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.

I have not done one of these in a while, but this behavior just screamed for a Blithering Idiot Award. I am ashamed to say that the recipient of this weeks award is a Texas man him self.

During an interview with Jeff Stein of CQ, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, a five term Texas Democrat, was asked some very basic questions about the intelligence business and the enemies that we face. I will let the interview speak for itself.

Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.

Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?

Hezbollah

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah…” He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,” I said—a little.

“Poquito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh….”

I apologized for putting him “on the spot a little.” But I reminded him that the people who have killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil and in the Middle East have been front page news for a long time now.

It’s been 23 years since a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed over 200 U.S. military personnel in Beirut, mostly Marines.

Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, is close to taking over in Lebanon. Reports say they are helping train Iraqi Shiites to kill Sunnis in the spiralling civil war.

“Yeah,” Reyes said, rightly observing, “but . . . it’s not like the Hatfields and the McCoys. It’s a heck of a lot more complex.

“And I agree with you — we ought to expend some effort into understanding them. But speaking only for myself, it’s hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories.”

Wow. This is the man that Speaker of the House Pelosi has tapped to chair the House Intelligence Committee? You would think he would at least know something about the enemies we face. Is this how the Democrats will be tough on terrorist and national security issues, by appointing people who do not have a clue as to the dangers we face? I feel safer already.

While I understand that Representative Reyes may be an intelligent and engaging individual, his abhorrent lack of understanding about our mortal enemies is inexcusable. He is a fifth term United States Representative. That means he has been there for a while, a lot longer than this conflict has been going on. He should know who we are up against better than most people, certainly better than a reporter who is interviewing him.

Can I answer in Spanish? What!? Hell no! You are a United States Representative, not a Mexican one. I know it is becoming harder to distinguish in this country, but we do still speak English here. If you cannot form coherent English sentences about the threats to this country, then you do not disserve to be a Representative of the people, much less to chair a committee on intelligence. Do not try to mask your ignorance by attempting to cloak it in some foreign language.

Congratulations, Representative Reyes, you are the Blithering Idiot of the Week.

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.

This evening showed evidence of how you cannot negotiate with terrorist. With the ink barely dry on the so called cease-fire agreement, Katusha rockets rained down on Israeli positions in southern Lebanon, just twenty hours after the cease-fire began.

While the Israeli forces ceased their advance and began withdrawing troops from areas in South Lebanon today, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah, claimed an unexaggerated victory over the Israelis. “We came out victorious in a war in which big Arab armies were defeated,” Nasrallah said in a televised speech Monday. “We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without exaggeration.”

However this “victory” comes at a serious price which today Hezbollah refused to even discuss with Lebanese officials. United Nations Resolution 1708 calls for the immediate disarmament of Hezbollah and the return of control of the entire territory of Lebanon to the legitimate Lebanese government, odd conditions for the victor of any conflict to be in. About the only victory that can legitimately be claimed by Hezbollah is that any of them survived to immediately violate the conditions of the cease-fire agreement and launch Katusha rockets on Israeli soldiers.

At this moment, Israel is again responding to unbridled aggression and will undoubtedly be blamed for violating the agreement. This cease-fire agreement was a defeat in a sense for Israel and her allies. As long as Hezbollah and groups like them are allowed to exist then there will never be a true peace. Hezbollah waited until thousands of civilian refugees began flowing back into southern Lebanon to launch the Katusha rockets, knowing the Israelis would respond. I expect tomorrow we will see propaganda showing dead civilians and Hezbollah blaming Israel for attacking the refugees as they attempted to return home.

When will the world learn that you cannot negotiate with these people? You must destroy them

Oh my God, here we go again. The Seattle Times posted a piece by Carl Jeffers entitled U.S. lacks the moral authority to broker Middle East peace. The apathy for America in the media is only slightly out shined by their hatred of President Bush. I encourage you to read the entire article but I offer the following excerpts:

…

The current U.S. leadership under the Bush administration no longer has that moral authority. We have lost it, and the price to be paid for that loss will be a debt that may carry over to the next generation of world citizenry.

Ok, we get it you blame Bush for everything. Lets see… Bush lied. Soldiers died. Am I right? Despite all the evidence that Bush didn’t lie but was right all along, I will let that slide for a moment.

…

Then, the most serious blow to our moral authority came when the current Hezbollah-Israeli conflict broke out. The U.S. took the public position of opposing a cease-fire and essentially green-lighting Israel to attempt to accomplish its military objectives with ongoing incursions into the borders of a sovereign country whose government we not only support but helped to establish. The world’s greatest democracy should symbolize a white beacon light for freedom, not a green light for unlimited military action.

Oh, that is right. Israel was the aggressor here and we just told them sure blow the hell out of the Middle East. What were those military objectives? Destruction of a terrorist organization sworn to destroy Israel? Destruction of the thousands of rockets that were raining terror down on Israeli cities? The unconditional return of the Israeli soldiers that had been taken hostage? I guess we should have told Israel to sit down, shut up and take you terrorist attacks like a man.

…

The U.S. has also increased its shipments of bunker-busting bombs to Israel, and I support that. If I were president, I would double the order. But while we are shipping those bombs to demonstrate our commitment to Israel, which I support, we should not be publicly opposing a cease-fire between the warring parties. The United States should never oppose a cease-fire anywhere in the world between warring parties, particularly when the casualties on both sides are more civilian than combatant.

What bullshit is this? Here you go guys. Here are thousands of bombs for you, but, uhm, you know you really shouldn’t use them. Yeah, as a matter of fact here. Take these bombs, these guns and these missiles, but please stop shooting at the people who are trying to kill you. The United States has every right to oppose a cease-fire that would only allow the terrorist time to regroup, rearm and reposition themselves to launch another future attack on our ally. How about we suggest Israel stop firing when Hezbollah unconditionally surrenders and relinquishes all weapons immediately? Or better yet, let Israel do what we did to both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan before they finally agreed to surrender and a cease-fire. Completely destroy their ability to conduct warfare and continue the hostilities. In other words, we give them no choice. Surrender or be utterly destroyed. Then we can have a cease-fire.

I want to address the growing list of things that would not be happening if John Kerry were president. I will have you know that I voted against Kerry for Blithering Idiot of the Week before I voted for him.

According to John Kerry:

Israeli-Hezbollah Hostilities:
The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel would apparently not have happened because he would have somehow evaporated Hezbollah’s decades long hate for Israel. He would have mysteriously calmed the tensions and magically made Hezbollah not buy thousands of rockets from Iran with the sole intent of launching them into Israel.

Iraqi Occupation Quagmire:
According to John Kerry, he would have gone into Iraq differently and we would not be in the situation that we are now. Now he doesn’t say what he means by differently, maybe marching in a solid line, holding hands with the European Appeasers all the while singing “We Are the World”? I bet that would have done it. I bet if it had been Kerry leading the charge, the insurgency would have seen the error of their ways and hailed the coming of the “Great Satan” with open arms and tea parties. I am sure that there would have been no bloodbath at Fallujah and no mistakes at Abu Ghraib. I am quite positive that the detainees captured during a Kerry administration would have hailed us as their saviors and not been assaulting our soldiers while having a tropical escape from jihad at Club Gitmo.

Iran Nuclear Weapons:
According to John Kerry, if he were President, Iran would not be actively trying to get nuclear weapons. Well, he may be right on this one. President Clinton proved it. That is right, folks, if John Kerry were President he would have long ago given Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons and have stockpiles of them to give to the Kerry-made peaceful Hezbollah for self defense purposes only. The Clinton administration showed how to properly deal with uppity dictators who demand nuclear capabilities, you give it to them and make them promise to play nicely.

North Korea Overt Aggression:
Again he is probably right in saying that North Korea would not be throwing a temper tantrum because it was not getting its way and threatening to launch missiles at anyone who blinks. North Korea would have no reason to be throwing a tantrum if John Kerry were President. He would have given into their demands long ago and avoided the conflict entirely.

I am sure we would also have $1/gal prices at the pump, a 200% drop in violent crimes, children graduating high school at 100% and I bet those wonderful astronauts would have been saved because Super Kerry would have prevented the foam from damaging the Space Shuttle.

What a crock.

There he his. My vote for idiot of the week.

Israel called up three reserve divisions today in an apparent effort to plan for future expanded operations. Israel stated that they have no immediate plans to expand the ground campaign, yet as many as 50,000 reservists are being activated in anticipation on upcoming action. Sounds to me like there will be ample expanding of the campaign. Go get ‘em, guys.

Meanwhile, President Bush has come under fire from home and abroad for not sheepishly following the international lead and calling for an immediate cease-fire at any an all costs. The administration’s position of non-interference with Israel’s completely justified campaign for the elimination of Hezbollah is exactly the correct response. In my opinion, we should move a carrier group that includes a couple of AEGIS platforms into the Mediterranean Sea just incase Hezbollah gets any ideas to pop off one of the ZelZal-2 missiles they possess. We could even offer to take out selected targets for Israel and give the international community someone else to bitch at. It would alleviate some of the pressure from Israel and let them focus on killing terrorist.

We still hear the calls of peace and negotiation, which if you read Hezbollah’s website is exactly the opposite of what their charter says they will accept. We have supporters of Hezbollah marching in protest in this country that should be tossed out on their ears. We have idiotcrats calling for restraint and proportional use of force in a war for the very survival of Israel.

I guess some people will never learn. Apparently Israel did learn. I hope the do not stop until Hamas and Hezbollah are utterly destroyed or have been completely disarmed and dismantled.

UPDATE: Michlle Malkin’s site hosted this evidence as to why the UN position may have been accidentally hit today.

Blithering idiot of the week award goes to Kofi Annan.

In an unfortunate turn of events in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, four United Nations observers were killed during a strike on a suspected Hezbollah target in south Lebanon. Once the UN casualties were discovered Israel immediately apologized for the accidental deaths and launched an investigation in to the incident.

This being a war it should be assumed that mistakes can and will happen. Friendly fire incidents have plagued combat forced since man first picked up a firearm and turned its use to war. These things happen. It is unfortunate. It is regrettable. It is also accidental.

Here is how Kofi Annan responds: “I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defence Forces of a UN observer post in southern Lebanon,” Mr Annan said.

“This co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire.
“I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident and demand any further attack on UN positions and personnel must stop.” – Herald Sun, Mark Dunn, July 27, 2006.

It would be politically suicidal for the IDF to intentionally target UN installations and would only serve to bolster support for Hezbollah. Kofia Annan knows this. I will assume that the IDF would have no legitimate reason to intentionally target UN installations, because I am assuming that the UN is not providing support and aid to Hezbollah. I use the term assume due rumors that have surfaced that the UN and Hezbollah flags were both flown over this installation and that support was being provided to Hezbollah by the UN at this location. None of that has been verified so we will assume that it is false, since the UN would be insane to support an internationally recognized terrorist organization whose stated goals are the total annihilation of an existing democratic country.
Immediately accusing Israel of intentionally and deliberately targeting UN forces without any proof or any investigation, further shows the anti-Semitic bias present in the UN.

We must assume this was a tragic accident and was completely unintentional. Otherwise, we must assume that the UN was helping Hezbollah. That is the only legitimate reason Israel would have for targeting UN forces. Israel has stated it was accidental. The UN will never admit it if they were assisting Hezbollah.
So, Kofi, take it for what it is worth and blame your self for the death of those four UN observers. After all, if the UN had done its job in Lebanon and completely disarmed Hezbollah when Israel pulled out six years ago, this conflict would not be occurring. I propose we pass a resolution condemning the UN for failure to do its job. Let have sanction preventing any United States support of the UN, until they can enforce the resolutions they pass. Better yet, lets just get it over with and kick them out of the high-rise they occupy in New York and turn it into office space to replace some of what we lost in the World Trade Center.