.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, July 31, 2006

The Glory Of Israel

(sent by email - veririfed by Sr IT Consultant, ex IDF Major)

The Middle East has been growing date palms for centuries. The average tree is about 18-20 feet tall and yields about 38 pounds of dates a year. Israeli date trees are now yielding 400 pounds/year and are short enough to be harvested from the ground or a short ladder. Israel the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

AND THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND SAYS :"ISRAEL IS NOTHING BUT A S***** LITTLE COUNTRY" And what do Israel's neighbors produce and what have they achieved besides spreading terror, death and destruction? Nothing!

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: None


Saturday, July 29, 2006

USS William Jefferson Clinton - CVS1

(popular email going around the blogsphere)

The US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today. Pictured above:USS William Jefferson Clinton CVS1set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC.

The ship is the first of its kind in the Navyand is a standing legacy to President Clintonand his foresight in military budget cuts.The ship is constructed nearly entirely fromrecycled aluminum and is completely solarpowered with a top speed of .5 knots. It boastsan arsenal comprised of one F14 Tomcat orF18 Hornet aircraft which, although theycannot be launched or captured on the 40 footflight deck, but it forms a very menacing presence.
As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board.The 20 person crew is completely diversified and includes membersof all races, creeds, sex, and sexual orientation.
The ship's purpose is not defined so much as a unit of national defense - in factin times of conflict its orders are to remain in hiding in Canada,but will be used extensively for social experimentation and whateverworthless jobs the ex-commander-in-chief and his wife can think of.
General Characteristics, Clinton Class
Builder: Recycle Hawai'i, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
Power Plant: Solar Cells, one big shaft
Length: overall: 40 feet (1219.2 centimeters)
Flight Deck Width: 30 feet (914.4 centimeters)
Beam: Secret No details (?? centimeters)
Displacement: Approx. 7,000 tons full loadSpeed: .5+ knots (1+ miles per hour)
Aircraft: One big one!
Cost: about $1 billion each Italeri - 05533

This information is from DOD - 2005 (unclassified)
Caveats: (none)


Patriot Post - The Conservative Journal of Record

Take a look at this site and add it to your email distribution list.

I have never seen it on anyone elses blog and discovered it when one of its articles was sent to me in a distribution list.

You can sign-up for a three-times a week email, or just hit the site anytime to pick up its latest article. Anyone interested in leading conservative thought about Liberty and American values should subscribe to these emails.


Friday, July 28, 2006

Religion Of Peace - Pictures From London

(sent to me by ex IDF buddy now living in US - verified by Snopes - funny how these pics never end up in the US MSM, nor are the Pro-Hezbollocks rallies in the US shown on TV)

See all the pictures at the link above.

Some Religion Of Peace


Thursday, July 27, 2006

Operation Just Say Thanks

Friends, thought that you might want to take a moment and participate.

If you go to the web site
http://www.letssaythanks.com/ you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a soldier that is currently serving in Iraq . You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services. It is FREE and it only takes a second. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the soldiers received a bunch of these? I sent mine, now you send one too!

PS: At the site, click home & you will see the cards available.

Thanks to my friend who knows what letters from home mean during times of war!


Za...Za...Za (Go, Go, Go)...Opps...Wait A Minute!

Why in the name of God would the Israeli Cabinet slow down the offensive against Hezbollah?

Perhaps the Israeli Cabinet is confident that the IAF can conclude the destruction of Hezbollah within a few weeks, succumbing to internal political pressure from within it parties on a comprehensive strategy to deal with terror not involving a deeper push into Lebannon.

Nothing but the utter destruction of Hezbollah is the answer. And it seems that the Israeli Cabinet would rather deal with ending hostilities on a diplomatic level. The latest Stratfor intelligence report supports this assertion:

...it strikes us as exceedingly peculiar that Israel, a country with a heavy track record of fighting experience despite its youth, is so intent on promoting the idea that its defense and political figures are running in circles trying to revise their military strategy while Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is brimming with confidence in his regular video appearances. It is simply not intelligent war strategy to expose your weaknesses in the midst of a major war campaign -- unless your objective is to spread disinformation to prepare for a larger surprise.

Which is exactly what I think the IDF is doing!

Shema Israel


Tuesday, July 25, 2006

The Difference Between Israel And Its Enemies

Got this at American And Proud Of It!


Saturday, July 22, 2006

Are You A Democrat, Republican or Southerner?

(sent by email)

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock> the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:

Southerner's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading)

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"
Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"


Friday, July 21, 2006

A Pilot & Soldier's Chance Meeting

Click on this link to read an inspirational story all Vets will appreciate. Send it along to all you know.


Pacifists Versus Peace - Thomas Sowell


One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements — that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia — not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places — but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.


The Ground War has Begun - Breaking Intel From Stratfor

The ground war has begun. Several Israeli brigades now appear to be operating between the Lebanese border and the Litani River. According to reports, Hezbollah forces are dispersed in multiple bunker complexes and are launching rockets from these and other locations.

Hezbollah's strategy appears to be threefold. First, force Israel into costly attacks against prepared fortifications. Second, draw Israeli troops as deeply into Lebanon as possible, forcing them to fight on extended supply lines. Third, move into an Iraqi-style insurgency from which Israel -- out of fear of a resumption of rocket attacks -- cannot withdraw, but which the Israelis also cannot endure because of extended long-term casualties. This appears to have been a carefully planned strategy, built around a threat to Israeli cities that Israel can't afford. The war has begun at Hezbollah's time and choosing.

Israel is caught between three strategic imperatives. First, it must end the threat to Israeli cities, which must involve the destruction of Hezbollah's launch capabilities south of the Litani River. Second, it must try to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, which means it must move into the Bekaa Valley and as far as the southern suburbs of Beirut. Third, it must do so in such a way that it is not dragged into a long-term, unsustainable occupation against a capable insurgency.

The Israelis have by now thought the problem through. They don't like operational compromises -- preferring highly focused solutions at the center of gravity of an enemy. Hezbollah has tried to deny Israel a center of gravity and may have succeeded, forcing Israel into a compromise position. Repeated assaults against prepared positions are simply not something the Israelis can do, because they cannot afford casualties. They always have preferred mobile encirclement or attacks at the center of gravity of a defensive position. But at this moment, viewed from the outside, this is not an option.

An extended engagement in southern Lebanon is the least likely path, in our opinion.
More likely -- and this is a guess -- is a five-part strategy:
1. Insert airmobile and airborne forces north of the Litani to seal the rear of Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. Apply air power and engineering forces to reduce the fortifications, and infantry to attack forces not in fortified positions. Bottle them up, and systematically reduce the force with limited exposure to the attackers.
2. Secure roads along the eastern flank for an armored thrust deep into the Bekaa Valley to engage the main Hezbollah force and infrastructure there. This would involve a move from Qiryat Shimona north into the Bekaa, bypassing the Litani to the west, and would probably require sending airmobile and special forces to secure the high ground. It also would leave the right flank exposed to Syria.
3. Use air power and special forces to undermine Hezbollah capabilities in the southern Beirut area. The Israelis would consider a move into this area after roads through southern Lebanon are cleared and Bekaa relatively secured, moving into the area, only if absolutely necessary, on two axes of attack.
4. Having defeated Hezbollah in detail, withdraw under a political settlement shifting defense responsibility to the Lebanese government.
5. Do all of this while the United States is still able to provide top cover against diplomatic initiatives that will create an increasingly difficult international environment.

There can be many variations on this theme, but these elements are inevitable:
1. Hezbollah cannot be defeated without entering the Bekaa Valley, at the very least.
2. At some point, resistance in southern Lebanon must be dealt with, regardless of the cost.
3. Rocket attacks against northern Israel and even Tel Aviv must be accepted while the campaign unfolds.
4. The real challenge will come when Israel tries to withdraw.

No. 4 is the real challenge. Destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure does not mean annihilation of the force. If Israel withdraws, Hezbollah or a successor organization will regroup. If Israel remains, it can wind up in the position the United States is in Iraq. This is exactly what Hezbollah wants. So, Israel can buy time, or Israel can occupy and pay the cost. One or the other.

Hezbollah has dealt Israel a difficult hand. It has thought through the battle problem as well as the political dimension carefully. Somewhere in this, there has been either an Israeli intelligence failure or a political failure to listen to intelligence. Hezbollah's capabilities have posed a problem for Israel that allowed Hezbollah to start a war at a time and in a way of its choosing. The inquest will come later in Israel. And Hezbollah will likely be shattered regardless of its planning. The correlation of forces does not favor it. But if it forces Israel not only to defeat its main force but also to occupy, Hezbollah will have achieved its goals.

Shema Israel


Thursday, July 20, 2006

AM Random Thoughts

From FNC: The U.N.'s human rights chief is looking into whether Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Gaza constitute war crimes. Louise Arbour called the "indiscriminate shelling" of cities and civilian sites unacceptable — and says the scale of the killings in the region "could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved."

Oh Yeah…prosecuted by whom, s***head? Why isn’t Bolton stomping on this guys guts? Why isn’t the UN investigating the crimes of the PLO since it’s now a legit, formally elected government, for the ‘crimes’ it has committed in just the last three weeks agaisnt innocent Israeli civilians. And while you're at it Frog-P****, why not investigate those Hezbollah fellas, too! I want to see Bolton pull a Khrushchev, take off his shoe, and bang it on the desk anytime some sheep pimp rag-head from any third world s*** hole says anything even remotely disparaging about the US, Israel and our allies. Pack your stuff and get the hell out of the UN. Good luck in Beirut, Louisa!

USA TODAY: The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the
Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God." The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167.

167 Reps voted against this. Why? I want all 167 to get on TV and tell the nation why they voted against this resolution. And what about the people whom you represent? This is a campaign issue GRANDE for November. I swear to God that if my Rep voted against this, I would do everything in my power to make sure that SOB is tossed on out of the House of Reprehensible on his GD communist ear!

From FNC: Re: Evacuees form Beirut- "I'm getting angrier and angrier. The American government seems to have money for everything else except its citizens," said Joseph Rizzuto, a high school teacher in Queens, who was trying to get his daughter, Paola Rizzuto, 22, home. She was in Beirut with her boyfriend, Rafael Greenblatt, on a month long visit at the American University in Beirut.

How dare you slap the Marines and other civilians who got you out of that hell hole in the face - you sorry sack of ungrateful crap. Who is using the family brain cell in Queens? It ain’t you! When did you think that sending your daughter to the most violent section of land on the planet was a good idea? This clown reminds me of those criminal Holloway parents who allowed their 18 year old daughter to go out of the country to drink and make out with Dutch predators. Remember what happened - Mrs. Twitty Holloway got mad at the US for not helping them find their murdered daughter. So it’s the US’s fault and GWB in particular, that you’re an idiot, Mr Rizzuto? (God I hope you’re not related to Phil). Now I understand the whole mid-east situation. Thanks.


Understanding The Temper Of The Times - Cal Thomas

Understanding the temper of the times
By Cal Thomas

Israel's enemies are all of the same piece by whatever name they call themselves. There are no "moderates," at least none who have the power to make peace. The idea of a "two-state solution" with a Palestinian state living alongside Israel was always a pipe dream concocted by secular Westerners. They accept a false doctrine that says the enemies of Israel (and America) can be placated by people they regard as "infidels."

In chronicling the number of armed warriors who joined David at Hebron, there is this exquisite line: "All these men understood the temper of the times and knew the best course for Israel to take." (1 Chronicles 12:32, New Living Translation)

For roughly 4,000 years there has been "unrest" and war in the Middle East. It possibly began when the ancient Israelites drove out the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites. Modern Israel is attempting to drive out Hezbollah-ites, Hamas-ites, Islamic Jihad-ites and the rest.

Nothing has changed, except Israel may be in greater peril today than at any time in its modern history. That is because Israel, often under pressure from its "ally" the United States, has bought into the fiction that says giving Israel's declared enemies the land they demand will cause those enemies to suddenly beat their swords into ploughshares and study war no more. The more Israel gives, the more her enemies feel emboldened to take away. It's called appeasement and it never works.

When Israel pulled out of Gaza, I predicted terrorists would move in and begin firing rockets into Israeli towns. It doesn't take someone with the vision of a biblical prophet to forecast the obvious. The rockets hitting Israel from Lebanon are coming from territory previously occupied by the Israel Defense Forces, which the IDF had entered in response to earlier shelling. Too many, whether in Europe, the worthless U.N., or the U.S. State Department — even many Israelis — do not understand the temper of the times.

Israel's enemies are all of the same piece by whatever name they call themselves. There are no "moderates," at least none who have the power to make peace. The idea of a "two-state solution" with a Palestinian state living alongside Israel was always a pipe dream concocted by secular Westerners. They accept a false doctrine that says the enemies of Israel (and America) can be placated by people they regard as "infidels."

Hezbollah runs a television station in Lebanon. A visit to the Middle East Media Research Institute's Website (Memritv.org) found a number of interesting clips. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah says, "We prefer death and martyrdom over American guarantees." Nasrallah survived an Israeli air strike on his headquarters in Southern Lebanon. He declared "all-out war" against Israel. There's a film for children that speaks of Jews turning into apes and pigs. Lebanese students at a Hezbollah TV symposium say, "we should fight the Jews and burn them like Hitler. Israel should be wiped off the map." The head of "Radio Islam" in Sweden said on Hezbollah TV, "The Muslims' war is with the Jews." In Europe, Islamic influence is growing due to the spinelessness of government leaders.

There is another danger and that is the fantasy that elections will produce leaders within Islamic fanaticism who will be committed to real democracy, pluralism and tolerance. Last Friday, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote: "What we are seeing in Iraq, the Palestinian territories and Lebanon is an effort by Islamist parties to use elections to pursue their long-term aim of Islamizing the Arab-Muslim world. This is not a conflict about Palestinian or Lebanese prisoners in Israel. This is a power struggle within Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq over who will call the shots in their newly elected 'democratic' governments and whether they will be real democracies."

It's not only about "Islamizing" the Arab-Muslim world, but the entire world.

The turmoil in the Middle East will not stay in the Middle East. This is a world war and the first shots have already been fired in Europe and America. In an online story the London Daily Telegraph subsequently removed "for legal reasons," Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warned that British Muslims could soon form a state within Britain. Dr. Sookhdeo, a former Muslim, said, "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law."

The latest upheaval in the Middle East may subside but the objectives of those whose aim is Israel's destruction will not. The enemies of Israel, Europe and America believe this is all-out war. The question is, do we understand the temper of the times?


Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The Reagan Myth

The Gipper's record is being distorted to make President Bush look bad.
BY FRED BARNESMonday, July 17, 2006 12:01 a.m.

I was recently asked about President Bush's chances of a political resurgence. Might Mr. Bush be able to recover as strongly as President Reagan did from a slump in his second term in the 1980s? My response was, Reagan recovery? What Reagan recovery?

Though he continued his ultimately successful fight to win the Cold War, Reagan achieved nothing new--practically nothing--after the Iran-contra scandal broke in 1986. His presidency was crippled. The Republicans had lost the Senate. His nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 was defeated, partly because of feeble White House support. His veto of a transportation bill was overridden.

The question was innocent enough, but it reflected a broader pattern of misrepresentation of Ronald Reagan's record in the White House that has become not only widespread but widely accepted. Reagan was, I believe, one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, but many of the things that both liberals and conservatives now credit to his presidency simply never were. And there's a political purpose behind this Reagan revisionism. He is cited mostly to criticize Mr. Bush and congressional Republicans for falling short of some mythical Reagan standard.

Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president. When Reagan died in 2004, John Kerry recalled having admired his political skills and liked him personally. "I had quite a few meetings with him," Mr. Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."

Of course, that wasn't Mr. Kerry's take on Reagan during his presidency: In 1988, he condemned the "moral darkness of the Reagan-Bush administration." A chief complaint of liberals and the media in those days was that Mr. Reagan was a "detached" president, not one easily accessible to Democratic members of Congress or anyone outside his inner circle of aides. But Reagan had to talk to Democrats on occasion since they controlled at least half of Congress. Mr. Bush rarely consults them for the simple reason that Republicans run all of Capitol Hill; so he talks frequently with Republican congressional leaders.

Liberals today talk about Reagan as if the hallmark of his administration was a lack of partisanship--again in contrast with Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry noted in 2004 that Mr. Reagan "taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship." Mr. Bush, naturally, is the bitter partisan. Of course that's what liberals then thought of Reagan--and they were partially right: While never bitter, Reagan was in fact a partisan Republican.

On foreign policy, some liberals peddle the notion that Reagan wasn't the hardliner he might have seemed. Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, has argued that Reagan, having won the Cold War, was ready to rely on international organizations to police the world. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is impugned as the enemy of the U.N. and multilateralism.

Reagan a moderate in foreign affairs? It strains credulity to imagine the president--who supported wars of national liberation in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan, who bombed Libya to punish Gadhafi, who defiantly installed Pershing missiles in Europe, who invaded Grenada--as anything but a hardliner. He was a hawk for whom defeating the Soviet Union was the essential priority.

It's on foreign policy that liberals and conservatives find common cause. Patrick Buchanan, rehearsing the pieties of the political left, argues that Mr. Bush has turned the world against America. The "endless bellicosity" of Mr. Bush and his neoconservative advisers, he recently argued, "has produced nothing but ill will against us. This was surely not the way of the tough but gracious and genial Ronald Reagan."

Of all people, Mr. Buchanan ought to know better, having served as Reagan's communications director from 1984 to 1986. Reagan generated massive antiwar and anti-American demonstrations around the world, far larger and more numerous protests than those Mr. Bush has occasioned. He famously denounced the Soviet "evil empire" headed for "the ash-heap of history." He was treated by the press as a cowboy warmonger, just as Mr. Bush has been. Ill will? Reagan produced plenty--all in a noble cause.

Conservatives attack Mr. Bush most vehemently on excessive government spending, and there they have a point. He could have been more frugal, despite the exigent circumstances, especially in his first term. But it's also on the spending issue that the Reagan myth--Reagan as the relentless swashbuckler against spending--is most pronounced. He won an estimated $35 billion in spending cuts in 1981, his first year in office. After that, spending soared, so much so that his budget director David Stockman, who found himself on the losing end of spending arguments, wrote a White House memoir with the subtitle, "Why the Reagan Revolution Failed."

With Reagan in the White House, spending reached 23.5% of GDP in 1984, the peak year of the military buildup. Under Mr. Bush, the top spending year is 2005 at 20.1% of GDP, though it is expected to rise as high as 20.7% this year, driven upward by Iraq and hurricane relief.

Mr. Reagan was a small government conservative, but he found it impossible to govern that way. He made tradeoffs. He gave up the fight to curb domestic spending in exchange for congressional approval of increased defense spending. He cut taxes deeply but signed three smaller tax hikes. Rather than try to reform Social Security, he agreed to increase payroll taxes.
The myth would have it that Reagan was tireless in shrinking the size of government, a weak partisan always ready to deal with Democrats, and not the hardliner we thought he was. The opposite is true. Reagan compromised, as even the most conservative politicians often do, to save his political strength for what mattered most--defeating the Soviet empire and keeping taxes low. Today, the latter still remains imperative, and the former has been superseded by a faceless death cult. We can't understand George Bush if we distort the real Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and author of "Rebel in Chief" (Crown Forum, 2006). Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Israel's Imperfect Options - Stratfor Special Report

We have been following developments in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict closely for several days. At this writing, the air-rocket war continues to rage, but the Israeli ground offensive that we would have expected by now has not yet been launched. There is some speculation that it will not be launched -- that a combination of air operations and a diplomatic process will be sufficient, from Israel's point of view, to negate the need for a ground attack.

While the various processes grind their way along, it is time to review the situation.

The first point to bear in mind is that the crisis did not truly begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The kidnappings presented a serious problem for Israel, but could not, by themselves, define the geopolitical issue. That definition came when Hezbollah rockets struck Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, on July 13. There were also claims coming from Hezbollah, and confirmed by Israeli officials, that Hezbollah had missiles available that could reach Tel Aviv. Israel's population is concentrated in the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor and in the Tel Aviv-Haifa corridor. In effect, Hezbollah had attained the ability to strike at the Israeli heartland. Hezbollah has been hitting the northern part of this heartland, as well as pounding Israel's northern frontier.

The capture of two soldiers posed a symbolic challenge to Israel, but the rocket attacks posed a direct geopolitical threat. Israel had substantial room for maneuver regarding the captured troops. The threat to the heartland, however, could not be evaded. To the extent possible, Israel had to stop the missile attacks. As important, it also had to eliminate Hezbollah's ability to resume such attacks. The Israelis can tolerate these strikes for a certain period of time, so long as the outcome is a final cessation. What was not an option for Israel was to engage in temporary solutions that would allow Hezbollah to attack the heartland regularly, at its discretion. Hezbollah has posed a problem that Israel cannot choose to ignore.

Israel's Imperfect Options
Israel has three tools at its disposal.

One is diplomacy. There is a general consensus, even among many in Lebanon and Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, that Hezbollah's actions have been unreasonable and undesirable. It would not be too difficult, we would think, to create a circumstance in which the two Israeli soldiers are released, a cease-fire is declared and an international monitoring team inserted into the region. That is what the French, for example, have proposed, and what is being discussed now.

The problem with this option, from the Israeli point of view, is that it puts off a solution to the deeper problem posed by Hezbollah to a later day -- one that might not be so advantageous for Israel. Israel has a built-in distrust of international peacekeeping operations -- dating back to May 1967, when the United Nations, without consulting Israel, withdrew peacekeepers from Sinai at the behest of the Egyptians. This cultural bias against peacekeepers is reinforced by the fact that Hezbollah could rearm itself behind the peacekeeping shield. Whether the peacekeepers would conduct operations to prevent this -- in effect, carrying out counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon in support of Israel's goals -- is doubtful in the extreme. Instead, the presence of a peacekeeping force might facilitate a more substantial Hezbollah capability down the road. This is, at least, how the Israelis think of it, and their position therefore has been consistent: The outcome of this conflict must be the destruction of Hezbollah, or at least its offensive capability, for an extended period of time.

That leads to Israel's other two options, both of which would be carried out with military force.

The first step has been the Israeli air campaign. All modern military operations by advanced powers begin with air campaigns. Their purpose is to prepare the battlefield for land attack and, in some cases, to force a political settlement. In Kosovo, for example, air attacks alone were sufficient to convince the Yugoslav government to concede its control over Kosovo. In the case of Desert Storm, the air campaign came in preparation for a ground attack.

Air forces around the world like to make extravagant claims as to what air power can do; the Israeli air force is no exception. However, while an air campaign can severely hamper Hezbollah -- particularly by attacking launch sites and storage facilities, and generally making launches difficult -- the likelihood that air power can, by itself, eliminate the threat is unlikely.

To reiterate a key point, the nature of the threat is continual attacks on Israel's geopolitical heartland. Now, it is possible that Israeli air operations could force some sort of political settlement, but again, as with the diplomatic option, it is difficult to conceive of a political settlement that guarantees what Israel wants. Even a Hezbollah withdrawal from southern Lebanon, coupled with occupation of the area by the Lebanese army, does not solve the problem. This solution assumes that the Lebanese army has the will and ability to prevent Hezbollah's return. For this to work, the Lebanese army would have to agree to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure, and Hezbollah would have to agree to let them do so -- and Israel would have to place its faith in both Hezbollah and the Lebanese army and government. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the Israelis can reach a satisfactory political settlement. The air campaign as a political tool suffers from the same defect as the diplomatic track: It is of value only if Israel is prepared to accept a solution that does not guarantee a complete end to the threat posed by Hezbollah -- and potentially might leave the Israelis in a worse position, militarily, down the road.

There is an additional political fact and problem. Obviously, any threat to a heartland generates a unique political response. In Israel, the Olmert government is heir to Ariel Sharon's quest for an imposed political settlement on the Palestinians. This is a strategy opposed from the right, by Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud, who argues that any settlement that leaves military options in the hands of the Palestinians is unsustainable. The Hezbollah issue is the Palestinian issue on steroids. If Olmert were to agree to any settlement that does not include dismantling Hezbollah's capabilities or that relies on a third party to police that dismantling, Netanyahu would attack hard -- and we suspect that enough of Olmert's coalition would defect to force a political crisis in Israel.There has been no attack from Netanyahu, however.

The Logic for a Ground Offensive
From this, we must conclude that the air campaign comes in preparation for what is Israel's third option: a ground offensive. If Israel's goal is the destruction of Hezbollah's ability to strike the Israeli heartland for an extended period of time, the only way to hope to achieve this is from the ground. Those conducting air operations can see only what can be seen from the air. And even if they can hit whatever they see, eliminating the threat requires a ground presence. Therefore, we continue to believe that logic and evidence argue for an Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon -- and that any possible diplomatic or political resolution, however tempting, ultimately could not satisfy Israel's security requirements.

When we say invasion, we do not mean occupation. Israel has had its fill of counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon. This would be a raid in force. A large force would push into Lebanon, with two missions: the destruction of Hezbollah as an army and the location and destruction of all heavy weaponry. This solution would not be permanent, but it would achieve two ends. First, it would mean that for Hezbollah or a successor organization to regroup would take years. Second, it would leave no third party shielding Hezbollah while it regrouped. This strategy gives Israel what it wants now and options in the future.

Three more Israeli battalions were mobilized today. The United States, which certainly knows Israel's intentions, is now extracting U.S. citizens from Beirut. Israeli aircraft are working over Hezbollah positions in the Bekaa Valley. The United States, Israel's patron, is clearly in favor of the destruction of Hezbollah and there is no broad-based opposition to an Israeli offensive internationally. It is a window of opportunity that Israel will not pass up. The very thing that makes diplomatic solutions possible also makes invasion, for the Israelis, attractive.

Our analysis therefore runs as follows:
1. Only an invasion on the ground can provide Israel with the solution it wants to the threat Hezbollah has posed.
2. A diplomatic or political settlement not only cannot guarantee this outcome, but it would make later Israeli responses to Hezbollah even more difficult. Israel has more room for maneuver internationally now than it will have later.
3. The internal politics of Israel will make it very difficult for Olmert to come out of this with a less-than-definitive outcome.
4. Israel will seek to deal with Hezbollah without undertaking counterinsurgency operations in the long term. This means attack, sterilization of the threat, and withdrawal.

There has been much speculation about diplomatic solutions, the possibility that there will not be an invasion, and so on. But when we ignore the rhetoric and look at the chessboard, it is difficult to see how this conflict ends without some action on the ground. When we examine the behavior of the Israelis, they are taking the steps that would be needed for an invasion. Obviously we could be wrong, and clearly the invasion has not come at the earliest possible moment, as we had predicted. Nevertheless, when we step through the logic, we keep coming out with the same answer: invasion.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.


Monday, July 17, 2006


Come see this post. The article was written by a conservative blogger.

Please pass this to all you know who proudly served in Viet Nam. As I posted in the comment section of that blog, I hope and pray that this nation honors and venerates those who serve today in the GWOT, unlike what many in this nation did to the veterans who served with honor and distinction in Viet Nam. When thirty years pass after the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the only thing that should be said of anyone who served in the GWOT is that they did their duty, they served with honor, and many paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can continue to be free.


Friday, July 14, 2006

Happy Bastille Day

Click this link for a Bastille Day Celebration



Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Want To Kill Castro? Build A Wal Mart At Gitmo

If the US is going to shut down Gitmo and cave to pressure of America Haters here and abroad, then let’s improve the real value of that property by building a WalMart.

The Cubans are starving for commercial goods. They need everything a WalMart has to offer. And once Cubans begin to get a taste of commercialism, Castro’s Communism is extinguished as an idea and maybe he will too. Hey, if a WalMart is opened, Castro can be a greeter:
¿Recepción al centro comercial de Wal Mart, cómo puedo ayudarte? (Welcome to WalMart...how may I help you?)

Construction should begin the moment we release the first Tallywhacker back into the wild.


Thursday, July 06, 2006

Calderon Ganando!

Las Elecciones Mexicanas Encima!

El triunfo de los conservadores! Calderon Ganando!

Ahora, GWB no tendra que quiza besar el fondo de este hombre como el hizo con el zorro de Vicente Fox.

Y puede ser que apenas poder poner para arriba una cerca sin el gobierno en Mexico DF que se quejaban por ella.

Viva La Libertad En Mexico

Basic Translation For The Uneducated -
Calderon Won! GWB won't have to kiss his butt like he did with V Fox! And now we can build a fence without anyone in Mexico City going nuts!

Long Live Liberty in Mexico


Israeli forces take over abandoned settlements in northern Gaza

Read. Now the IDF should seal the area, mine everything it can and leave. Or better yet, establish a forward operational post in re-occupied gaza.

Shema Israel!


Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Forgotten Sacrifice - John Duresky Washington Post

Now that the 4th of July has passed and we all get back to our routines of life, take a moment to read the article at this link.


Democrats Equate Terrorists And You

I don't get a chance to listen to Limbaugh as much as I would like. But a friend sent me this transcript from June 29 about what Nancy Pelosi had to say about the SC's Gitmo ruling.

RUSH: All right, Miss America, Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House of Representatives has issued a statement on the Supreme Court, Guantanamo military commissions decision today, and I read from the statement now. I've not seen it, I don't know what this is going to say. I just literally ripped it off the printer and I don't want you to tell me, Snerdley, I want to read this and learn it with the audience as one. "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the US Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates US law and the Geneva Conventions."

Quote: "Today the Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was the founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."


The woman is deranged.

Do you realize she has just equated our enemy with you, the United States citizens? This is unbelievable. "All are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph of rule of law." All are entitled? You know, actually, bring it on. Ted Kennedy just had a statement. I didn't read it. It was on television, but you knew we had a caller who called this today, the Democrats are going to step in it, they're going to paint a big bull's-eye on themselves. They're going to tell the American people, "This is great. This is good. Bush overstepped! The rule of law is what counts here, and these terrorists need to be given the full force and protection of the US Constitution."

If bin Laden is sick in the cave wherever he is, this is some of the best medicine he could get, seeing his allies in the United States Congress and the Senate on the Democratic side lining up against his enemy, lining up with him. This is absolutely stupid. This is just stupid. "Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law." Can you imagine FDR being faced with this or Abraham Lincoln? Baby. Okay. You know, Koko, I got an idea for you for the website. I want you to grab the 19 terrorists that flew the four airplanes on 9/11, and I want to you put their pictures up there, starting with Mohammed Atta and all these others, and then underneath those pictures I want that statement from Nancy Pelosi.

"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law." Put Zarqawi's picture up there with them. Especially the first paragraph of her statement. I want this as big as you can make it. The 19 terrorists and these guys at Club Gitmo and all over are from the same family, and here is the Democrat minority leader in the House of Representatives standing up for them and their rights against the United States, her own government. Wow, this is... I mean, look, there's a part of me that loves this because these people are typecasting themselves.

They are identifying themselves. In a political sense, folks, this is fabulous, but there's much more than politics here. There is an actual war on terror; US national security is at stake here, preventing other terrorist attacks, like are happening all over the world, by the way, suicide bombers, homicide bombers, whatever you want to call them, these things are happening all over the world. We are not immune to this anymore, and these people like Nancy Pelosi want to... You know, this is Bill Clinton's war. This is how he was fighting it, and look where it got us. They call this George Bush's war on terrorism. This is Bill Clinton's war that Bush is having to fight because Clinton didn't take it on, and we're trying to clean up a bunch of messes after the passage of a bunch of years where nothing was done. Rule of law? For crying out loud, the rule of law? I mentioned that Andy McCarthy had a piece at National Review Online, and he wrote this piece before the decision of the Supreme Court came out today, and this is what he said. "Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda — which no President, no Senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance." That's a pretty good way of putting this.

The Supreme Court's just conferred the rights under the Geneva Convention to people that are not a party to it. They don't qualify, and the Supreme Court has basically just made a treaty with Al-Qaeda, the president didn't do it, the Senate didn't do it, and the American people certainly wouldn't vote for it, and yet the Supreme Court did it. This is what is meant by runaway courts, out of control courts. I gotta read to you what Mark Levin wrote on his blog, he's got a blog at National Review Online, about three days ago. He said, "I am getting a bad feeling about the outcome of the Hamdan decision relating to military commissions, which is about to be handed down by the Supreme Court. I hope I am wrong, but I fear since its 2004 Rasul and Hamdi decisions - granting unlawful enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay the right to file habeas corpus petitions in civilian courts - the justices no longer feel limited by the Constitution or precedent and will intervene further in the executive's war-related policies. If so, it was predictable." And it has been predictable, and it's exactly what's happened. I don't care who it is, the commander-in-chief, the Supreme Court has just usurped commander-in-chief authority. Quick call before we go to the break, this is Steve in Dayton, Ohio. Hi, Steve, nice to have you with us.

And she could be the next speaker of the House


Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Two World Wars and One World Cup - Doo Dah, Doo Dah!

Sing the title of this post to the tune of the Camptown Ladies.

The Brits did and it's one of the best 'get in your face/head' songs I have heard in years. In fact, I think it's so powerful, that when the Brits were singing it in spite of their embarassing departure from the World Cup, it got into the heads of the German players and Bosche press so much that Germany could not beat the Italians today.

...Two World Wars and One World Cup - Doo Dah...Doo Dah!

The Eyeties kicked some serious Uber Bums today.

Viva Italia!


Monday, July 03, 2006

July 4th Reflections

(submitted by email)
We wish you a blessed and wonderful Fourth of July as we celebrate one of the most important holidays in the United States.We have many pages for your patriotic reflections, history to read, sing alongs with music, and more..much more... ENJOY!!

Patriotic Songs Songs with music and words so you can join in a family sing-a-long~

Johnny Cash Patriotic Songs His political statements in song, Ragged Old Flag...and more~

The Pledge of Allegiance by Red Skelton Red is going to explain the true meaning of each word. Listen to him speaking carefully, as it'll deeply touch your heart.~

John Wayne Talks about America He became the very embodiment of American values and patriotic pride. Listen, he will make you proud.~

The Declaration of Independence Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Find out here.~

The Pledge of Allegiance Facts about our Pledge of Allegiance~

She's a Grand Ole Flag Facts about our flag.~

Displaying Old Glory Do you know what days to display our flag and the proper rules for flying and handling the flag? ~

President Reagan's Remarks at the U.S. Ranger Monument Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day Invasion,.Speech delivered at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc, France, veterans of the Normandy Invasion, and others, had assembled for the ceremony.


WWII Posters Honoring the New York Times


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?