Today begins the fifth day of Israeli air strikes into the Gaza Strip. Earlier this morning, Israel rejected a United Nations proposed 48-hour cease-fire and continued its punishing air campaign against the militant terrorist. While the UN wrings its hands over the civilian casualties and humanitarian problems the Israeli air campaign is causing, Israel is building up ground forces to send into Gaza and finish the job. Good.

For starters, it was ignorant of the UN to suggest a cease-fire in the first place. This current conflict started when the previous cease-fire ended and Hamas started lobbing rockets into Israeli cities. What would be accomplished by agreeing to another cease-fire other that giving Hamas the time to regroup and rearm? No, Israel should give no respite to these violent thugs who prey on innocent civilians. They should obliterate them form the face of the Earth and take the Gaza Strip back into Israeli protection.

Gaza is no longer a Palestinian protectorate. It has been reduced to nothing more than and armed camp stockpiled with Chinese and Iranian made weapons and supplied through underground tunnels used to smuggle those weapons to Hamas.

Time and time again, Israel has capitulated to the demands of Hamas and Hezbollah. They have given land for peace, showed incredible restraint while under constant assault and painstakingly tried to avoid civilian casualties when it did retaliate against the aggressors. What has it gotten them? Shells and rockets raining into their major cities, terrorist blowing themselves up in malls and pizza joints and the condemnation of the insufferable and corrupt United Nations Human Rights Council.

I am sick to death of hearing people chastise Israel for her actions against Hamas and fortunately I seem to not be the only one. In a surprising change of heart, Egypt has placed its military on high alert and canceled all personal leaves, brining its military to its highest state of readiness. They are apparently supporting Israel’s prosecution of Hamas and have stated that they will seal off the southern border of the Gaza Strip if Israel sends in ground forces thereby preventing the escape of Hamas terrorist fleeing Israeli troops. Jordan also appears supportive of Israel and oddly enough, Hezbollah, who historically has joined her Hamas brethren in its terrorist assaults against Israel, has remained remarkably quite and still. This could have something to do with the warning issued from the Israeli Air Force that if it even suspected Hezbollah troop movements, it would immediately begin hitting their forces in the north. It seems that some of these countries in the Middle East are finally tiring of the endless violence caused by these radical terrorist organizations.

What needs to happen this time is nothing short of the complete destruction of Hamas. Israel needs to completely obliterate them and destroy their ability to regroup and rearm and all those people crying about the inhumanity of Israel’s actions, ask yourselves where were you when innocent Israeli’s were being killed by these terrorist barbarians. Did you protest and demand that Hamas stop their actions against a sovereign nation? Yeah, I did not thinks so.

So I cheer Israel on. Screw Hamas, screw the corrupt UN and screw an idiotic cease-fire agreement that would benefit no one but the terrorists.

Israel must be allowed to defend herself and her citizens. Would you not expect that we would do the same?

I have been visiting some new sites lately and I still find myself shocked at the utter stupidity that has infested this nation and has been promoted by the left. I am still taken aback by the absence of intellectual integrity and willful ignorance that abounds in some circles is simply amazing.

Let’s look at what some of the left believes. I will attempt to take an analytical approach to two subjects today and I will approach more through subsequent posts.

1. The actions taken in Iraq constitute an illegal war.

This statement has many variations ranging from accusing political leaders of being terrorists and murderers to claims that the sole reason we are there is for oil. You may also recognize the famous moonbat cry of, “Bush lied. Soldiers died!” Despite all the evidence to the contrary, these people cling to the idea that this entire war was orchestrated by the executive branch to give President Bush a reason to invade Iraq.

For starters, let’s examine the legality of the actions. We invaded Iraq during the Gulf War under a United Nations mandate to liberate Kuwait. At the end of hostilities with Iraq, we entered into a cease-fire agreement with Iraq conditional on many things. Among the conditions of the cease-fire were the cessation of Iraq’s WMD programs and the cooperation of the Iraqi government with UN inspectors. For over twelve years and multiple UN resolutions, Iraq failed to uphold its end of the cease-fire agreement. Inspectors were denied access to facilities and eventually expelled from Iraq entirely. American forces came under direct attack from the Iraqi military on multiple occasions during the cease-fire. These actions became so severe as to prompt action from former President Clinton at times including direct military strikes on Iraqi facilities which were known to contain WMD materials.

The question of legality is moot. The United States had ample legal reasons for which it could have resumed hostilities with Iraq under the conditions of the cease-fire agreement. Not only this, but the fact that prominent leaders of both parties in our government were stating the seriousness of the threat that Iraq posed to us and urging the President to take action to put a stop to Iraq’s WMD programs, is so conveniently forgotten by the left whenever this argument comes up.

2. We should have dialogue with those we disagree with.

This would currently include people like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-Il and leaders of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The inherent problem with this is that you must be able to trust those with whom you have such a dialogue or at least have a reasonable expectation that you will be taken seriously. Leaders such as Ahmadinejad cannot be reasoned with. Seriously, this is a man who has stated that his goal is the destruction of the Israeli state, has denied that the holocaust occurred or even that homosexuals exist in Iran. We have to believe there is even a remote possibility of sanity in whomever we choose to negotiate with.

We cannot negotiate with terrorist states or organizations under any circumstances and we should not encourage our allies to do so either, as we have been doing to Israel lately. Nor can we negotiate with ideological extremists or fanatical leaders. Our history has taught us that conversing with these entities is pointless and only results in granting them legitimacy and emboldening them.

Appeasement to their demands intensifies this emboldening and justifies their actions. It teaches them that we are weak and willing to sacrifice our values for peace at any cost. Ronald Reagan said it best in a campaign speech during the late seventies. If we continue to give in and appease these aggressors, the day will come when the final sacrifice is ask of us and how will we be able to respond then when we have been so weakened from within by our own self-destructive behavior? We must show strength and deal swiftly with aggression and totalitarianism.

Dialogue and appeasement failed miserably with Hitler and cost millions of live for our arrogance and ignorance. Negotiation failed to stave of the brutal attack at Pearl Harbor, even though Japan was promising peace to us even as the planes left their ships bound for Hawaii. Our complacency and naivety cost us dearly then. Even when we warned them of the destruction of their cities, they failed to yield until we had wiped two of them off the face of the earth. Talking does nothing but get more innocent people killed. Action, force and strength are the only things these people understand and respect. We cannot negotiate with this enemy, thus we are faced with only one choice in the matter: submit or destroy them.

Those are simply two issues I have noticed where liberals have absolutely no grasp of the reality in which we live. Tomorrow I will cover two more. I invite anyone to offer intellectual challenges to these two points, if that is even possible for a liberal poster to do.

I haven’t done a Blithering Idiot of the Week in a while so this is way over due.

The Washington Post hit the nail right on the head today in their scalding article about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Damascus. For those of you who do not understand the significance of what a danger this woman poses, simply take a look at the very first diplomatic outreach to a terrorist sponsoring nation such as Syria. She completely botched it. By delivering an imaginary message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, she declared the breakthrough as just the beginning of her world changing diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government, left scratching its head in a vain attempt to figure out who she got the message from, immediately issued a statement saying that the honorable Speaker of the House was full of political crap. Observe:

Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi’s foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16

HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Nice one, Stretch. You have decidedly earned this award.

UPDATE: I forgot that this makes the Damascus Diva a repeat offender. I awarder her this award on September 12th, 2006 for her moronic evaluation of President Bush’s 9/11 speach. Blithering Idiot of the Week – Nancy Pelosi.

As I posted in my article on Wednesday, some of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group suggest we involve our neighbors in that region including terrorist groups like Hamas and terrorist supporting states like Syria.

Today we are reminded of the foolishness and futility of any such efforts by one of the very groups we are supposed to negotiate with. As my article pointed out yesterday, some of out traitorous member of Congress are already negotiating with Hamas and it seems that it is doing worlds of good. The statement released by Hamas today should server to illustrate how effective talking to these extremist groups can actually be and how much progress the traitors in the Democratic Party have made:

TEHRAN, Iran – Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told thousands of Iranians on Friday that his Hamas-led government will never recognize Israel and will continue to fight for the “liberation of Jerusalem.”

Well, that certainly went well. Hamas is obviously not interested in reconciling with Israel and fostering stability in the region. They would much rather continue the hostilities and go on killing as many Israelis as possible. Hats of to those brave Democrats who secretly met with Hamas to foster peace in the Middle East. Great job, guys.

Since the Democrats are now in power, I guess they are going to have to swallow their own message. It is time to speak truth to power, guys. Once again, you cannot negotiate with these radical extremists. Sorry, that’s just the way things are.

What have we come to in this country? Upon hearing the news of this yesterday, I dismissed it as potential rhetoric. I did not want to readily believe that any elected leaders of this nation would stoop so low as negotiate with known terrorist organizations and sworn enemies of our country.

Yet, this story has had legs in the media and there are multiple agencies reporting the claims of Hamas’ clandestine meeting with key members of the Democratic Party. You will notice an grievous lack of coverage by the mainstream media over this issue, but other news agencies around the world, including Al Jazeera, are reporting this secret meeting with United States Democrat officials.

“Also sources close to the Hamas-led government uncovered secret meetings in an undisclosed location in the U.S. between representatives from the anti-Israeli occupation organisation and officials from the U.S. Democratic Party, which has just won both houses of Congress for the first time since 1992.

The source, who stated that Hamas officials made some achievement on the American front following their meeting with senior members of the Democratic Party, refused to elaborate on the meeting. He just said that Hamas wishes not to harm the Democrats’ chances in next year’s elections.” Al Jazeera, Democrats talking to Hamas? 12/7/2006 4:00:00 PM GMT

Other sources:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20061206-051951-7895r.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53257
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/06/report-democrats-meet-with-hamas/

This is disturbing news and does not bode well for the promises that the newly elected Democratic Majority will be tough on matters of National Security and Terrorism. When the first thing they do is run out and begin negotiating with the very terrorist we are fighting, what can we expect next? When will these people understand that you CANNOT negotiate, talk, come to a mutual understanding or change the hearts and minds of these radical extremists?

Furthermore, where did this secret meeting take place? Did the Democrats go to a shady rundown café in Beirut or to a terrorist training camp in the mountains of Afghanistan? No, it happened in our own bloody backyard! They met them here, in this country. On the very soil they swore to protect, these Benedict Arnolds met with our mortal enemies. I wonder what they discussed. Where to put the signs pointing to Mecca? How to quickly and effectively implement Sharia Law in the United States? If not that, then what?

Besides the obvious fact that negotiations with any of our enemies lies within the prevue of the State Department and the Executive Branch, these asshats committed what amounts to treason by secretly negotiating with an enemy with whom we are currently at war. I am convinced that those responsible for this as well as those found to be responsible for the leaks of classified information during a time of war, should be tried and convicted of high treason against the United States of America. I do not say this to be partisan. If there were any Republicans or Independents or even White House kitchen staff involved, they should all face charges of treason.

We are at war. The sooner these morons realize that the better. The sooner that they come to grips with the reality that these people want to destroy us and our way of life, the safer we will be. The quicker they accept that these terrorist groups and states do not care that we would rather live in peaceful coexistence, the quicker this conflict can be resolved.

Otherwise, we are doomed to relive the mistakes of the past and this time our appeasement to these psychopaths will have dire consequences on our own soil and with our own blood.

Well, I guess I should join in on this right away. I just finished reading the Iraq Study Group report and skimming several of the liberal blog reactions to its content. These reactions range from believing that this document is the Holy Grail to prove them right to sentiments that it could be better used for toilet paper.

There are some important aspects to the ISG and I think one of the most important is the letter that actually precedes any of the findings in the document. It says that the situation in Iraq is grave and that there is no clear strategy or plan that can win. It even states that their own recommendations are flawed, but they are believed to be the most appropriate given the current situation.

I have a few I want to discuss, so I may spread this our over several posts.

In this article I will address the suggestion to involve Syria and Iran, by engaging in “offensive diplomacy” designed to make them a positive force for Iraqi stability. Wow. That sounds so nice, but let’s examine what that really means. We are talking about Iran and Syria, two nations most heavily involved in supporting terrorism and the insurgents that are CAUSING the instability in Iraq. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit down with Ahmadinejad and ask him to kindly stop training insurgents and supporting the Shia militants in Iraq. The ISG even comments on the possibility that this would actually work:

“Our limited contacts with Iran’s government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq.”

Alright, so what are we supposed to do then? Remember this is the same man who just made the comment that the west will follow the path of God or die:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Western leaders to follow the path of God or “vanish from the face of the earth”.

“These oppressive countries are angry with us … a nation that on the other side of the globe has risen up and proved the shallowness of their power,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech in the northern town of Ramsar, the semi-official news agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

“They are angry with our nation. But we tell them ‘so be it and die from this anger’. Rest assured that if you do not respond to the divine call, you will die soon and vanish from the face of the earth,” he said.

The outspoken president also maintained Iran’s defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, saying it was on course to fully master nuclear technology.

“Thank to God’s help, we have gone all the way and are only one step away from the zenith. We hope to have the big nuclear celebration by the end of the year (March 2007),” Ahmadinejad said, echoing comments he has made on numerous occasions in recent months.

Are we then to turn to Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah? The ISG recommends the following for dealing with Syria and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks— one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Concerning Syria, some elements of that negotiated peace should be:

• Syria’s full adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of August 2006, which provides the framework for Lebanon to regain sovereign control over its territory.
• Syria’s full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon, especially those of Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemay el.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian aid to Hezbollah and the use of Syrian territory for transshipment of Iranian weapons and aid to Hezbollah. (This step would do much to solve Israel’s problem with Hezbollah.)
• Syria’s use of its influence with Hamas and Hezbollah for the release of the captured Israeli Defense Force soldiers.
• A verifiable cessation of Syrian efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Lebanon. A verifiable cessation of arms shipments from or transiting through Syria for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups.
• A Syrian commitment to help obtain from Hamas an acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist.
• Greater Syrian efforts to seal its border with Iraq.

RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions and in the context of a full and secure peace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guaran- tee for Israel that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requested by both parties.

RECOMMENDATION 17: Concerning the Palestinian issue, elements of that negotiated peace should include:

• Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
• Strong support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to take the lead in preparing the way for negotiations with Israel.
• A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
• Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
• Sustainable negotiations leading to a final peace settlement along the lines of President Bush’s two-state solution, which would address the key final status issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem, the right of return, and the end of conflict.

Well all those ideas sound wonderfully simple, accept for the fact that they have failed miserably in the past. You cannot expect organizations whose sole stated goal is the destruction of Israel, to take an active role in securing peace with them. According to Hezbollah and Hamas’ charters even negotiating with Israel is seen as a wholly condemnable act.

One statement that I was surprised that the ISG listed as critical was:

• No American administration—Democratic or Republican— will ever abandon Israel.

Wow, I bet that is a stretch for some to swallow.

The problem with the sections dealing Iran and Syria is that they rely on the willingness of terrorist supporting governments to honestly participate in an effort to ensure stability and peace in Iraq and Israel. The sections encourage talks and diplomacy with radical fascists and terrorist. History has shown us how dangerous and ineffectual this is. We cannot trust nations such as Iran, Syria or North Korea until they have shown at the very least a willingness to abandon the extremist positions that they hold. Even then we must rely on Reagan’s principle of “Trust, but Verify” and “Peace Through Strength.” If we do not, we set ourselves up much as Chamberlain did with Hitler.

I believe there is a change needed in Iraq. I agree with the ISG’s assertion that the Iraqi government must start handling issues of security and combat. If a nation cannot show that it is capable and willing to defend itself, then it cannot hope to survive. I just feel that we cannot afford to hinge our hope on the good
will of nations who openly state that the welcome our destruction and the destruction of our allies.

As we see events in the Middle East unfolding, we began to wonder if there will ever be peace in that region. The history of the region has been dotted with violence, terrorism, occupation and oppression for longer than then what most people currently suggest.

Alexander the Great conquered from Memphis to Gaza to Babylon to Kabul in between 334BC and 323BC and brought to a knee the great Persian Empire. This is one of the most challenged parcels of earth throughout the history of mankind. Whether it has been over territory, resources or religion, this area has been fought over for literally thousands of years.

In modern times, we see the Ottoman Empire dismantled after World War I and European nations laying claims to vast territories in the Middle East. World War II brought the creation of Israel and major United States involvement in the region to support Israel and ensure supplies of petroleum. Israel since its inception has faced nothing but violence. During the Six Day War in 1967, Israel repelled invasion form Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Egypt and Syria tried again during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and were handed a rapid defeat by the outnumbered Israeli forces. Violence continued against the Jewish state through out the 70’s and 80’s culminating in the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. During this time Iran’s Islamic Revolution occurred and tensions between Iraq and Iran began to deteriorate rapidly. During the early 80’s the region practically turned itself inside out with upheaval and conflict. The Soviet Union began a ten year long campaign in Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war erupted, Israel saw the formation of and increased terrorist attacks by the PLO, the Hezbollah and the Hamas. Some nations such as Egypt, still licking its wounds from the Yom Kippur defeat, sought to normalize relations with Israel. Others swore to destroy the fledgling nation at all costs.

Finally, in recent years Israel has pulled out of Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, in an attempt to stabilize relations with the Palestinian people and allow settlement of the contested territories. One of the conditions of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was the disarming and dissolution of the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Due to the failure of this and the unrelenting hatred of Israel from many of the countries in the region, we are now watching the entire Middle East teeter on the brink of open warfare.

What some people fail to understand about the conflicts that are occurring in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Israel, is that they cannot be resolved with negotiation, cooperation or appeasement. The basic mistake that people make is that we are against a rational regime that has simple philosophical differences with us and that by sitting down and talking to them, we can some how come to an agreement. The entities we face have a great deal in common with threats from our past. During World War II we faced fanatical enemies that we had never before encountered. Nazi dogma taught that the Arian race was the only true race and that its supremacy over all others was pre-ordained. Hitler’s answer to the Jewish question was total annihilation of an entire race and culture. Hitler believed his destiny was to rule the world and destroy all signs of Jews and Judaism from the earth. Early on, when Britain and France attempted to negotiate with him and appease his expansionist desires, Hitler signed agreement after agreement, while behind the scene he plotted to conquer Europe. The Imperial Japanese were no better. While their ambassadors courted our government promising to maintain the peace in the Pacific, their planes rained destruction down Pearl Harbor. During our retaking of the Pacific, the Japanese fought to the death to hold every square inch. Even when hopelessly our numbered and losing isle after isle in the Pacific, they refused yield. This led to the United State’s choice to deploy a nuclear weapon on the Japanese homeland to force surrender. Facing Kamikaze plane attacks, thousands of Japanese troops still entrenched in the Pacific and Imperial Japan refusing to surrender, the United States was faced with tens of thousands of additional troop losses if they were to secure Japan. Finally, after deployment of the second nuclear weapon, Japan was forced to yield. Negotiation failed. Appeasement failed. The only thing that either Japan or Germany responded to was absolute defeat. This current threat is no different.

The lines that can be drawn between Nazism and fundamental Islam are frightening. The one underlying thing that connects both is fascism. Fascism is defined as: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. You cannot reason with fascist. You cannot trust fascist. You cannot turn your back on fascist. You must defeat fascist.

The insurgency in Iraq does not fight against the newly established Iraqi government. They fight against the spread of freedom and liberty. They fight against the United States because we symbolize freedom and liberty. If we leave Iraq and completely leave the Middle East, they will not stop. Their fight is against us and our values and ideals. They will follow us. They will bring the fight to the shores of this country, much as we have seen in India, Britain, Canada and Spain. Israel pulled out of the contested areas and they struck Israel from the very territories that were supposed to ensure peaceful relations. They will not stop. They must be destroyed.

Peace is not the absence of violence. We were not at peace with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there were just no hostilities. Peace is when the good guys win and destroy the evil regimes that promote violence, genocide and oppression. For those disillusioned of you who think that the way to win this war is to sit down and talk with these people or try to form some means of understanding, you need to study history. The only thing that negotiating with terrorists guarantees is that terrorists will always exists. If you show them that we will not tolerate this behavior by destroying anyone who holds this country hostage by violence or threat of violence, you will discourage this type of behavior. If you immediately destroy threats as they arise or even before they can strike, you will send a clear message that terrorism is an ineffective tactic.

The only way to reach these people, the only way to stop the bloodshed and violence, the only way to end the conflict and bring peace is the total destruction of all terrorist organizations and terror sponsoring states. This means Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and any others that stick their head up above the sand. This means the removal of the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea or any others that threaten our security, by any means necessary. When any nation states that the total destruction of the United States and her allies is its goal, it is time for us to strike. When they claim they will wipe one of our allies off the face of the map, it is time for us to strike or at the very least support our allies when they strike. When they capture, kill or harm our soldiers or citizens, it is time for us to destroy them and anyone who supports them. When they supply weapons to our enemies, it is time for us to destroy their infrastructure.

This idea of appropriate and proportionate response is ludicrous. For every American that died in the Pacific Theater in World War II, we killed 21.6 Japanese. Was that a disproportionate response of force? Of course not, it was a war and we did what we had to do to win. For all the bleeding hearts, that is after all the point of going to war, to win and to destroy your enemy. I understand that we departed form this idea during the Vietnam conflict,

but I thought we had learned our lessons from that debacle. When America comes to fight, we come to win.

The only way to end this struggle is to absolutely and unmistakably destroy our enemies. Wipe them out. Kill them all. I am sorry that this is the way it must be. It will cost dear American lives to accomplish this, but we must.

We cannot negotiate.
We cannot capitulate.
We will not tolerate.
We will not appease.
We will not surrender.
We must destroy our enemies.

One of the things I find most irritating about the political left is how they tend to spin their failures squarely on to the shoulders of their opponents, chiefly President Bush. If you were not aware, it is clearly President Bush’s fault that the two terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah committed terrorist acts against Israel.

According to Howard Dean, if the Democrats were in power, the world would not be holding its breath and praying that the Middle East does not implode on itself due to acts of terrorism. Apparently, Bush is to blame that the Hamas and Hezbollah hate Israel. Dean claims that the Bush administration has been disconnected and uninvolved in the Middle East, which I find hilarious since we are conducting military operations in two of its countries. A brief history of the conflict will show the foolishness of this sentiment.

Israel and Lebanon have been in a de facto state of war since 1948. Stilled at times by armistices, agreements and U.N. resolutions, the violence between the countries has never fully ceased. Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon in 2000 and under U.N. Resolution 1559, Lebanon was supposed to disband and disarm Hezbollah. Instead of using its military to provide a buffer zone on Israel’s northern border and disband Hezbollah, Lebanon elected more Hezbollah members to its parliament. Oddly enough, the number of resolutions passed against Israel is staggering, while the number passed against Hezbollah and Lebanon for allowing their continued existence are practically non-existent. Also suspiciously absent are resolutions preventing Syria and Iran from supporting these terrorist organizations or using them to harm Israel. There are a few, but we can now see how effective they have been.

Since 2000, violence has been sporadic but not elevated to the level of armed conflict. Suicide bombers will hit an Israeli bus, Israel will respond with an air strike on a terrorist training camp. A rocket will be launched into Israel, Israeli artillery will respond against the rocket site. This back and forth exchange of hostilities has continued even though Israel completely withdrew its forces from Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, allowing the Palestinians to completely settle the territories. This withdrawal was at the urging of President Bush and his Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East as he outlined on March 14th, 2003 during an address to reporters from The Rose Garden. This administration has worked with Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to foster a sense of security throughout the Middle East. We have conducted military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to remove destabilizing influences and applied political pressure on Syria and Iran to curb their support of terrorism. Obviously, not everything has worked since it is impossible to reason with religious zealots.

Here is Dean’s reasoning: “You know, people say the Republicans are tough on defense. How can you be tough on defense if five years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large, the Iranians are about to get nuclear weapons, North Korea’s quadrupled their nuclear weapons stash. . . . Explain to me how it is that this president is tough on defense? I think this president is weak on defense and he’s hurt America because he hasn’t done the right thing.”

Well, I can explain it this way. Osama bin Laden is a coward. He hides in the cavernous mountains somewhere in or near Afghanistan and issues orders and decrees from the safety of hidden camps. He has also lost his ability to conduct major operations against the United States, because he is always on the run. He has to settle for allowing the insurgency in Iraq to be his main focus which is preferable to it being New York. We have only been actively pursuing him for about three years. He evaded Russia for over ten years in the same area we are hunting for him. Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons and has been doing so for about fifteen years according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). When we discovered their intentions and how close they were, Bush immediately began putting pressure on them and forming an international census that Iran could never be allowed nuclear weapons. What would the Democrats have done? Talked with Iran and promised we would give them nuclear reactors and fund their development of an energy infrastructure, only if they promised to be nice and not to use the reactors to make weapons? Oh, yeah that didn’t work with North Korea, which brings me to Dean’s next point. North Korea quadrupled their nuclear weapons cache, because former disappointment William Jefferson Clinton gave them the means to. Yes, if only Democrats had their way, all the totalitarian regimes that are hostile to the United States would have nuclear weapons. Is that the conclusion we are to draw? North Korea did not suddenly make all its nuclear weapons immediately after Bush’s inauguration speech in January of 2000. They have been secretly making them since the Clinton/Albright concessions in the 90’s. When President Bush found out about this he withdrew our aid and support and claimed that North Korea was in violation of our agreements. He again began and international campaign to bring world pressure on North Korea to cease its nuclear weapons program.

Dean went on to blabber about how we have lost our moral credibility in the Middle East, as if the Islamic fundamentalist thought we had mountains of moral credibility under Clinton. He further stated that, “This country is in the worst shape since Richard Nixon, and probably before that. We’ve lost the high moral high ground everywhere in the world. We want to be respected around the world again. We want our moral authority to be restored, because part of defending America is not just well-armed troops; it’s having the high moral ground.”

Hmmm, I wonder what started Nixon down the path to loosing our high moral ground. Could it have been the Democratic disaster he was handed known as Vietnam? I won’t defend Tricky Dicky, but Democrats always seem to forget that they got us into Vietnam. They kept us and tied our hands in Vietnam. Republicans got us out of Vietnam. We may well have gone to Vietnam for the right reasons, stopping the spread of Communism is a worthy goal, but we stayed there for all the wrong reasons. America should go to war only with the intention of winning the war. I guess that is the part of the Bush doctrine that Democrats fail to understand. We are not in this war to make friends; we are here to annihilate those who mean us harm.

We have the moral authority to protect ourselves, enforce the cease-fire agreements that we have entered into, eliminate the spread of terrorism and the propagation of weapons of mass destruction and to remove brutal governments from enslaving, murdering or oppressing millions. We do not need hugs from the United Nation to make us feel all warm and fuzzy about what we are doing. We do not need France’s glowing approval; we have seen how they defend themselves. We do not need Germany, Russia or China condemning our actions abroad; we have seen their style of oppressive foreign policy in the past. We need more politicians who state it the way it is. We need a President who tells our allies, “What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit.” We need cowboy diplomacy. You know the one thing that was clear about the Old West? Cowboy diplomacy got the issue solved. One was left standing. The other was in the ground. You know another great President was made fun of by being called a cowboy. He brought us an
end to communism in the Soviet Union, a free Europe, strategic defense programs and major advances in military technology. He also saw peace and freedom spread through millions of those formerly oppressed.

We need strong leadership with the commitment to win. We do not need Howard Dean, “the chief spokesman of a party that has highlighted obstruction and hasn’t provided real answers that matter to the American people.” – Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Is this where the stand is to be made? So be it! Israel is now at open war with Hezbollah and Hamas fighting on both its northern and southern borders. In the past few hours Israel has stepped up the campaign in Lebanon, striking at suspected Hezbollah holdings and civilian infrastructure believed to support Hezbollah efforts. The Lebanese government is begging the Israeli’s to cease-fire since it has no means to adequately defend itself against the might of its neighbor’s military. Israel has stated that unless its soldiers are immediately returned and the Hezbollah forced out of positions of power in the Lebanese government Israel will not relent. They demand that Lebanon force the Hezbollah to immediately stop firing missiles on civilian targets in Israel and surrender the hostages that have been taken. They also are warning Syria and Iran to stay clear of the conflict and not to support either Hamas or Hezbollah, even though Israel states that they suspect that is already occurring.

In a disgraceful action yesterday, the United Nations attempted to pass a resolution condemning Israel’s actions in defense of their country. Fortunately, the United States stood up and said that they would not allow such a resolution and supported Israel in their right to defend themselves against terrorist aggression. While the U.N. has refused to take any kind of substantive action against Iran or North Korea for holding the world hostage with threats of nuclear weapons and has failed to ever pass a resolution condemning Hamas or Hezbollah for their terrorism, they quickly turn on Israel and try to censure them for defending their country. The idea that it is acceptable for terrorist to kill innocent Israeli citizens and Israel has no business responding is ludicrous. How many Israelis have died at the hands of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc? For France, Germany, Russia and China to condemn the actions of Israel retaliating to missile attacks on their population center is despicable. What would China do if Taiwan launched over 100 missiles in to Chinese cities on their coastline? Could you imaging the response? Chine would mobilize everything that could fire a round and drive an assault clean through Taiwan. If anyone dare to tell China to use restrain of condemn them China would be outraged and claim its right to defend itself. In that scenario, Taiwan would be fortunate to have a single building remaining upright on any land still above water when China was through with them.

With Syria supporting Hamas and Hezbollah right on their border, I expect that they will be Israel’s next target. Iran has already claimed that if Israel strikes Syria, they will consider it an attack on all Muslim nations and respond in kind. I wonder if Iran has considered that to get to Israel they will have to cross Iraq and I can guarantee you the United States will not allow that to happen. What then? Do we stop Iran from intervening by the use of force? As the larger nations continue to posture, Israel continues to strike. Like a child pulling the tail of a rabid dog, Hamas and Hezbollah may have started something that they cannot handle and may not be able to back away from. They may also have caused the bigger dogs in the pound to get involved, which will engulf the entire Middle East very quickly.

Israel is completely justified in crushing the terrorist assaulting its country. All nations should respond to terrorism in kind. Not cowering behind your vineyards or racks of lederhosen. Nor should you be hiding in your rice fields looking through bottles of vodka and saying that the western nations have no business defending themselves.

If this is to be where the stand against fascist Islam will be fought, so be it. We are ready for the fight.

I offer this:

To the Soldiers: