At the EU summit currently in progress, leaders are pledging to sign an agreement that would cut greenhouse emissions by 20% within 13 years, by 2020. This would apparently show Europe's commitment to stopping global warming, which is apparently caused by my SUV. There is a fight about it of course - some countries don't want the resolution to be binding, and there are several odd conditions applied as well.

Al Gore was over there today, explaining that the EU has an "absolutely critical leadership role to play." Gore also said that, "I'm trying to get my country to change its policies but in the meantime the European Union is absolutely key to helping the world make the changes it must."

Now, if you want to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn't effect my wallet by doing so, then I say go for it. You can do whatever you want. If the EU wants to press these kinds of hardships on its citizens, then it can very well go ahead and do so (though I think it's foolish). When these ideas begin to affect my pocketbook however, that is when I begin to get extremely upset.

Furthermore, this idea that global warming is caused by carbon emissions has some gaping holes, and some things I feel it ignores. I'm not a trained scientist, and I'm certainly no expert in weather patterns or climatology. Yet I do have what I consider to be a good degree of logic and common sense, and through that I have deduced the following.

1) Either the earth is warming, or it is not. If it is not, then we have no problem. Let's assume, for the sake of argument that it is.

2) Something must be causing that warming. The possibilities I've heard are A) cycles, or B) Carbon emissions. The third, which I feel is over looked I shall postulate as #3.

3) There is a big, gigantic, super humongous, huge, flaming, super-heated, hot, ball of gas not far from our location. Said big, gigantic, super humongous, huge, flaming, super-heated, hot, ball of gas is our heat source. Thus it follows that when our heat source goes up or down, the earth which depends on this ball of gas, shall experience temperature fluctuations.

I'm not a scientist, but that seems much more logical. Especially when you consider the following.

4) There was an ice age long before SUV's.

5) Said age ended long before there were SUV's.

6) After Carbon emissions surged in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, when people drove big cars with leaded gasoline that just spit crap into the atmosphere, the global temperature actually went down. Only now is it starting to rise, after we have taken measures to cut back our carbon emissions from those of the 1950's levels.

7) If you take steps to make something better, that thing should not get worse.

So I don't really understand how carbon emissions are destroying our environment. I'm not sure anything is destroying our environment, but if something is, we should stop trying to kick people out of their cars, and start figuring out solutions to the problem.

Several towns in Vermont decided to vote on a measure crafted by Burlington, Vermont attorney James Leas, which calls for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. The measure accuses Bush of misleading the nation into a war, and Dick Cheney of condoning torture against the Geneva Conventions, an accusation which it also levels at the President.

Seven towns in Vermont refused to vote on the measure, but of the ones that did, only Clarendon Vermont voted the measure down, not supporting this ridiculous attempt to impeach the president.

I don't need to get into why Impeachment would be a bad idea, it's really self explanatory. It's an interesting story though. That's why Clarendon, Vermont wins the City of the Day award - which is handed out somewhat daily to somewhat newsworthy cities that do somewhat decent things sometimes.

Iran is at it's war of words with the west again, this time claiming once again that their nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes, and that they do not intend to create nuclear weapons. They have accused the "misinformed" United States of spreading "poisonous food" against the Iranian government, and have claimed that the United States and Israel are threatening nuclear attacks against them.

That's just the problem if you ask me. We AREN'T threating attacks against them, and that is why they continue to defy the world. They are in violation of I can't remember how many UNSC resolutions, they are in violation of who-knows-how-many laws, and they persist in antagonizing the United States. Somebody needs to put them in their place, before they go from being a moderately powerful annoyance, into a nuclear armed nightmare.

Iran cannot be allowed to continue to defy the world like this. If they are, a showdown will be inevitable, and this time it will be with nuclear weapons at our disposal. Am I the only person here who realizes the problem we are creating, the grave we are digging ourselves into? AM I the only person who realizes that a nuclear war is the last thing this world needs?

The threat from Iran is THAT intensive, and is THAT great, and if we don't do something about it, will be THAT much closer to becoming a nuclear threat. Deal with Iran NOW.

In a very interesting story coming out of the great nation of France, the "French Constitutional Council" has approved a law that will make it a criminal offense for any citizen to film or broadcast any acts of violence, unless they are a professional journalist. This law could end up leading to the arrest and imprisonment of eyewitnesses who fil acts of police violence, or French citizens who operate blogs. The decision came on the anniversary of the Rodney King affair in Los Angeles, which was filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on March 3, 1991.

Doing something similar in France today, could lead to 5 years in prison and a nearly 100,000 fine to the filmer, which would in many cases be harsher than the penalty for commiting the violent act. In an attempt to create more officially certified journalists, the government has proposed a type of certification program, for mobile-phone operators, ISP's, Webmasters, and blog hosters that would identify them as "government-approved sources of information," provided they adhere to government rules and regulations regarding content.

Wow... just... wow. This reeks of heavy censorship. The only way you can film any act of violence, is with a government "permit." Furthermore, you must follow government rules when publishing or filming said acts - which is outright censorship in my book.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make when I say that Socialism inevitably leads to tyranny and oppression - though not always intentionally. First, it is censoring acts of violence. Next, it will be anything 'intolerable.' Then, anything involving the government. Then anything at all. If laws like this are not removed from the French books immediately, I fear a (much further) decline of the French nation. The french nation is becoming more and more oppressive. If I lived in France now, I would leave immediately - there's really no reason to stay. The country is being overrun with hostile immigrants, and will likely become the Islamic Republic of France one day soon. The government is so big it can do nothing, the economy is in shambles, the military is weak, and the government is now overreaching, and beginning to censor people.

Outrage.

According to IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran has continued to advance its uranium enrichment activities in spite of a "harshly worded" UN Security Council resolution from December of 2006. Baradei was to discuss this report, which was issued on February 22, in a meeting with the IAEA Board of Governors yesterday afternoon.

Baradei reports that Tehran has not suspended its programs, and furthermore that Iran, while providing some very marginal cooperation, has not allowed the IAEA to make any realistic progress in determining the reasons for Iran's uranium enrichment.

Iran on the other hand, has taken multiple measures to ensure that the IAEA's investigations meet as many roadblocks as possible. At the Natanz facility, which Iran has claimed will eventually house thousands of centrifuges - enough to produce dozens of nuclear weapons per year - Iran has banned IAEA monitored cameras that would keep track of enrichment activities, and has banned inspectors from the premises.

Is anybody still operating under the assumption that Iran is really after nuclear technology for purely peaceful purposes? I have no doubt Iran will use some of that nuclear technology for energy - besides Kim Jong Il, who wouldn't? - but that is not the primary focus of Iranian uranium enrichment. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and they want to use them to "wipe Israel off the map," in the words of their "esteemed" leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What I'm sick and tired of, are UN security council resolutions that are just like Democratic non-binding resolutions. A lot of harsh words, but words that accomplish - and threaten to accomplish - nothing at all. "We're really upset with what you've done," is what UNSC resolutions come down to. We need some crippling sanctions on Iran, and we need them quickly. The only alternative is to destroy Iran in open warfare, if we are to prevent them from attaining nuclear weapons.

Yet these crippling sanctions won't be an option forever. Indeed, they will soon cease to be an option, if Israeli intelligence (traditionally extremely accurate) is to be believed. Once Iran crosses a certain threshold, nothing that we or anybody else does to them will matter, short of actually bombing their nuclear facilities. This may be what is necessary, but preventing Iran from attaining the ultimate weapons of destruction is far more important than any negative effects that may result from it.

Iran is dangerous, and must be dealt with before it is too late.

Scooter Libby, once the closest advisor to President Cheney, has been convicted of lying and obstructing an investigation, and has been convicted on four out of five counts in his trial. Though he could face up to 25 years in prison, federal sentencing guidelines will likely prescribe 1 to 3 years in prison for Scooter Libby.

I have not yet been convinced that this man did anything wrong. From what I gather, he is claiming his alleged lying was a faulty memory, about events that took place nearly 5 years ago. He claims he first learned about the Valerie Plame case from Tim Russert, who claims they never discussed the plame case. This is the egregious crime for which Scooter Libby has been sentenced.

So it comes down to a he-said, he-said, between Libby and Russert. Now, to make my point - please, tell me when you first heard about the Valerie plame case. What day was it, and who told you? If you read it in a news story, what paper? What internet site? What television reporter was on TV at the time, and what station did you first hear about this story from?

I haven't the foggiest idea to the answer of any of these questions - and neither does anybody else. So why exactly does Scooter Libby have to go to jail because he can't remember events of 5 years ago? Half the people in Washington can't remember their campaign promises - how can any of them be expected to remember events 5 years ago? How can any PERSON be expected to remember something like that?

Everyone remembers major events - 9/11, where they were when Kennedy died, etc. Yet the trivial things are forgotten with the passing of time, especially 5 years worth of it. At the time, the Plame ordeal was a trivial and very minor thing in Washington circles - I doubt Libby would have thought twice about it. So, it is understandable that he would forget a trivial conversation of 5 years ago.

Furthermore, Tim Russert's memory may be faulty, and Libby may be right. Regardless of who is correct and who is incorrect, it does not matter. Faulty memory should not be cause to go to jail, when the mistake was honest, and minor.

Or have I missed the ball completely here?

After a long Hiatus, I have returned to update this blog regularly. Thanks to those of you who have continued to read my now out-of-date postings. Rest assured that things have settled down, and that I am now going to update regularly. To show my earnest, I will in the following minutes update this blog multiple times, putting several new stories out there for you all to read.

Thanks.

Though the Democrats ran on a platform of "increased oversight," the agenda they selled to the American people, their true agenda now that they have attained power has been more clearly revealed. They want to quickly withdraw from Iraq, curl up into a tiny ball, stick their heads in the sand, and pretend there aren't people who wish to decapitate us out there.

This is especially true after the President's proposal. At one time or another, almost every leading Democrat called for an increase in the number of troops in Iraq. Now that Bush has caved, and authorized 21,500 more troops in active-duty, the Democrats are opposed to it (because Bush isn't). What exactly the now upset Democrats plan to do about it, besides bloviate, is beyond me, but they are trying.

California Representative (a misnomer - if this woman represents the people of California then I fear for the entire west coast) Lynn Woolsey, the same Lynn Woolsey who authored a resolution for total withdrawal of US forces two years ago, has said that "Ours is now the mainstream position."

I hate to break it to you Ms. Woolsey, but the day the MoveOn.Org opinion is the majority opinion of America is the day I move to Canada (not really). That liberals are so far removed from Public opinion that they believe their ridiculous, far-left policies are popular is both amusing, disgusting, and saddening. The Congressional "Out of Iraq" caucus, founded by another California "representative" Maxine Waters has over 80 members.

Bush is fighting back, thankfully. He is defending his proposal justly. I think the proposal has a lot going for it, and is likely to work if it is given a chance. Furthermore, it makes political sense for the Democrats to let Bush try his plan - if it doesn't work, they have more fodder for '08. The, give him enough rope and he'll hang himself strategy doesn't work with the Democrats anymore now that they are in power. Why? Because they realize that Bush's plan may SUCCEED, and that then it would be on THEM for not supporting the plan. They cannot allow this, and so they are going to push for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

"Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success," President Bush said in his weekly radio address. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible."

Bush is right. If the Democrats cannot come up with reasonable alternatives that will achieve victory in Iraq, then there is no reason to listen to them at all. The President has done his job. He has come up with a plan designed to achieve victory in this troublesome war. The Democrats have done nothing but whine and complain every step of the way. Perhaps Bush's ideas haven't worked, and there have obviously been mistakes. But at least Bush did SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for most of the Democrats (now-Independent Joe Liberman being perhaps the sole exception).

In the last week, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate respectively, announced they will introduce resolutions condemning the President's plan, even though both of them have previously supported troop increases as early as late-December 06. The brilliant Senator Ted Kennedy introduced a bill that would require the president to seek Congressional approval for any troop increases (nevermind that this is a blatant disregard for the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war, but the President the power to run the war once it has been declared).

On Friday, "Represenative" John Murtha announced that he would use his position as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee to try and block further funding for troop increases in Iraq. Yet this man is supposed to care about the military, and is supposed to be a friend of the troops. Not reinforcing soldiers on the battlefield in a time of war is a terrible military tactic. Bush is trying to fix it, and this supposed "friend" of the military opposes it.

"There definitely is a feeling of liberation," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. "The question now is not if, but how we get out of Iraq and when. The whole nature of the debate has changed."

I pray to God, that for the sake of our military, our country, our defense, our citizens, and the world, that Mr. Conyers is wrong. We cannot afford to lose this war, and if Democrats cut funding for the troops - effectively pulling the rug out from under the soldiers, not only will they be seen as anti-military elitists (which they are), but as people who do not care about America (also true).

If Democrats cut funding, then Bush will have no choice but to cave. A war cannot continue without funds. Yet should this happen, Bush should make sure that the blame clearly falls on Congress. He should also make it known when the resulting genocide takes place in Iraq, when Civil War breaks out and hundreds of thousands die, that it was the Democrats who allowed this to happen.

If we pull out, Bush's point will be illustrated. Iraq is not a civil war, because the United States is there preventing one. If we leave, there will be no restrictions on the terrorists, and they will wage an all-out civil war for control of the country. This will result in the deaths of thousands (maybe even millions) of people, most of them innocents.

We need to implement Bush's plan, and we need to implement it immediately, because I fear we are running out of time. The Democrats are becoming increasingly hostile to the President, openly opposing him at every turn. They are already threatening to cut funding for the war, as a Democratic Congress did once before to another Republican President, the late Gerald Ford. Nothing has changed, and the resulting Cambodian genocide will be repeated in Iraq should we pull out now. That the Democrats don't understand this is scary, and disturbing.

We must win and we must do so now. The opportunity cannot be lost or it will not appear again for a very, very long time. Win and do it now. We CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE.

Republicans are destroying the economy.

In a related story, the DOW reached an all time high today, the price of gas is at record lows, and the Federal defecit is the lowest it has been in the last four years.

If we are to believe Democrats, then we must ignore facts. Democrats have been claiming for years that Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" hurt the middle class and the working class, and are slowly destroying our economy. Yet since these tax cuts were implemented, I have seen only a slow, steady rise in our economy, even after two wars and the attacks of September 11th.

The Democrats are going to raise taxes. They have made their anti-capitalist agenda clear, and this will only hurt our economy. Why the simple principle of capitalism is frequently misunderstood by Democrats is something I cannot comprehend. If capitalism is left mostly to its own devices, it succeeds. The more you hamper capitalism, the worse it becomes, and the less effective it is. Raising taxes will ALWAYS hamper capitalism, no matter which way you look at it.

This is outrageous. A Pizza shop in Texas, called Pizza Patron, has announced that it will accept Pesos as payment for its Pizzas. The restaurants are usually located in Hispanic neighborhoods, and all managers must be bilingual to converse with the customers. This I do not have a problem with per se, though that it is necessary at all is a bit disturbing.

What I'm peeved about, is that they accept Pesos. Even spanish-speaking people in America use the dollar. How else would they get pesos? Nobody walks around carrying Pesos, so this seems foolish. The only reason to do this, is because the restaurant is in the south, near the border, and close to floods of illegal Mexican immigrants who enter this country each day.

According to reports by the company, they have received death threats after announcing this particular plan, along with many other angry emails. I don't approve of sending death threats - it's against the law first, and secondly it makes you look stupid - but I'm not surprised there's a local outrage about this. I'd be upset if that happened here in Minnesota, or down south in Texas.

It's not just border towns either. Pizza Patron's in Denver, 700 miles from the nearest border, and Dallas, 400 miles from the nearest border, now accept pesos from their customers. Perhaps there is a decent case to be made for accepting pesos at the border. Those immigrants who enter legally, or even those who are just visiting may not want to exchange something. They can already shop at WalMart in the border area, and pay in pesos. And here in Minnesota, particularly northern Minnesota, some businesses will accept Canadian currency. This makes a degree of sense, because not every person (legal or illegal) in the area will have the right currency, and exchanging it takes time.

But Denver? Dallas? These don't make any sense. Yes, they are cities with large Hispanic populations, but they are so far removed from the border that people living there aren't likely to have any pesos anyway. Unless they deliberately go and exchange their dollars for Pesos somewhere, they are likely to have American currency, just like everyone else. Even as a business practice, this seems if not foolish, then unnecessary. It may prove hurtful, if customers grow angry and stop buying their Pizza's.

Part of being an American is assimilating into our culture and our society, at least partially. Paying for American goods with foreign currency is not the best way to begin that process of assimilation. There is also the added fact that this will make it easier for illegals. They will now be able to buy things with the little money they have after they illegally cross the border. To be sure, if I've just crossed miles of desert, the first thing on my mind wouldn't be buying a Pizza, but the ability to do so is still there.

I think it is ridiculous that restaurants in Denver and Dallas are accepting currency of a foreign nation. There's no law against it (that I know of), but I think it's a stupid idea nonetheless. I see no practical reason, business or otherwise, for accepting Pesos in a pizza parlor, in Denver. Even with a large Hispanic population, the concentration of Pesos is likely minute, less than 0.01% I'd guess. It is simply not needed.

This is a contrast of the proposals of the Iraq Study Group, and President Bush, now that the two plans have been fully revealed and we understand what each propose. I'll let the points speak for themselves, because it is easy to see and understand that the proposals of the Bush Administration far surpass the ridiculous advice of the Iraq Study Group (that knows less about military affairs then I do).

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

A comparison of President Bush's new plan for Iraq with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group:

___

TROOPS

Bush: Send another 21,500 troops to help squelch the violence in Baghdad and the Anbar province. Embed more troops with Iraqi forces as advisers. No timetable for withdrawal of troops.

Iraq Study Group: Temporarily increase by about 16,000 the number of troops devoted to training and equipping the Iraqi forces. Plan a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops, with a goal of bringing the bulk home by early 2008.

___

DIPLOMACY

Bush: Do not engage in talks with Iran and Syria; intensify U.S. efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq. Urge Arab states to support the Iraqi government. Increase U.S. military presence in the region and keep the United Nations active in Iraq.

Iraq Study Group: Launch a diplomatic offensive to quickly engage Syria, Iran and the leaders of insurgents in negotiations on Iraq's future. Work toward resolving the long-standing Arab-Israeli conflict to ease hostility throughout the Middle East.

___

IRAQIS' ROLE

Bush: Iraqis should dedicate $10 billion for reconstruction efforts, deliver three brigades for Baghdad effort, and crack down on all insurgents and extremists, regardless of sect or religion. Sets benchmarks for Iraqis: complete oil profit-sharing law, reintegrate Baathists into the government, hold provincial elections, transfer security to Iraqi forces. But doesn't tie U.S. support to specific goals.

Iraq Study Group: The report called for similar benchmarks for security, government and reconciliation progress, and said the U.S. should make it clear that American support will be reduced if these milestones are not met.

___

IRAQ ECONOMY

Bush: Spend $814 million to double the number of U.S. civilian workers helping coordinate reconstruction and to provide quick-response funds for local rebuilding projects; spend another $350 million on a program that gives field commanders money to solve local problems and quickly improve Iraqis' lives.

Iraq Study Group: The U.S. should provide $5 billion a year in economic aid and work faster to implement assistance programs, giving U.S. officials more flexibility to quickly fund or eliminate programs. It encouraged greater international investment in Iraq's oil industry, its management and its security.

Well, it's what we've been waiting for (I guess). The President's big speech has finally come and gone, and now we can finally analyze what he actually said, instead of what analysts have been CLAIMING he'd be saying since the speech was announced shortly after the Democratic victories in the 2006 elections. I thought I'd share my analysis on the finer points of Bush's plan, as well as some of the weaker ones.

First, I like that the president was brutally honest on may occassions. Bush acknowledged that he made mistakes in 2006 by not ordering a troop buildup as violence was increasing. He also took the blame for the problems in Iraq, something this administration has had trouble doing recently. It is nice to see that the Administration is finally willing to win this war, instead of just stand around.

One part I particularly liked, was the point which Bush said it was a mistake to allow the Iraqis to restrict US forces. This is something I've been arguing about for a long time. It is absolutely senseless to let another country control our armed forces, and it is especially important in this war, since al-Maliki has virtually prevented us from attacking Moqtada al-Sadr and his band of goons. He says he has talked to Nouri al-Maliki, and the Prime Minister has assured him that "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." I hope he's right, for the sake of this war, and for the sake of this country.

Another good point for Bush, was when he outlined what will happen if we pull out of Iraq before we complete the mission - if we cut and run as the Democrats want us to do. Justification for the war has been severely lacking, as has discussions of the consequences of leaving the job unfinished. Says Bush, "Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American People." This is golden, because Conservatives have been spreading this same message for a long time. It's a good message, but it needs to come from the President. These are the consequences should we fail, and we must not fail.

"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad." Bush said. This is another good point, though I wish he'd realized it a bit sooner. He doesn't have a lot more time left before the patience of the American people runs out. Even conservatives are beginning to turn against the war, because they continue to see nothing being accomplished. Bush and al-Maliki better hurry.

Finally, we get to the meat of the speech, the proposals. It was good of Bush to identify the problems, something that has been missing at the top levels of government, and it was certainly good to outline the consequences of failure. He proposes adding 20,000 troops to Baghdad, to assist 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades in quelling the violence in Baghdad. This is the part of the proposal that has been discussed so much recently, and that is causing heated debate.

Democrats do not like the plan, because it calls for an escalation in the war, which they are "fundamentally" opposed to. Truthfully, I'm not a big fan of the proposal either, because I believe we should have won this war already. That said, we are in a mess now, and it must be changed. If 20,000 additional American soldiers are going to do the job, then we must utilize what we can in order to quell the violence and end this bloody war with an American victory.

In response to concerns this plan would not work, Bush addressed these concerns in his speech. "Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared."

This is important, because this IS why previous operations have failed. We move the terrorists out, and they just come back once we leave. If we can secure the entire city of Baghdad, violence will begin to decline almost immediately, until we can find and root out the few remaining terrorists.

"I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."

Excellent. It is about time. We don't have to set a withdrawl date, because that would embolden and empower our enemies. But we must put constant pressure on the Iraqi government to get done what it must to end the violence, or the reality is that we must leave, tragic though it may be.

Bush goes on to speak of extra-military ways in which he is working to improve the Iraq situation. First, he says that the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. They will also pass laws giving all Iraqi's a share in the oil revenues. Bush says that the Iraqi government must begin to give a better life to its people, or they will lose their support for the government. This includes all people, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish.

Troops in the Anbar province - headquarters for Al Qaeda's Iraq division - will increase by 4000 according to Bush's proposal, in an effort to permanently end the violence in the most violent area outside of the capital. This may work, and I hope it does because Al Qaeda simply must be crushed. There is no reason why we shouldn't destroy them - we even know where they are. The time has more than come. It is time we take out Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I have to quote a few longer passages of the speech verbatim, because they are so important to understanding the speech, and understanding the mission that we are (hopefully) going to complete with this proposal.

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Excellent. We must stop Iran and Syria from fomenting violence in Iraq. Most of the Shia militias get their marching orders from Iran or Syria, as well as weapons, arms, and information that traverse these countries. US and Iraqi forces have (for some reason) been unable to secure the border and prevent the terrorists from coming through. As a result, violence has increased. It is excellent that President Bush addressed this, and it is excellent that he has a plan to do something about it.

"We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

EXCELLENT. Finally, there is a threat from the United States to the government of Iran. I have (if you've read this blog, you'd know) advocated such a thing for quite some time. We cannot count on the United Nations to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and we cannot count on the UN to get Iran to stop fomenting violence in Iraq and around the Middle East. We must do it ourselves. On one end, we secure the Iraqi border, and prevent Iranians and Syrians from coming over and messing things up.

On the other, we deploy carrier strike groups armed and ready to attack Iran should they go too far (though I contend they have already, and have been continuously doing so since 1979 when they kidnapped our hostages). This may be the decisive action needed to prevent Iran from attaining technology that could cause an apocalypse. This may finally reign in the rogue nation, if we back up our threats with actions when they refuse to comply.

Though the parts about what is to be done in Iraq is important, this last section was to me the most important. Once Iraq is finished - for better or worse - there are other fish in the ocean of terrorism, most notably Iran. Iran will not go away, and cannot be ignored. It must be dealt with now, before it gets nuclear weapons, or they will use them to destroy the United States and Israel.

Iran must realize that the United States is not joking around. We mean what we say, and we say that Iran shall not have nuclear weapons. An additional strike group in the region will greatly increase our threatening power, which we must utilize to the utmost if we are to stop Iran from blowing up the entire region.

Iran must be reigned in and made to understand that they can no longer simply do as they wish. If they continue to do so, there will be consequences. While the rest of the speech is dedicated to solving the problems in Iraq, this portion of the speech is dedicated to the greater war we are fighting, a war I think people tend to forget sometimes.

We are not simply fighting in Iraq. We are fighting islamofascists around the globe, in almost every country on Earth including our own. These people and their hateful ideology want to kill every last one of us - men, women, and children - because we are "infidels" not worth living. These people are all over, not just in Iraq. Once we have finished the Iraq mission, these people will still exist, they will continue to be a threat, and they will not be destroyed unless we vigorously go after them.

This portion of the speech has the greatest, and longest lasting effects of all the portions of the speech, because it outlines future US strategy for combatting terror. Many have been claming that Iran was the key target all along, but that Iraq proved to be a bit more than the Bush Administration bargained for. I would agree, and say that the defeat of the Iranian government is the ultimate goal in this war. Iran spreads and controls much of the terrorism that is spread through this world, and by cutting off the head, the limbs are much more likely to fall. With Iran out of the way, going after individual sects of islamofascists will be much easier. Particularly since we will no longer have the threat of a rogue nation with an insane leader controlling the most destructive objects in human history - atom bombs.

This is not a surprising story, though it is an interesting one. The Democrats have long claimed that the wealthiest people in America need to pay more taxes. This is despite the fact that the top 2% of the income-earners in America pay roughly 60% of the taxes. The Democrats claim that they don't pay enough, and need to pay more taxes to help fund many Democrat pet projects.

My question is, when is raising taxes - on ANYBODY - a good idea? I fail to see the Democratic logic here, that robbing people from more of their money will result in economic gain. The government does not invest money and fuel the economy. Or rather, they do in some ways, but not as well as the solo investor can. If you leave people to their own devices, let them invest their money in the way they want to, the economy will grow - which will allow the government to collect more in taxes.

The way you raise revenue by tax, if you want to, is not to raise taxes on high income-earners. They pay enough tax already, enough that any further increase in their taxes would have little effect on government revenue. You lower taxes on everybody, and allow them to fuel the economy by purchasing goods and services.

The result is that more money will be floating around, and people will become wealthier - and thus pay more taxes. Simple capitalist economics shows that raising taxes will ultimately decrease revenue, and this has been proven time and again in our own government, when taxes went up. Yet the Democrats seem to think that this time, it will be different. This time, if they can push the wealthy just hard enough, government revenue will increase.

I think its simple: Raising taxes is NEVER a good idea, REGARDLESS who the increase is on, be it the lower class, the middle class, or the upper class. It does not matter. Raising taxes decreases revenue, dampens the booming economy, and causes a lot of hassle for a lot of people (have you TRIED to decipher the Tax Code yet this year? Only 3 months left!)

Among the promises made by Democrats, both before and after the 2006 elections, was a promise to increase the Congressional work week from 4 days to 5, meeting at 6:30 pm Monday night, and being finished with its weekly business by 2:00 pm Friday afternoon (though as any average American can tell you, this is far from a full week of work).

Steny Hoyer, House majority leader, claimed that all members of the US House would be expected to attend sessions 5 days a week. Yet in the plan released earlier this weekend, outlining the schedule for the Democratic controlled House's first full week in session, boldy claims that Monday, "The House is not in session."

Capitol sources claim that the House is taking Monday off because of the championship football game between Ohio State and the University of Florida. This to me, seems just a bit ridiculous. Representatives come from all over, not just Florida and Ohio. While I'm anxious to watch the game, and I'm sure it will be a good one, this doesn't mean that I expect my elected representatives to take an entire day off to watch a college football game.

I could even perhaps understand giving Ohio and Florida representatives the day off. Yet the entire house? Is this really a legitimate reason to stop government? Even for one day? I doubt it. The Democrats promised to clean up Washington, and to make the government more responsive to the people. Whether they can do it or not remains to be seen, but they are not starting out good.

The "5 day work week" which amounts to little more than 3 average days of work (24 - 26 hours) has already been proven a farce. Next week is Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, so Congress will not be in session again (this is actually a legitimate excuse).

So when exactly are they going to start getting all this stuff they planned done?

Never.

I wrote this essay while I was in a thinking mood. The essay is about the Iraq War, through the context of Vietnam. It will attempt to show that Iraq is becoming more and more like Vietnam every month, but not for the reasons you expect.

1) It is not the fault of the soldiers, or the commanders, who across the board do an excellent job.

2) It is not because either the Vietnam War, or the Iraq war, is unwinnable. They are.

3) It is not because of an anti-War media, or any other form of anti-War movement.

4) It IS because the politicians do not know how to prosecute a war properly, and did not learn the necessary lessons during the Vietnam War.

This may (again) put me on the lunatic fringe. Sorry if this gets a bit long, but I have not posted in awhile and I am good and ready to vent for a bit. Just bear with me, because I think all of you - leftists, as well as conservatives like me - will find my post at least interesting, if not entirely agreeable.

I begin with a bit of history, concerning the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had been fought on a large scale since 1965. It would continue to be fought on a large scale for 7 years, until the last major battle in 1972. Yes, the war was fought longer with limited involvement, but the number of troops in 1963 (16,000), compared with the number in 1965 (nearly 450,000) easily shows when wide-scale US involvement began. This is undisputed, but is necessary to explain the historical context from which I base this entire post - and most importantly, the argument contained therein.

It is widely shown that presidents (since the Korean War in 1950-1953) have a limit on the amount of deaths they can have allowed, after which the American people will turn against the war. This number is approximately 15,000 deaths. This was prophesized well before Vietnam, but Johnson's generals reminded him of that fact right after Tonkin, when ground forces began invading. Many of his top commanders told him that in order to successfully win the Vietnam War, two things need to happen. The American people needed to keep faith in the war effort and in the government, and the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong must be killed because they are our enemies.

This 15,000-death limit was true. The American people supported the war in a great deal until mid to late 1967, the point when casualties reached 15,000. After this, the war went to hell in a hen basket, and the American people lost almost all support for the war. Again, this point is undisputed, but provides a general (and important) historical context from which to understand my argument. It also is interesting when we examine the Iraq war, and find that we are still some 12,000-odd deaths away from total withdrawal of support (though because of other exacerbating factors, this number will likely be done away with in favor of a much smaller number).

The anti-war crowd during Vietnam was an amalgamation of many different groups. First (and most publicly), you have the hippies, the counter-culture, and the students and radical leftists, who were against the war because they consider themselves - falsely I might add - as pacifists or communist sympathizers (or just like to complain about US "imperialism.") Despite what many claim, this group had little to no power - in fact, they actually turned off many moderate Americans who were starting to lose support for the war.

The second, and most notable group, was the moderates in America. These people supported the war initially - through fear of communist aggression, which I would argue was a founded (and proven) fear, though this is beyond the scope of this post - and began to lose support as casualties mounted and the Tet offensive showed that the government wasn't telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." These people supported the wars goals generally, but when things started turning ugly, decided that, though noble, the goals were not worth the hassles it was causing back at home. This movement had influence in the 1968 elections, and is largely what Nixon used to gain election (and again in 1972).

The final, and the one that is most relevant here today, is the conservative crowd that began to turn against the war. Conservatives supported both the wars goals, and the wars objectives. They feared the spread of communism, and did not want to give the Soviets a victory in the hellhole that is Indochina (rightly, I would argue). What the conservatives were upset about was the PROSECUTION of the war, which they felt was being run by a bunch of idiots who did not have the guts, or the willpower to fight the war as it should be fought.

This was led by a man named William F. Buckley Jr. (Bill Buckley). He wrote an editorial for the National Review in 1969, entitled "Go all out or get the hell out." It was about the Vietnam War, and explained why the United States should use every weapon we had in our arsenal - up to and possibly including tactical nukes - to destroy the Viet Minh and Viet Cong, or leave because casualties were mounting. It was an important turning point, because it was one of the first illustrated casesd of a conservative turning against the war, not for moral reasons, but because they were sick of accomplishing nothing.

What Buckley's main point was, is that sitting around and "staying the course," as President Bush has put it before, accomplishes nothing except costing America the "most valuable commodity she has, the American soldier." Wars are not won by standing around. The difference between World War I and World War II proves this point. During WWI, the armies stood around and were in a stalemate for 3.5 years. During WWII, Hitler's Blitzkrieg overran Europe in a matter of months. That is, they overran Western Europe. Eastern Europe was another story. Hitler made many advances while he was still operating under Blitzkrieg. When winter came, and the sieges began, this mobile war was abandoned in favor of a more WWI-style operation. As a result, a stalemate ensued for nearly 3 years, during which millions died.

The prevailing ideology of war amongst the two most important Vietnam presidents - Johnson and Nixon - was that the US should "match" their opponent blow for blow - and hence begin a war of attrition. What Nixon and Johnson did not count on was that the North Vietnamese did not want to compromise. They had been revolutionaries their entire lives, and were not going to suddenly stop. Thus merely trying to "wait out" the enemy, as Johnson and Nixon tried to do, would be ultimately unsuccessful, and would lead to the further loss of American lives.

You cannot secure victory in any war, let alone a guerilla war, by matching your opponent. You must use overpowering force - almost everything at your disposal - to go in, defeat the enemy, and win the war. The mistake of Johnson and Nixon was that they tried to fight a war in which the North Vietnamese lost. They did not try to fight a war that the United States would WIN. And therein lays the problems of Vietnam and - through simple analysis - the problems with the Iraq war today, a topic I will explore in depth later.

Yet during Vietnam, Johnson would send 500,000 soldiers to Vietnam, and then not allow them to shoot at targets. They could not bomb VC targets in South Vietnam, and could not blast the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and Laos - which they were using to move goods into South Vietnam (SV). Nixon eventually authorized the bombing of these two countries - but only in a limited scale, only if it were "light bombing," and only if Nixon personally approved the targets (not likely). By this point (1970/1971), it was too late to make a difference, and actually proved counter-intuitive as it turned more American's against the war. Indeed, the "do not bomb" list given to pilots was longer than the "bomb" list of targets. The arbitrary rules the politicians put on the army and their commanders led to confusion, loss of life, and an inability by the soldiers to do their job - win the war.

What Buckley, and eventually many other conservatives would come to understand, is that the Vietnam War could not be won after 5 years of fighting. By 1970, it was too late. Public opinion was solidly against the war (though for various reasons), and the effect of wide-scale total war would be severely dampened at such late date. Furthermore, fighting a limited war was worthless because it was only getting more American's killed, and it was not killing the enemy fast enough to warrant continued stay. Additionally, it was too late to begin a total war, because the stamina to do so did not exist as it had at the beginning of the war.

General Westmoreland asked for 200,000 more troops, and Buckley said they should be denied to him. Buckley's point was that there were already plenty of troops. Furthermore, US Airpower was so far advanced that the Vietnamese could put little or no challenge to it under many circumstances. There were enough men and material in Vietnam to get the job done, the problem was the politicians (and to a lesser extent, some of the generals) WOULD NOT DO THE JOB.

Adding 200,000 to the existing 550,000 in 1969 would have made 750,000 targets for the VC to shoot at. Since casualties were already high, and soldiers were not allowed to fight like proper soldiers, this would only create more targets and stem further casualties. Buckley's point was that this is an endless cycle that ends in defeat for the United States, weakening of our world power and prestige, as well as our government, and will contribute to the advancement and increased power of our enemies.

Buckley was right. We did not add the troops, but we did not change the policy either. What happened? We lost. Ho Chi Minh took over both halves of Vietnam, and combined them into a communist dictatorship that regularly subjugates its citizens. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge showed up in Cambodia, and killed everything that moved. The Soviets, through the rest of the 70's and the early 80's saw themselves put in a new position of power in Southeast Asia as well as the rest of the world. The United States saw itself weakened, some effects of which still linger to this day (check up on the "Vietnam Syndrome" that affects our politicians even today).

It is necessary now to examine precisely how the Vietnam War was lost. I believe, as the evidence suggests, that the politicians share almost all of the blame. It was because of their restrictions on the military, their misunderstanding of the nature of the war, and their poor strategic decisions (as well as micromanagement of the war) that the soldiers in Vietnam could not do what they were trained to do - kill the enemy and win the war. They did not bring Vietnam to its knees, as they should have in the early stages of the war - to set the stage for things to come. The Christmas bombing of North Vietnam proved that wide-scale bombing leads to defeat of the North Vietnamese. Yet this was undertook at such a late date that the political will to maintain the bombing was not there, forcing the operation to a halt. The NV's were almost ready to give in, and nearly told us so during negotiations. If such operations had been undertaken in the first years of the war, it would have ended much quicker.

Thus, the loss for the war can be attributed to three factors, ranked in order of importance.

1) The inability by the politicians to wage a total war against the enemy, destroy him, and fight for Victory.

2) The decision by the politicians to wage a limited war.

3) The inability of the politicians to understand how the war should be fought.

4) The inability of the politicians to keep the American people informed of developments in Vietnam, and to explain the stakes and the situation (think FDR and "Fireside chats."

The parallels to our current conflict - Iraq - should seem obvious at this point. Before I continue with the meat and the crux of my argument, let me first explain that I was for the war in its initial phases. I was for the war then, and I am still for the war. I support the goals we need to achieve, and I believe they are necessary if we want to avert further - and much more deadly - conflict in the future. Yet I do not support the handling of this war by the government, because they have shown they are unable to get the job done, which is the essence of my argument today. I also am very frustrated that the politicians learned nothing from Vietnam. Vietnam could have been a victory, if the politicians controlling the Army wished to FIGHT for victory. They did not fight for victory, and instead fought to make the enemy lose, a self-defeating strategy that will not work (particularly in the case of guerilla warfare).

First, the war is quickly approaching the 5 year (of sustained involvement) mark, which Vietnam reached in 1969/1970. Casualties in Vietnam were mounting, as are casualties in Iraq. (Taking into account the scale of involvement, casualties in Iraq are currently at 2%, whereas in Vietnam, casualties were 11%. This however does not take into account the fact that the Iraq war is still ongoing). It was at this point that most of the legitimacy of the Vietnam War was lost on the American people. Moreover, it will be the point from which the United States loses its remaining support for the Iraq war. The polls, I believe, show that most people disapprove of Bush's handling of the war (rightly so). Yet it does not show that most people think the war is WRONG. They approve of the goals, yet do not like how those goals are being achieved (or not achieved as the case may be).

The second parallel is the strategy and incompetence of our top leadership. The plan in Iraq was "Shock & Awe." This was a good idea (in Vietnam too), but the politicians (as expected) did not have the guts or willpower to carry out what they said. Yes, we shocked and awed the Iraq standing ARMY - Saddam's Republican guard and the rest. Yet we did not shock and awe the terrorists - our real enemies, and the far greater threat in the area. They were there, but we failed in our attempt to subjugate and destroy them immediately - something that is a NECESSITY if we are to win this war. Now we have to deal with daily violence, sectarian violence, and an almost-civil-war in Iraq with our soldiers caught in the crossfire.

After the invasion, our president continually told us to stay the course. This is as casualties were mounting, and the WMD were not found. Why President Bush ever bothered with WMD in the first place is beyond me. It is a pointless issue, and is beyond the topic of this post (I will stipulate on this. Bush was stupid). Is it not understandable why people slowly began to lose support for the war? They did not see anything being accomplished. Note that I too think the WMD were in Iraq, and that they were just sent to Syria (as Saddam's generals have publicly testified to), but it was stupid of Bush to rest the crux of the invasion argument on WMD.

Yes, there were some major accomplishments. The capture of Saddam, the death of Al-Zarqawi, the first, second, and third Iraqi elections etc. Yet these did not offset the growing strife about rising casualties. People (myself included) began wondering why the war was not being won, and why it was not being fought, as it should. Furthermore, to those who kept a watchful eye (myself included) it was clear that "staying the course" and "shock and awe" had some serious problems - mainly that the government wasn't able to carry out what it needed to do in order to win. Winning is not impossible. It is difficult (particularly against terrorist guerillas) but not impossible. It requires vigilance, and the persistent attack on terrorist strongholds. It requires massive, wide-scale bombing of suspected terrorist hideouts, and quick infiltration of any perceived threat. It requires the neutralization of as many terrorists as possible as quickly as possible. Anything less will only serve to foster the "insurgency".

The final parallel is the call by the politicians for more troops. Westmoreland and Johnson were calling for more troops. Nixon vetoed this rightly, but Johnson would have granted it (he said as much) if he had won the election. President Bush is likely going to start calling for 20,000 - 50,000 more troops in Iraq (and many Democrats support him, as do the Republicans). They should be denied to Bush, just as they were denied to Westmoreland. I believe Bush has enough troops to get the job done, if he has the willpower and the knowledge to do so. Yet I do not think he does, and as a result, Iraq is headed down the same path as Vietnam was a generation ago.

We need now, to reconsider the advice of Buckley. It was not heeded during Vietnam - a conflict with so many parallels - good and bad - to today's conflict. What happened? His predictions came unmistakably true, and still hurt us to this day (as Buckley predicted). I am not claiming that Buckley is the messiah, or a prophet or anything. I am however, claiming that he had a good idea in Vietnam, and it can be easily adapted to fit our current conflict. Buckley's advice was that the increase in troops should be denied because it creates more targets.

This is true. It creates more targets, and our "stay the course" strategy will only serve to INCREASE casualties, while at the same time failing to DECREASE the terrorist threat. Unless drastic changes in policy are undertaken, and done so within the next few weeks, no increase in troops will have much affect on the "insurgency." It did not work in Vietnam (we had over 500,000), so why do we think it will work here?

Buckley also recommended using every weapon at our disposal. I will not go that far (yet) because we do not live during the Cold War anymore, and nukes are not a commonly used weapon of intimidation. Yet we must use everything else - conventional explosives, intelligence, etc to brutally go after the islamofascists before they can kill US soldiers. We must bomb terrorist strongholds. We must bomb suspected terrorist strongholds.

Al Sadr must be taken out because he is totally opposed to US interests in the region, has the backing and support of Iran and Ahmadinejad, and fosters much of the Shia insurgency in the region that is so devastating to US soldiers as well as Sunni Muslims. Shock and Awe must be brought back vigorously, as we attempt to destroy the terrorist threat by destroying the terrorists. We must stop pussyfooting around and get the job done, because the stakes are high and the consequences are grave. Buckley explained what the consequences would be for loss in Vietnam. The consequences in Iraq are similar, but much much worse. In Vietnam, we were not dealing with a country that wanted to dominate and subjugate America, and that wanted to kill American citizens. We are this time, and our enemy has proven his ability to do what he wishes and claims. As such, the need for our victory is illustrated.

Buckley said, "Go all out or get the hell out." Buckley was right in 1969 when he wrote this, and he is right today. I hate to admit it, but Iraq is looking more and more like Vietnam every day. Casualties mount, tactics and strategy do not change, and our politicians interfere too much in allowing the generals to do their job. Our soldiers have too many rules that prevent them from killing the terrorists that are killing them. Our soldiers cannot go after the men who are most responsible for the "insurgency" like Al Sadr and his band of Nazi's.

We lost the Vietnam War because of political incompetence at the highest echelons of our government. This is showing to be truer of this conflict as well. Our politicians are unable to fight a war (and should not be expected to. That is the job of the generals). This is not a surprise, but it is a surprise, and an aggravating one, that they think they can do so. Every attempt by politicians to affect the outcome and conduct of a war has resulted in a loss, a stalemate, or a disaster. Never a victory. You would think the politicians would have learned their lessons, but clearly, they have not.

We need to go all out in Iraq and get the job done, or all is lost in the region. We cannot hang around forever, and the Iraqi's must begin to stand up for themselves. Yes the process is slow, but rebuilding can commence once the necessary amount of destruction (a painful necessity of war I am afraid) has been completed and most of the Islamo-Nazi's have been eliminated. We must also tell the Iraqi government that we do not have forever to stand around and be shot at. They need to get things in gear and include the Sunni's in the oil profits, or they will not see US support. Charles Krauthammer had a good idea when he suggested we give them 3 months to get it in gear, or withdraw all our troops to Kurdistan and let the bastards kill each other. This ultimatum should be given to Al-Maliki today, and the Iraqi government should start turning around tomorrow.

We are quickly approaching the point from which Iraq will be a total loss. I do not believe it is a total loss yet, because with hard work and the right leadership, it can still be turned into a victory. We must act - for purposes of warmaking - as though the war has not yet begun, and we must start over with the total-war approach that worked in World War II, worked in Korea, and, in the limited circumstances on which it was applied, worked in Vietnam. It will work again. We must attack the enemy in his stronghold and destroy him before he destroys us. The alternative is the loss of more American lives.

There are too many arbitrary rules in Iraq (like Vietnam). The soldiers are not allowed to do their job - kill the enemy. Some of the same problems exist - forbidden targets, forbidden zones, rules that almost totally prevent a soldier from firing his or her weapon. These all existed in Vietnam, and look at the result. A military and political catastrophe. Iraq cannot turn out to be like Vietnam because the stakes are much higher, and the consequences much greater.

It is particularly amazing to me that people like Moqtada Al-Sadr are allowed to live, despite openly fomenting violence against the United States' forces in Iraq, and openly waging Jihad against both the Iraqi government, and the United States. This type of activity should not be allowed, and he should be destroyed. He SHOULD have been destroyed a long time ago, in the pre-invasion attacks, but he was not. It is not too late to correct our mistake, but time is running out. Sadr has too much a stake in the government, and when we leave, will pressure the leadership into selling out to the Iranians - the very reason the United States is in Iraq in the first place - to approach and counter Iran's advances in the region, as well as their development of nuclear power.

Thus, the first option is to shape up, pretend this war has just begun, and wage a total war on our enemies that results in total destruction of the forces that oppose us. The soldiers we have should be used in the most efficient and effective manner. The air force and the military warplanes should have enough juice (when coupled with tons of US high-explosive ordinance) to destroy targets from the air - "forbidden" targets as well. We must wage a total war that destroys the terrorists that are killing us, or we will lose this war. Simply "staying the course" has not worked, is not working, and will not work. That is not to say we are losing. We are not. We have made many inroads in the region, and have killed many jihadists. Yet we are not WINNING either, and this is what ultimately cost us the Vietnam War. We did not LOSE in Vietnam, so much as "fail to win." We are making the same mistake in Iraq, and the result (not surprisingly) will be the same, but with greater consequences for our loss.

The only other option is simply to leave. It will cause gross instability in the region, and contribute to a Super-Iran, something that should be avoided (I would think) at all costs. Yet it still may allow America to retain SOME of the credibility she has, though we would lose all our strength (and therein lays the paradox – do we sacrifice credibility for victory, or victory for credibility?). If we continue on a "stay-the-course" strategy, we WILL lose disgracefully as we did in Vietnam. If we change policy, we will most likely WIN as we did in Korea or World War II in the pacific. Winning would bolster our prestige and credibility. Losing would diminish it greatly. Getting our @sses handed to us would destroy us, and this would be bad for the world because we would have shown ourselves unable to successfully combat the terrorist threat.

The consequences of pulling immediately out of Iraq have been discussed and debated endlessly. Because this is the platform of the Democrats and the leftists, Conservatives like myself have long spoken against fixed withdrawl dates, pulling out before the job was done, and have long outlined the consequences of immdiate “redeployment” as the current amelioration goes. Yet ultimately, we must have a fair analysis here. In Vietnam, we stayed the course for 10 years, and nothing happened. The result of the Vietnam War, was to decrease the population of Vietnam by a couple million, and that’s really about it. Don’t get me wrong – pulling out of Vietnam was a terrible idea. We should have waged a total war then, as we should now. Yet even we as conservatives need to understand that standing around and letting our troops get shot is exactly what Nixon and Johnson did during Vietnam, and Iraq is becoming more and more like Vietnam.

The reason that pulling out is better than “staying the course” is again, illustrated by a Vietnam comparison. If we hadn’t stuck around in Vietnam (Buckley wrote his editorial in 1969, when casualties were at 30,000), those remaining 28,000 people wouldn’t have died. What did those last 6 years accomplish? Nothing.

So the problem with Iraq is thus: We win the war now, or we pull out soon. The alternative, is to stand around and get shot some more, and then pull out when a Democrat next becomes president, or when Republicans finally understand that stay-the-course led to our defeat.

My main point in this article, and what I hope you readers learn from it, is that stay-the-course is a self-defeating method of warmaking. It leads to one thing, and one thing only. Defeat. Defeat of America is not something we stand for as conservatives, nor should it be something any self-respecting American stands for. Yet, as we have seen, this is what stay the course amounts to.

Total war must be waged, to prevent total defeat. There is no alternative.

Buckley's advice though painful and disgraceful (to our government and politicians) is accurate and should be heeded. Before we hit the 5-year mark in 07/08, we MUST have a drastic change in tactics. The troops Bush is calling for - 20 - 50 thousand - should be denied him. He should be told, "Get the job done, or leave." He should be told, "Go all out or get the hell out."

This is what SHOULD have been done at the beginning. It is what I believed the United States was prepared to do at the beginning, though obviously I have been proven wrong. Staying the course is not working and it did not work in Vietnam. We can see what the result in Vietnam was. In this conflict, with higher stakes, bigger prices, and the stability of not just one country, but several entire continents at risk, can we REALLY afford to go down that same path?

Let us hope our politicians learn and do not send us down that road to our loss, our defeat, our disgrace and our doom.

Nevertheless, they will because they are politicians, and they do not understand the necessities and harshness of war, and because they do not understand what MUST be done to win the war.

Enjoy.