About Me

Name:Soldier Dad
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

Always remember.

I was in the shower just past 8am on September 11, 2001. My roommate banged on the door yelling, “We’re at war; we’re at war!” I barely paused, thinking, “Well, we finally invaded someone who deserved it.” But she persisted, and I walked to the television in time to watch both towers fall. I think I was in shock. But when the news station cut to live footage of the Pentagon, fear took over. I thought of my uncle, whose office sat inside those walls. To know that the center of the United States Armed Forces was on fire was just about more than I could bear.
 
And I felt rage. Intense anger at an enemy who not only wanted to win, but wanted to destroy Americans and our way of life. And again I thought of the families torn apart and the lives destroyed. It was as if each passing minute, starting from the moment I walked to the TV on that clear September day, strengthened my resolve to dedicate my life in service to our great nation.
 
The heroism and sacrifice of that morning showed me that America can survive in spite of being brought to her knees.
 
The determination and dedication of so many Americans in the days following proved to me that America will survive so that others may know freedom.
 
And the struggles since 9/11 in the global War on Terror have confirmed to me that America must survive so that forces of evil do not take away the world’s “shining city on a hill.”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UPDATE: 9/11 Movie

A followup to yesterday's blog:

Let's flashback a few years when CBS was going to run "The Reagans" and pulled it after CBS acknowledged that the film did not show a "balanced portrayal" of the couple. They had reportedly ordered a love story about Ronald and Nancy Reagan with politics as a backdrop, but instead received what they later claimed was an overtly political film.*

During the controversy, Tom Daschle called the decision by CBS "appalling."

There are several differences between that situation and the current one. "The Reagans" depicted our former president in the worst light, with very little research to back it up. One example is the scripted sentence, "Let they who live in sin die in sin," which was meant in the context of the AIDS crisis. However, the filmmakers admitted the only basis for this comment was a similar suggestion in a fictionalized biography of Ronald Reagan.

The new 9/11 docu-drama is based on public record, and supposedly highly researched. For the Democrats to come out with guns blazing on this is not simply hypocritical, it's illustrative of the complete lack of regard for their precious First Amendment when someone attempts to say something "not so nice" about them.

Not that I'm surprised.

*Sourced from Wikipedia.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A taste of his own medicine

Well, well, well. It's always satisfying to watch the left get a taste of their own medicine. ABC will soon run a docu-drama about the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks - much of it throughout the Clinton Administration. Evidently it's not so kind to Bubba-in-Chief, reflecting the job he got from Monica that distracted him from the job he was elected to do.

The former president is up-in-arms over the mini-series, demanding that ABC correct the alleged inaccuracies or pull the film from its lineup. Clinton's lawyers call the movie "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."

What about the fictitious rewriting in Fahrenheit 9/11? In Oliver Stone's JFK?

Clinton's lawyers also accuse the drama of "bias."

What about the bias revealed by the deliberate placement of pictures of real Republican presidents in the fictional offices of every Hollywood corporate villian since Gordon Gekko?

The major networks are no strangers to broadcasting according to their own agendas - Rathergate, anyone? - but they may have actually gotten something right this time. While it's been fun watching Clinton entertain us in his post-White House years, his current attitude serves as a perfect reminder of his previous antics.

It's no secret among foreign policy and defense experts that Clinton dropped the ball on foreign policy. But the American people could use a refresher course on the prelude to the War on Terror. It's quite possible that this drama will reveal a lot about a complacent Administration - just not the same Administration that has been vilified by the left since 9/11.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And the media goes down in Plames

The Washington Post ran a piece today about the end of the Valerie Plame drama. They lament their “oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years.” The last line reads, “It's unfortunate that so many people took [Wilson] seriously.”

I’d like to know – if the Washington Post didn’t take them seriously, then they sure have a funny way of showing it. A brief archive search of “Plame” and “Wilson” turns up 296 articles. That’s one article every 3.7 days! For three years!

I can’t imagine why they would believe that so many people took them seriously.

Liberal pundits and the elite establishment spent years harping on (what they thought was) the biggest scandal to hit the Bush Administration.

[I DIGRESS…]
The biggest scandal would have been those National Guard papers that Dan Rather trotted out on primetime television. But that one fizzled soon after the story proved to have more holes than Swiss cheese, and ended up fatally wounding Rather’s career.
[END DIGRESSION]

I have a hunch that this story will die soon, and that no one is planning on following up on the obvious nepotism that took place between Plame and Wilson so that he could fabricate stories about how Saddam Hussein’s henchmen were shopping for mangoes, not uranium, in Niger.

The end of this affair is important for security-minded Americans because it leads to the greater question: how can we continue trusting conventional news outlets?

With a media such as this, who needs enemies?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Axis of Evil, part deux

The newest members of Club Axis of Evil are no strangers to Americans concerned about national security. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez took a much-publicized trip to Syria this week and took time out of his busy schedule to rant about America (and, by proxy, the rest of the Western world). Evidently not one for diplomacy, Chavez stated that the two countries will "build a new world" free of U.S. domination and vowed to one day "dig the grave of U.S. imperialism."

[I DIGRESS...]
Remember when Harry Belafonte swore that he and millions of other Americans admire, respect, and express "full solidarity with the Venezuelan people and [their] revolution?"
[END DIGRESSION]

Chavez, of course, is itching to get his country on to the rotating seat on the UN Security Council next year and he's hoping for Syria's help. As a special treat for Chavez' trip, Syria found it fit to award him an honorary doctorate in international relations. The fun thing about an honorary degree is that there's no need to know much about the subject in which it's awarded. No pesky theories like capitalism or freedom to screw things up.

The U.S. has asked Syria quite nicely to quit sending arms to Hezbolla guerrillas. Next time we're going to have to ask them not-so-nicely, and then they'll probably award Chavez an honorary presidency.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The road to appeasement

Appeasement didn't work in the Cold War. It doesn't work in the war on Islamist fundamentalism. It doesn't even work with the school yard bully.

But we hear elected officials and public figures spout off daily about pulling out of Iraq. About understanding the other side. About being deliberate, and cautious, and prudent. About sacrosanct civil liberties. About nuances.

Hell.

Islamo-facists lost the "right" to nuances when they flew planes into our buildings. When they blew up Tube cars in London. Every time they plant an IED on the side of the road to kill our soldiers and Marines.

So while many in our government are fighting the good fight, and fighting it well, there are too many deliberate, and cautious, and prudent policy-makers. Until we fight this war with all the spirit and passion and firepower America has to offer, we will not win. We might win battles, and we may keep the edge, but in essence, we will still be appeasing.

The Christian Science Monitor is running a 10-part series on Jill Carroll's ordeal as a hostage of Islamists. Here is a brief excerpt illustrating the effect of appeasement:

"Then there were the videos. They had been astounded when my first hostage video, in which I had been forced to plead for the release of women at Abu Ghraib, had coincided with the freeing of five female prisoners by the US. After that, they seemed to be almost in a frenzy to see what else they could get in exchange for me."

This is the mindset we are dealing with. So let's deal with them - or rather, let's NOT deal with them. The road to appeasement is paved with bombs and blood and bodies and ends at a cliff, after which there is no return.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Protect our borders - and our agents

On February 17, 2005, a Mexican citizen named Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila attempted to cross the border into the United States with $1 million worth of marijuana. When American Border Patrol attempted to detain him, he pointed what looked to be a gun at them and the border agents shot him.

[I DIGRESS...]
I would venture to say that the 800 pounds of pot Ozzie was carrying around were NOT for a solo bongo-playing bender in the desert. He was running drugs. He was bringing them into our country, where our kids live. And I’m not ok with that.
[END DIGRESSION...]

Where was I? Right, they shot him. I know what you’re thinking – that’s how the system should work! But the two Border Patrol agents were recently convicted of a slew of crimes ranging from civil rights violations (oh, we’re so sorry we hurt the criminal’s feelings!) to assault with a deadly weapon (why do the agents carry guns if they can’t use them when threatened??).

To add insult to injury, the criminal: (a) was given immunity to testify against the agents, (b) received treatment at a US Armed Forces hospital, and (c) is suing our government for $5 million because he says we violated his civil rights.

Congress is starting to respond, and even most Democrats can’t side with the bad guys on this one. Keep watching this case – it will be a good proving ground for pro-security elected officials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Terrorists on a plane… and on phones… and in Germany…

The Good, Bad, and Ugly from the week of August 14-21

The good: This week, the only things scarier than snakes on a plane are terrorists on a plane. And some red-blooded Americans scored another point for the good guys by subduing a “suspicious” woman who “acted bizarrely for hours, made references to al Qaida and hijack training flights.” Interesting, however, that it took a while for the press to stop referring to her solely as “from Vermont,” and report the truth: that she’s from Pakistan. Shocker.

In related news, the President came out and stated, once again, that we are at war with Islamic fascists. This time it was different though, because it was in a setting that received maximum exposure. Naturally, the cries of backlash came from CAIR and other members of the Bin Laden Youth. But let’s face it: they’re not much more trustworthy than those aforementioned snakes.

The bad: What don’t they understand? A federal court in Detroit ruled the NSA’s surveillance program cannot continue to monitor Americans' phone calls and e-mails to terror suspects overseas without warrants. I’ll paraphrase – they are saying that it’s OK for Americans to converse with foreign terrorists. Let me tell you, if people in our country are talking to Islamist terror suspects, I’m going to bet they’re not calling to wish them a happy Ramadan. It didn’t take long for the courts to forget September 11th. But it only took them a week to forget the evil plot planned for our planes out of London.

The ugly: Baghdad Bob’s posse is growing. Look up “ugly” in the dictionary this week and you’ll see a transcript of former President Jimmy Carter’s interview with Der Spiegel. If his comments weren’t so dangerous, they might actually be humorous. He rails against the “massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.” I was under the impression (as is the rest of the country’s rational thinkers) that Israel was limiting its bombing to Hezbollah strongholds. When Carter can’t advance his radical Left agenda by spinning facts, he just makes “facts” up. He should look into buying a ticket on the same seniors cruise as Mike Wallace. The American people deserve more in a former president than this. Bring Reagan back!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Good, Bad, and Ugly: Friday's roundup

The Good: I just couldn’t choose today. We caught some bad guys on a few fronts of the war on Islamist facism. I urge you to read the excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today entitled, “Mass-Murder Foiled,” about the apprehension of 20-plus terrorists in Britain yesterday. The WSJ confirmed yesterday’s digression of mine saying, “The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.”

On a more local front, Rich Galen reported a much less publicized event in Marietta, Ohio. Two men were arrested after a Radio Shack employee found it suspicious that they wanted to buy six cell phones without giving their contact information. They later admitted to buying around 600 phones to send overseas as detonators for the bombs that kill our soldiers.

[I DIGRESS…]

By the way, even though they were born in the US, their names were not Bob Hunter and Mike Smith. Their names are Osama Sabhi Abulhassan and Ali Houssaiky. Seriously people, are we seeing a pattern yet???

[END DIGRESSION]

The Bad: I’m not going to be able to bring my latte or lip-gloss on the airplane anymore. Maybe Hollywood will finally join the war against terrorists now. Oh never mind, they all take private jets anyway – in their constant quest to fight global warming, of course.

The Ugly: Ok, back to very serious things – Mike Wallace. The poor old man left his Ensure and pudding in retired-news-anchor-land (honestly, what does he do without a camera on him?) to interview President Ahmadinejad of Iran. A column in today’s Human Events reads, “The reasons why it is asinine in the extreme to conduct a serious interview with [Ahmadinejad] are too numerous to enumerate, but let’s just sprinkle a few to garnish our point. One, he is a whack-a-doodle. Two, he probably is a puppet without real power under the imams. Three, to the extent that he has power he is a menace. Four, his regime is currently fighting a proxy war through Hezbollah and it is critically important to avoid conferring legitimacy. Five, he is being told by the UN that if he does not stand down on his nuclear program, he will be forever banned from polite company; some American news agency has no business sending the opposite signal.”

Wallace tells Fox News, “[Ahmadinejad] comes across as more rational than I had expected.” Iran’s president has been quoted as saying, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury,” that “Israel must be wiped off the map,” that there is “no significant need for the United States.” He yearns for a “world without Zionism” and asks, “could [9/11] be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services - or their extensive infiltration?”

Hello Wallace!!! Put your glasses and hearing aids back on – of COURSE he came across as more rational than you expected. After those quotes, a rabid wolverine on crack would come across as rational.

After taunting our President on CBS’ dime, Ahmadinejad condescendingly says, “Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges."

[I DIGRESS…]

Note that the man doesn’t bring up his own nuclear proliferation program, or the fact that he’s thumbed his nose at the Useless Nations Security Council’s directives. The nerve of this guy.

[END DIGRESSION]

We’ve got a squadron of F-18s and B-2s that are probably ready to do that cultural exchange right now.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baghdad Bob's legacy lives on

As Baghdad fell in early 2003, the Iraqi information minister, “Baghdad Bob,” was taped declaring that the city was securely in Saddam’s hands. Americans took the airport – he proclaimed, "We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!" Our troops pressed further, and still he decreed, “The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all."

Americans laughed – surely we could never be so naïve as to believe what someone like Baghdad Bob was saying when the facts so clearly stated otherwise. Unfortunately, we do have our own Babbling Bobs right here at home. Sen. Joe Lieberman lost his party’s primary election after his opponent downplayed threats to America. Michael Moore’s blog entry this week is positively gleeful about the election. How ironic that today, a major terrorist plot to blow up more airplanes was thwarted.

[I DIGRESS…]

Why was it thwarted? Because the New York Times is based near Times, not Kensington, Square. Our friends across the Atlantic seem to have a better grasp of how to track terrorists – as in, their papers tend not to broadcast top-secret tracking programs on the front page.

[END DIGRESSION]

But Baghdad Mike continues braying – there is no threat! he says. Do not support this “this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war,” he whines.

[I DIGRESS…again…]

Since when did America choose not to go to war just because it was thought to be “unwinnable?” If Americans avoided “unwinnable” wars, we wouldn’t have a country – historians agree that the American War of Independence was largely “unwinnable.” You don’t fight the fights you can win – you fight the fights that need fighting. Michael Moore is a coward.

[END DIGRESSION]

The facts are here, ladies and gentlemen! They are as clear as the statue of Saddam toppling in the middle of Baghdad. Is it senseless and immoral to face them and deal with the problem appropriately and disproportionately? Americans may have forgotten what 9/11 felt like, but perhaps this morning’s events will send a wake-up call.

Have the Democrats been so indoctrinated that they honestly can’t see the threats staring us down? Do they hate President Bush so much that they would compromise our national security to oppose him? I fear that they do not take a second thought before spewing out the Pelosi Talking Points blackberried to them each morning.

And we haven't seen Baghdad Bob in a while... maybe he's working at the DNC.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The cost of peace at all costs

During the four years of the Civil War, over 200,000 Americans were killed so that the first government “of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth.” Allowing peace at any cost would have permitted seccession and the continued practice of slavery on southern plantations. I don’t hear Cindy Sheehan and Rev. Al Sharpton screaming that the Civil War wasn’t worth it.

In 1943, 3,000 American soldiers died in a single battle on the beaches of Tarawa, due in part to a miscalculation of the tides. But they won the battle, and in doing so, secured a strategic position that paved the way for the American campaign in WWII on the Pacific front. At that time, there was an outcry from our citizens who felt that the losses were just too high. Looking back with the benefits of hindsight, you would be hardpressed to find a historian or military scholar who would say the battle wasn’t worth it.

Fewer than 3,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq over the last three years. Ironically, most of those deaths came because our armed forces were trying so desperately to reduce “collateral damage.” If we were really the imperialists the far Left would have the world believe, we’d be carpet bombing the whole Middle East to make a parking lot for our SUVs. I digress. We’re fighting today in Baghdad and Basra so that we don’t have to fight in Omaha and Seattle tomorrow.

Let me tell you: People who cry for peace at any cost do not understand the terrible price they will pay for letting freedom slip out of our grasp.

Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” To demand peace at any cost is to diminish the sacrifices of millions of Americans who have served their country nobly.

To the protesters, who are so fond of saying “one life is too many,” I’ll restate so you can understand: You are saying that peace is more important than freedom. That peace is more important than a country maintaining its sovereignty. That peace is more important than fighting for what is right, just, and good, simply because you can’t stomach the thought of casualties.

You are wrong. There are fights more important than peace. We’re fighting one right now.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oliver, Hillary, and Cindy walked into a bar...

I promised your first "Good, Bad, and Ugly" report today, and here it is.

The Good: Cindy Adams' review of World Trade Center. Oliver Stone, a man not exactly known for his historical accuracy in his reenactments of historical events, released World Trade Center this week. Ms. Adams took him to task for his clumsy attempt at recreating the events of September 11, 2001. Ms. Adams considers herself one of New York City's keepers, and writes that the movie is too little, too soon. Filled with small mistakes and scenes filmed on a sound stage, World Trade Center evidently pigeonholes the tragic day into a "slow-moving and formulaic" Lifetime-esque movie. I haven't seen it yet, but from what I hear, 9/11 deserves more of our respect and remembrances than that.

The Bad: Hillary Clinton's call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Well, she finally said it. Makes me wonder if she's concerned about securing her base for the upcoming election(s). We can only hope. But while she's throwing stones, she ought to read up on the transcripts of the last few months. The junior senator from New York could learn a thing or two about national security from Sec. Rumsfeld.

The Ugly: Cindy Sheehan's moving to Texas. Well, KIND of. She bought 5 acres "ideal for [her] expanding peace population and for hosting our growing family." Wow. If you've been following the story, you know that the previous owners sold land to a third party who was actually working for Sheehan. The former owners insist they never would have sold the land if they knew Sheehan was the buyer, and state emphatically, "nobody wants them here." Cindy, seriously - don't mess with Texas.  You're way out of your league.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The UN: Barking up the wrong tree

The organization that wastes several blocks of America's largest city never ceases to amaze me. Where on earth does the United Nations get the nerve?

I shall quote from yahoo.com: The U.N. Human Rights Committee said poor and black Americans were "disadvantaged" after Katrina, and the U.S. should work harder to ensure that their rights "are fully taken into consideration in the reconstruction plans with regard to access to housing, education and health care."

I have several choice words for the UN Human Rights Committee - none of them will pass the spam-blockers of my loyal subscribers - but I'll get right to my point.

  • Yesterday, two Christians were arrested for building an "illegal" church in China. Remember, China's also the country which practices forced abortions and refuses to let its citizens google freely. Studies have shown that domestic violence occurs in as many as a third of all Chinese families. Kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms are commonplace in Chinese prisons.
  • The Sudanese village of Murli near al-Geneina was raided by the government-backed Janjawid militia and 82 people were killed, either shot or burned alive in their homes. Murli was attacked again by Janjawid in September, on market day, and 72 people were killed. Raids by the Janjawid against villages included acts of violence against women, including sexual violence. In Murli, three girls, aged 10, 15 and 17, were reportedly raped by members of the Janjawid while they were fleeing the attack.
  • 40% of North Korean children are chronically malnourished. Many Christians are held in detainment camps. Old Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il is working on The Bomb. Oh, and they don't have lights either.
  • Domestic violence and human-trafficking is on the rise in Serbia-Montenegro. Witnesses in ongoing war crimes trials frequently "disappear" or are tortured.

Are we sensing a pattern here?

So Mr. Annan - you want to pick on someone? Choose a country who doesn't welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free. Choose a country who doesn't lock up wife-beaters and child molesters. Choose a country without a thriving democracy and peaceful transitions of power. And then explain to me where you get the nerve to chastise the United States of America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Doctrine had it right

You don’t have to look far in today’s media to find pundits, politicians, and parents of dead soldiers condemning, vilifying, the war in Iraq. You may even find the occasional article trying to prove the military campaigns in Afghanistan are failing as well – though the ambitious journalists who report those “stories” tend to see their arguments slip quietly into trash cans when their logic just doesn’t add up. Since critics of the Bush Doctrine are so keen on Monday-morning quarterbacking, let’s think about what would have happened if America had not chosen to oust Saddam Hussein (12 years too late, but that’s another story).

During the 1990s and early 2000s, Saddam had shown himself to be increasingly identifying with Sunni Muslims in his country. Year after year, he built mosques. He added “God is the greatest” to the Iraqi flag. During a 2003 CBS interview, he said, “Whatever Allah decides. We are believers. We believe in what he decides. There is no value for any life without imam, without faith.”

Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein was positioning himself as a premier leader of fanatical Muslims in the Middle East.

In this week’s Time, Charles Krauthammer wrote a thought-provoking article regarding the transition of the current Arab-Israeli conflict from a secular, political struggle to an outright religious war. He explains that Hamas’ victory six months ago ensured that the direction of Palestinian policy was towards an Islamic state rather than a 23rd “secular” Arab nation.  He writes, “As pan-Arabism declined, pan-Islamism rose in its place. Hence Islamist Hizballah--client of Islamist Iran, ally of Islamist Hamas--provokes a war with Israel. Hizballah's motivation has nothing to do with Arab nationalism. Israel withdrew from every square meter of Lebanese territory six years ago. But legal obligation means nothing to Hizballah. Like Hamas and Iran, Hizballah views the destruction of Israel as a religious obligation.”

Saddam could not have watched Hezbollah attack Israel and not seen the tremendous implications the conflict would have for him. Saddam realized the power behind Islamist groups and would have jumped headfirst into this religious war, if not overtly, certainly behind the scenes. A special report from the American Spectator noted that if Saddam was still president, “Iraq would still be providing gifts of $20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, exacerbating the current Arab-Israeli conflict.”

It is also probable that the U.N.’s clumsy efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear program would have served to bolster Saddam’s confidence and create an arms race between the two rivals.  And like we have seen with Iran and North Korea, diplomacy would fail again – and the United States would be pushed into a situation much more… well, explosive…than the current one.

So when you hear the pundits and the politicians, who sit safely in Washington while critiquing the very actions that may ensure their ability to do so, braying that the Iraq war is a failure, remember that the conflict in the Middle East is our war too. Iraq was a second step towards stabilizing the region, but the Bush Administration must continue to support Israel, and be prepared for a long, hard, struggle.  



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A new voice from FSM

Hello there! I'm thrilled to be taking over the FamilySecurityMatters blog. I come from a long line of proud citizens who have served our great nation, and I hope to follow them during my travels through the blogosphere. Check back frequently for the latest commentary on breaking news, brewing stories, and brave Americans. You'll also find must-reads and a weekly wrap-up during Friday's "The Good, Bad, and Ugly."

Take a look at FSM's web site for daily exclusives and insightful commentary. I look forward to seeing you here at Townhall.com and reading your comments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive