fought in Lebanon in 1982. The circumstances were remarkably similar, only the name of the enemy was different. The P.L.O. had set up shop in Southern Lebanon and used their base to direct terrorist activities against Israel and to shell civilian populations in Northern border towns. Similar to this year's conflict with Hezbollah there was a trigger event. The P.L.O. assassinated Israel's ambassador to England. In response, Israel embarked on a war with the objective of evicting the P.L.O. from the area and creating a security zone in Lebanon that would remain free of hostile enemies.

Sound familiar? The difference is the objective in 1982 was achieved. I still remember the scenes of ships full of P.L.O. fighters leaving en masse from Lebanon. Though there was a segment of Israeli society that remained opposed to the war and the subsequent occupation, the fabric of Israeli society remained strong and united. Israel won the war and no Israeli soldier died needlessly.

It is still too early to tell, but the loss in this war may yet have negative repercussions for Israeli society. However, I think we already know some of the strategic consequences of Israel's military loss.

1. Israel's enemies may now view her as militarily vulnerable, a potentially fatal problem for a country whose enemies want to see her wiped off the map.
2. With the introduction of International forces in the area, Israel will be prevented from utilizing any of its tactical responses to any future Hezbollah provocations.
3. Israel's armed forces and reservists will likely suffer from diminished morale, because they didn't win and the soldiers haven't been returned. They will rightly question why their fellow soldiers died. What was achieved in return for their blood?

Prime Minister Olmert appropriately began the war with objectives that would have provided Israel with a strategically important change in circumstances. But he failed, because he didn't see it through to the end and the population will likely punish him very soon.

Stone's World Trade Center Disappoints

As the 5th anniversary of the most horrific and sudden tragedy of our generation approaches, my wife and I spent last Saturday evening watching Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center”. For many people, but uniquely for New Yorkers and Americans, September 11, 2001 was a day that forever changed the emotional make up of communities and even society. As a Canadian, right from the early hours of that morning, I yearned to connect with those suffering on the ground in New York and Washington and with those in the air on the 4 flights from hell. As I watched the events of that day and subsequent days unfold, I found that my emotional capacity had been stretched to prepare for the unfolding enormity of 9/11, creating a vacuum that I have yet to fill. In so many ways I wish I was there to share the pain, sorrow, anger, bewilderment, rage, confusion and resolve that New Yorkers have been feeling. I guess you could say that I wanted to join the club, and I still do.

So in that unrequited state, I settled in to watch “World Trade Center” hoping to find the door to the club, walk through it and become a New Yorker. Unfortunately, it was nowhere to be found. There was no collective emotion to connect with in Oliver Stone’s movie.

“World Trade Center” tells the story of human spirit and emotional turmoil that plays out for both the direct victims and their families when enormous tragedy strikes. Shortly after rushing into the burning world trade center, Port Authority Policemen, John McLaughlin and Will Jimeno found themselves trapped underneath the rubble of the buildings. In the immediate aftermath of the collapse, their families are tortured for agonizing hours waiting for word on whether their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons are alive or dead. The scenes alternate between the families and the two heroic policemen who are using every bit of spirit they can muster to stave off death. Stone’s device of displaying the emotions of the policemen and their families as mirrors of each other was effective, but did nothing to connect me to 9/11.

The surprising failure of “World Trade Center” is that it didn’t actually need 9/11 as its backdrop. The same story could have been told about the miner that was stuck in the Sago coal pit or any other human drama where the emotions of the victims and their families are explored. To that end, “World Trade Center” certainly was a poignant movie, but it fell completely short of what it should have been.

As a point of comparison, I did get a taste of the collective emotional experience I have been yearning to share when I saw “Flight 93”. As opposed to “World Trade Center”, I felt anxiety, fear, sorrow, rage and even some vengeance when the heroes of Flight 93 took control of the plane and drove it into the ground. For a couple of brief hours, I was there in New York, in Washington, on the planes, on Flight 93. I was sharing a tragic emotional experience with all Americans that day. The difference was that “Flight 93” told the 9/11 story from the perspective of the all encompassing enormity it was, rather than from the perspective of individual victims.
As heart-wrenching as McLaughlin and Jimeno’s stories are, 9/11 is too big and touched too many individuals, to limit the scope of this story to 2 families.

Bush and War Politics - Reprise

Yesterday, President Bush finally put forward the view that the US is engaged in an ideological struggle akin to similar struggles of the 20th century against Nazism and Fascism. He also began to prepare the American people for a very long war ahead, requiring sacrifice.

The Verdict Is In commented on this very topic earlier in the month. The following post was originally published on August 19, 2006.


President Bush is not viewing the Iraq conflict in the proper context. The fact that he is frustrated that the Shia leadership and the Iraqi people are not publicly more appreciative of the US role is beside the point. As President Bush has said, we are at war with Islamo-Fascism. The Iraq conflict is just one of many battles in what will be a long protracted war.

President Bush has allowed the political opposition in the US to define his Presidency by the Iraq battle, and thus he is spending too much time worrying about whether he is appreciated or not. He needs to refocus attention on the more general and relevant fact that we are at war with Islamo-Fascists, and that should be the defining element of his Presidency. In that broader context, it matters not whether the US is loved in Iraq. What matters is whether the President has done enough to mobilize his country, militarily, culturally, economically, sociologically, etc. for this long difficult war.

The primary battle-fronts may today be in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they will surely be in many other places in years to come, and preparing the nation for the long war is what the President needs to focus his political efforts on.