Here are some Annapolis insights from Joel C. Rosenberg.
JRH 11/28/07
***************************
AFTER ANNAPOLIS: President Bush should visit Israel and speak in Jerusalem
Joel C. Rosenberg
November 28, 2007-11-28
How should we assess the Annapolis conference?
First, the good news:
* President Bush, to his great credit, is doing everything he possibly can to keep another horrible war from breaking out in the epicenter. I don't think in the end he will be successful, but I strongly applaud him for trying. He is following the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers." With great difficulty, he brought together senior leaders from almost 50 countries -- including Syria, including the head of the Arab League, and including the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- in the hopes of jump-starting a new dialogue for peace. I, for one, am grateful for his efforts.
* The U.S. emerged once again as a global agenda-setter, working hard to build a global alliance of moderate, peaceful, reformer Muslim leaders against the radical Islamic jihadist leaders that Iran is trying to pull together into an alliance against Israel and the West.
* Syria's participation in the Annapolis conference, which infuriated Iran, was particularly welcome. Tensions along the Golan Heights are running high. War clouds between Damascus and Jerusalem are clearly building. The fact that Syria was willing to meet in a diplomatic setting like this is good news. It may not ultimately be enough to prevent a war, but it is still a welcome development.
* The Israelis and the Palestinians are going to begin regular peace talks beginning December 12. This, too, is good -- though Prime Minister Olmert must strongly and firmly insist from the outset that talks absolutely cannot continue if southern Israeli towns like Sderot continue to be hit by rockets and mortars. The shelling must stop immediately. The first provision of the "Road Map to Peace" was Israeli security. Nothing else should be discussed until the border is quiet.
* President Bush did not publicly pressure Olmert to divide Jerusalem, and Olmert did not publicly immediately put Jerusalem on the table. This, too, is good, though I suspect it's only temporary. Still, let's take one day at a time.
Now, the bad news:
* A process is now in place that will, in fact, steadily and dramatically increase international pressure on Israel to give up something tangible (land, sovereignty) for something historically elusive, at best ("recognition" by the Islamic world and, of course, "peace"). If Israel is not careful, she could end up feeling forced to give away the store.
* We know by his previous statements and those of his advisors that Prime Minister Olmert is already disposed to give away nearly all of the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria, commonly known as the West Bank, as well as up to half of Jerusalem. He is going to have plenty of opportunities to thus "respond" to this growing international pressure in the weeks and months ahead. This is a serious concern.
* It is not clear that Mr. Olmert has learned the lessons of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 or her withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Rather than Israel receiving "recognition" and "peace" in return for such land giveaways, the radical jihadist group Hamas took over Gaza and is steadily consolidating its power in the West Bank. What's more, Israel was attacked by some 4,000 rockets and missiles from Lebanon in 2006 and by more than 2,500 rockets and mortars from Gaza over the past two years. "Land for peace" worked with Egypt in 1979. Israel did not have to give up land for peace with Jordan in 1994, and that peace treaty has held. Is there evidence that giving up land will bring about true and lasting peace with the Palestinians in 2007 or 2008? Sadly, no.
* The very fact that the Israelis are talking about giving up land and dividing Jerusalem is a sign of blood in the water to her enemies, not a good thing when you're surrounded by sharks. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is already organizing a conference of terrorists as an "alternative" to Annapolis. He and his genocidal cronies will do everything they can to sabotage any prospect for peace, however slim, and then say, "See, we told you so! Now it's time for war." Ahmadinejad sees Olmert and his government as weak, exhausted, and doomed to collapsed. He said as much yesterday after a cabinet meeting in Tehran. "It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive," Ahmadinejad insisted. "Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime." Moreover, Ahmadinejad believes the winds of history are at his back. He believes he is doing Allah's will to obliterate Israel and annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. Annapolis will very likely serve as a catalyst to him to get his nuclear weapons program complete, take care of Israel once and for all, to bring about the global carnage and chaos necessary to usher in the coming of the Mahdi.
* Russia has announced that it is going to host a post-Annapolis summit soon. President Vladimir Putin can't stand the notion that President Bush has emerged in recent years as the game-changer in the Middle East. Putin wants that role for himself. The difference is Bush wants to support the Reformers, while Putin is siding with the Radicals. We must watch carefully to see how Putin reacts to Annapolis and what new initiatives he might try to put on the table. One possibility: "a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone" that would seek to turn the world's attention away from Iran and put the spotlight on disarming Israel.
Where do we go from here?
* Let me start by saying I believe the Israeli public sincerely wants peace with the Palestinians. They sincerely want the Palestinian people to run their own affairs, govern their own lives, raise their children in peace and safety, and have a growing economy that can bless and benefit everyone in the region. I wholeheartedly share this desire.
* That said, we must be clear: Hamas does not want peace with Israel. Hamas wants what Iran wants: the annihilation of Israel. And Hamas is calling the shots in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (aka, Abu Mazen) is a weak figurehead right now. His Fatah/PLO organization is withering beneath him. It may not be long before it completely collapses and Hamas takes full control in the West Bank as it has in Gaza. Should Israel really be negotiating with terrorists? Should we really risk putting the Christian holy sites of Jerusalem under the control of radical Islamic jihadists. Look what's happening to Christians in Gaza. They are being attacked, harassed, persecuted and even martyred. Muslims who don't subscribe to the full Hamas agenda have been slaughtered on the streets of Gaza. Journalists are being kidnapped there. Under no circumstances should such a fanatical group of people be allowed to control the West Bank or any piece of Jerusalem. It is insane to think otherwise.
* President Bush should, therefore, take an historic trip to Israel soon and address the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. He should make clear to the Islamic world that the U.S. stands with Israel and that we will do nothing to compromise her safety or security.
* The President and Congress should also make it clear that the U.S. considers Jerusalem the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish State of Israel. We should move our Embassy there immediately. This would send a clear and powerful message to Israel's enemies that Jerusalem is not a Thanksgiving turkey to be carved up, slice by slice.
* We should recruit more people to sign Natan Sharansky's online petition to protect Jerusalem and keep it unified. See below to visit www.onejerusalem.org.
* Evangelical Christians must obey Psalm 122:6 to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem." Such prayers are needed as much as ever. The Joshua Fund is seeking to mobilize 100,000 partners around the globe to pray knowledgeably and consistently for peace in the region and to get our Flash Traffic geopolitical updates. We've gone from 3,000 to 39,000 such partners in the last year. If you know someone who would like to sign up for Flash Traffic, please email this to them and encourage them to get onboard.
* We also need to mobilize evangelical Christians to provide even more humanitarian relief supplies to poor and needy Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese, and to preposition more supplies in the region ahead of coming wars. This year, we've sent nearly $2 million worth of relief supplies into the region to care for needy Jews and Arabs, but so much more needs to be done. That's what The Joshua Fund's "Operation Epicenter" is all about. Find out more and consider getting involved at www.joshuafund.net.
-------------------------
HEADLINES TO TRACK:
* Thomas Friedman, NYT: Oasis or Mirage?
* Bush, Olmert to have private meeting today on Iran
* Russia to host next Mideast peace conference
* Reuters: Bush pushes Arabs to reach out to Israel ("Don't watch the peace train go by.")
* Reuters: Hamas slams Annapolis, vows to keep fighting Israel
* Israeli Troops Essential in West Bank: IDF Leaders
Did you know there was a group of Wahhabi Islamists that attempted to rip control of the “Great Mosque” in Mecca on November 20, 1979? The leader was a Sunni Wahhabi by the name of Juhayman al Uteybi.
Uteybi was no relation to the Saudi Royal Family. Apparently this is significant because the Saudi Royal Family of the time was attempting to liberalize the Saudi nation at the time and this Uteybi seizure of the “Great Mosque” was a Wahhabi response to the Saudi liberalization.
Let’s see, I was exactly 23 at the time. I have to be honest with you I have absolutely no recollection of that event in history. Do you?
Apparently it struck fear in the Saudi Royal Family who is supposed to be the modern protector of the Mohammedan holy city of Mecca. This Uteybi guy was so successful in seizing Mecca that the Saudi military needed help to re-take the “Great Mosque” in Mecca.
I became aware of all this through the posting of Mark A. Taylor of the ccpga Yahoo Group who discovered a book review by Thomas Lippman of a book entitled The Siege Of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam's Holiest Shrine and the Birth of Al Qaeda, by Yaroslav Trofimov.
To get a time frame in your mind Lippman points out this is a year in history that a whole lot of events of notoriety occurred:
That year began with the Iranian revolution and ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In between, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, radicalizing the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq. And the former prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was hanged by the general who overthrew him, Mohammed Zia ul-Haq - the leader who would turn the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan into a religious war that inspired zealots such as Osama bin Laden.
Here is the thing; I remember every one of the above events of history. I do not recall the siege of Mecca. There is a good reason for this.
This was humiliating for the Saudis. The Saudis asked for foreign help but not from any MUSLIM NATIONS. Indeed Jordan offered to help but the Saudis refused Jordanian help. Lippman’s book review does not go into why Jordan’s offer was refused but I can guess. The Hashemite family had been protectors of Mecca but the first Saudi king wrested the honor away from the Hashemites. The Hashemite Royal Family of Jordan claims direct descent from the founder of Mohammedanism – Mohammed. I am uncertain of the details but there has been a loose rivalry ever since.
The foreign help that came were in the guise of French Commandos who eventually entered the city forbidden to non-Muslims and gained victory. Saudi officials have refused to discuss the event in their history for years.
It was from the ashes of this “Great Mosque” siege that was broken by a non-Muslim nation that the Saudi Royal Family began to re-adopt the harsh Wahhabi ways and forsaking any thought of liberalizing Saudi society.
Lippman says the author Trofimov implies that an already breeding radical Islamism became a global radical Islamic starting point for massive transnational terrorist movements like Usama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.
I believe I have to get this book.
If there is such a thing as Moderate Mohammedanism it is in only practiced in Western style democratic nations.
At the ccpga Yahoo Group there is a huge amount of citations of non-Islamist (ergo the opposite being moderate) Mohammedans experiencing judgments from the rule of law in various Middle Eastern nations.
The post begins with a Dhimmi Watch post about a Christian woman being thrown in the slammer in Egypt for stating her religion as Christianity on her Marriage Certificate.
Evidently her father converted from Christianity to Mohammedanism briefly then converted back to Christianity. That is illegal according to the law of the land in Egypt. The father’s brief flirtation with Mohammedanism made all his children (whether they wanted to or not) legally Mohammedans. Thus the Egyptian Christian according to the law of the land was a Mohammedan. She broke the law trying to marry as a Christian.
The ccpga Post goes on with comments about the Dhimmi Watch post some of them telling accounts of other enforcement of the rule of law in Egypt.
Now if this is justice in a moderate Mohammedan society imagine the ruthlessness of Islamism.
Now imagine that Islamism is the predominant force in America and the West seeking Mohammedan converts and supporting the biggest and the newest Mosques in America and the West.
Now I am a huge believer in America’s First Amendment right that implies Freedom of Religion or philosophical conscience; however if this is the kind of rule of law moderate Mohammedans expect to be practiced in America, I am for some religious profiling to make sure Islamist teaching is NOT a right and a test to make sure a moderate Mohammedan is moderate by American Constitutional rule of law.
To ensure the prestige of Saudi involvement in Annapolis this week Israel (i.e. the Olmert government) had to agree that the entire West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the entirety of the Holy Temple Mount be on the table for consideration in the formation of a Palestine State.
Olmert might as well have hired pied pipers and lead Jews marching into the sea of oblivion.
JRH 11/25/07
Here are some not nice words from a conservative periodical about Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Jonah Goldberg lays it heavy on Huckabee.
I have to tell you though; Goldberg’s criticism of Huckabee is something that will endure him to social conservatives rather than alienate him. The real mud on Huckabee has to do with political ethics and taxes while Governor of Arkansas.
Fred Thompson is my man but if he falters through some gaffe, Huckabee will my next choice.
JRH 11/24/07
******************************
Don’t Be Scared
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee
By Jonah Goldberg
November 21, 2007, 0:00 a.m.
As the hopeless but energetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R., Tex.) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest. A GOP consultant condemns Paul’s “increasingly leftish” positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul “too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists.” Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul’s supporters and finds “an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 ‘truthers’ and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.”
For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument’s sake, let’s say they’re not. Let’s even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the Star Wars cantina, and that his top advisers have hooves instead of feet.
Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.
While many are marveling at Paul’s success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee’s story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He’s still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn’t. One small indicator of Huckabee’s relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he’s an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.
What’s so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What’s troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee’s a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do “good works” extends to using government — and your tax dollars — to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he’s on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.
Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, Paul’s dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that’s not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee — as with most politicians, alas — his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they’re the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.
In this respect, Huckabee’s philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional. This isn’t to say he — or Hillary — is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.
Indeed, Huckabee represents the latest attempt to make conservatism more popular. Contrary to the conventional belief that Republicans need to drop their opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the like in order to be popular, Huckabee understands that the unpopular stuff is the economic libertarianism: free trade and smaller government. That’s why we’re seeing a rise in economic populism on the right married to a culturally conservative populism. Huckabee is the bastard child of Lou Dobbs and Pat Robertson.
Historically, the conservative movement benefited from the tension between libertarianism and cultural traditionalism. This tension — and the effort to reconcile it under the name “fusionism” — has been mischaracterized as a battle between right-wing factions when it’s really a conflict that runs through the heart of every conservative. We all have little Mike Huckabees and Ron Pauls sitting on our shoulders. Neither is always right, but both should be listened to.
I would not vote for Paul mostly because I think his foreign policy would be disastrous (Also, he’d lose in a rout not seen since Bambi versus Godzilla). But there’s something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog. It’s even weirder because it’s probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that’s what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.
__________________
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Robert McMahon writing for the Council on Foreign Relations concludes in a recent article that the Bush Administration is modifying the Bush Doctrine. To act preemptively in international crisis is still stalwart; however the concept of exporting democratic principles is being modified. Not all cultures are amenable to receive Western style democracy when the culture is theocratic and anti-Western culturally.
This is the difficulty that has slowed American progress in Iraq (combined with utilizing political correctness as a viable option to schmooze the indigenous citizens). Thus the experience in Iraq and the current crisis existing in Pakistan – Islamists versus Mohammedan moderates (if there is such a thing) is effecting a modification of the Bush Doctrine.
That modification is a resurgence of Political Realism to a certain degree within the Bush Doctrine. Thus preemptive action to secure America’s National Interests still remains; however applying Political Realism as a measured viability in transforming a repressive regime into the infrastructure of democratic principles must weigh in to America’s National Interests. If democratic principles are rejected on a grass roots level of a culture in a nation then Political Realism options to ensure American National Interests and Security must be utilized.
The old adage power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a truism under a one man rule even if its initial inception was benevolent. In a Western Democratic Representative government that possesses immense power, the power is managed collectively via voters choosing elected officials to manage the power. The corruption aspect is more difficult to corrupt power when the infrastructure has the checks and balances of democratic principles.
Nonetheless America is a mega-super power globally which means there are regional mere super power nations that do not wish to deal with American hegemony. The principle super powers that attempt to derail American National Interests for whatever reasoned regional conflict with another National Interest are Russia, China and remarkably the collective of the European Union.
Regardless of accusations of Third World nations and Leftist influences of the mere super powers, American National Interests does not include imperialism. Imperialism implies conquest to rule foreign nations. America has never had an interest in neo-colonial imperialism since the twentieth century and very little of that thinking prior to the twentieth century. The closest America came to imperialism was the concept of Manifest Destiny, which acquired land from the east coast toward the west coast at the expense of Native Americans and Mexico.
The National Interests are the end goals of the USA. US strength gives the appearance of a global hegemony of American Empire. Since the USA has no interest in ruling other lands that is an erroneous perception. The USA has a National Interest in maintaining mega-power to meet outside security threats and the National Interest of maintaining global prosperity that affects the economy of America and the pursuit of happiness for American citizens.
The Bush Doctrine meets the parameters of America’s current National Interests. The use of preemptive military action that rocks the global boat and the exporting of an infrastructure of democratic principles which promote global coexistence are the central points of the Bush Doctrine.
Communism has been derailed as a repressive government in which democratic principles have been inculcated into a nation’s culture. That is the legacy of the Reagan Administration.
There is a new ideology threatening global peace and affecting the National Interests of America. Well new in the sense of twenty-first century, actually the ideology has been around since the seventh century. That is the terrorist principles of Theo-political Islamism or Islamofascism. Islamofascism is the fringe interpretation and enforcement of the Scriptures and Traditions related to the founder of Mohammedanism (Islam) – Mohammed. Mohammed was a cruel Arab that utilized delusional visions or manmade ideology in the wrappings of religion to carve out an empire and maintain the empire by forcing the conquered to Mohammedanism or become a sub-human in submission to the Theo-political ideology or die. This effectively maintained a platform to control large amounts of land providing wealth to the ruling elites that followed Mohammed’s demise. In Mohammedan lands this system is maintained to this day which has indoctrinated the Mohammedan follower of hateful intolerance of non-Mohammedans and cruel barbaric punishment to Mohammedans that break the cultic code. This harshness is particularly devastating toward women who do not even realize the cruelty until they become the victims breaking the medieval code (Sharia Law) wittingly or unwittingly.
Two things threaten global peace and thus include American National Interests:
1. The largest deposits of OIL that are extracted to be refined are in the Mohammedan controlled Middle East. Currently oil is the black gold energy source that powers the majority of what people use that need energy. The primary examples are automobiles, jets and military vehicles. Without refined oil the global economy could sink into a depression reminiscent of the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Western European nations and China are highly dependent on this oil. The politics of oil has influenced democratic Europeans to support Islamist causes. China has developed a huge market in military arms for oil with Middle Eastern nations; particularly rogue Islamofascist nations as Iran and Syria who in turn supply Islamofascist transnational terrorists as al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and more.
2. The second threat on American National Interests is the growing influence of Islamist-American organizations that receive and send funding to foreign Islamist terrorists or supporters of terrorism (such as Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Egyptian based Muslim Brotherhood). Currently this is a larger threat in Western Europe where secular humanism has created a huge vacuum in spiritual matters and the large populations of Mohammedans are actually filling that vacuum rather than the traditional Christian Church (Catholic or Protestant).In America there seems to be a union of religious Islamism and non-religious Secular Humanist with the mutual goal of obliterating the foundations and morality of Christianity. Islamist-Americans and foreign Islamists are infiltrating American Government and bureaucracy to attain sensitive information and deliver it to Islamist terrorist enemies of America.
Be thankful you live in America where victims are not treated as criminals and criminals receive punishment based on the rule of law rather than the whim of a Muslim judge that deliberates according to the Quran – a document of pain, suffering and murder.
In Saudi Arabia the religion of peace has convicted a nineteen year old for the crime of being a victim to a gang rape. Her original judgment was ninety lashes; however at her appeal the judgment was increased to two-hundred lashes because her supporters supplicated to the media to get her story out to the world.
I believe in Freedom of Conscience to practice or not practice any religion; however the Scriptures of Islam (Quran, Hadith, Sunna, etc) makes Islam on paper a death cult. I am certain most Mohammedans have extracted any words of peace and justice from these Scriptures; however this does not nullify the violent oriented Scriptures.
It is the violent and absurdly unjust Scriptures that Sunni and Shia Islamists adhere to.
Saudi Arabia is an oxymoron in geopolitics. Saudi Arabia as ruled by the House of Saud has become a valuable ally with America on the War on Terror and yet the school of thought that dominates Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi. It is this Wahhabism that Sunni Islamists use to justify their Jihad of terrorism against non-Mohammedans and cruel judgments as interpreted by Sharia Law.
America cannot afford to have Wahhabi Mohammedans leak into America. The initial reaction of an ingrained Freedom of Religion will allow Wahhabists to develop into a fifth column to undermine the very foundations of America.
Thanksgiving will be labeled as a discriminatory holiday for Christians violating and offending Wahhabi Mohammedans who pray toward Mecca. To be Politically Correct Mohammedan ethics could be forced to be taught our children in relating about being Thankful to God the Christians experienced on a rare occasion in which Native Americans providentially aided Christian Pilgrim survive a harsh winter. Read the Presidential Proclamations concerning Thanksgiving until Congress made the day an official American Holiday. Thanksgiving is all about Thanks to God which included the exchange of Christian Giving between people who were natural enemies.
The Mohammedan concept of Thanksgiving is convert or die.
Here are some interesting thoughts from Ted Belman of Israpundit on the insights of one of Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy advisors – Norman Podhoretz.
JRH 11/22/07
****************************
Podhoretz, like Bush, is staying the course.
By Ted Belman
November 10, 2007
Ever since being introduced to Commentary Magazine in the sixties I have been an avid reader of Commentary and fan of Norman Podhoretz. Tonight I attended a lecture given by him.
You may recall he was responsible for preparing the intellectual groundwork that enabled Ronald Reagan to win the Whitehouse. He led the battle against Oslo. Unfortunately he also supported the disengagement from Gaza.
So where is he at now aside from being appointed by Giuliani as policy advisor?
1. He believes that history will vindicate Bush much as it did Harry Truman. Truman had to fight Communism and developed the doctrine of containment. He had many detractors from such policy and lost the elections to Eisenhower who was vocally against containment but once in office, made no changes to the policy. Similarly, Podhoretz believes that the Bush Doctrine, which he identified as pre-emption militarily and democratization politically, will be continued by the next administration be it Democrat or Republican.
2. He had great praise for the American soldiers and their patriotism. He suggests that these young people are reflective of the American heartland from which they came. They and the heartland have the right stuff. He reminded us that a NY Times writer remarked, after Nixon won office much to the consternation of pundits, “I don’t know anyone who voted for him”. Hopefully the Democrats today are similarly out of touch.
3. He is very hard on Condi. He says she used to be a realist in foreign policy having been mentored by Scowcroft. Then, when she came over to the Whitehouse, she abandonned (sic) such thinking. During Bush’s first year in office, he had to endure a State Department and CIA which were openly hostile to his policies that it was their duty to uphold. He sent Condi there to whip it into line. Unfortunately it whipped her into line. Bush has absolutely no confidence that anything will come of Condi’s efforts. Now is just not the time to expect progress. He is letting her run with it expecting her and her policies to crash and burn taking the realists down with them. For him that would be a good thing. It would restore the Bush Doctrine.
4. Olmert, he says is, partly to blame because he is too eager for for (sic) a settlement. Its not just American pressure.
5. He recently wrote an article that the only thing worse than bombing Iran is not bombing Iran. He expects Bush to order an air assault before he leaves office.
5. (sic) Everyone believed that Hussein was developing WMD’s. While this was one of the reason’s (sic) for invading Iran (sic) [should read Iraq], the main reason was to start the process of democratization as a means of transforming the ME. Podhoretz and Bush both believe in the Bush doctrine.
6. He did not get a chance to comment on Bush’s relationship with the Saudis but he did comment that neither Saudi Arabia or China would bring the US down, economically, because they too would suffer.
Democratic Party Representative Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania lost a civil suit for libel to Marine Staff Sergeant Mark Wuterich who was one of the Marines that Murtha publicly proclaimed after the Haditha shoot out that was then label a massacre.
"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time." – Rep. Jack Murtha.
None of the Marines are being prosecuted for murder and two are facing Court Marshal on procedural errors. In essence not one Marine massacred anyone at this incident in Haditha, Iraq.
Do you think Captain Corruption/Doctor Cut-n-Run might consider apologizing to Marines for making such an insidious accusation? I mean Murtha is a veteran, you would think he would man up and publicly apologize.
Murtha has not made even an inkling of remorse for defaming United States Marines for something that was staged by terrorist insurgents for an eagerly waiting Mainstream Media.
Murtha is so determined not to apologize he went through the civil suit brought by Wuterich and lost. Not only has Murtha lost he is appealing on the grounds that his insidious remarks were made while he was an employee of the Federal Government. If Murtha swings an association with the Federal Government he could avoid responsibility for libel for the Federal Government cannot be sued for libel.
My God Murtha is abandoning Servicemen and veterans (of which he is one) for what? Is it because he is Leftist Democrat and is incapable to man up for admitting a mistake.
(Hat tip to Humbled Infidel)