UK's Gordon Brown: Not much of a poodle

During the Bush/Blair years, we were told that "the world" no longer respected us,...that our relations with Europe had completely deteriorated to their "all time low",...that if Bush doesn't admit he was wrong and apologize to our former allies, they may never side with us again.

Well it appears the glory days of them siding with us might not have been such a solid love affair after all. Drudge is posting a story that links the Libyan "oil for blood" scandal to PM Gordon Brown. All the way to the top.


After a couple years of the American left pounding Bush and making this "Allies hate us" Meme, the European left, who quite often sheepishly follow the American left, started the taunt against Tony Blair that his choice to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, was a subservient and pathetic choice of a weak and brainless pet that sits in the lap of its master. The term they used was that Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle.

Let's remember, the UK sent troops to Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO (An organization created at the behest of the UK) which had invoked the article that compels support of members to defend one another if attacked. It should also be remembered that Iraq was the result of a simmering cold war in the region that started when Margret Thatcher told GHW Bush, "Don't get wobbly on me, George". So unless your view of history is blurred by attention deficit disorder, the question here is, Whom was the LapDog here?

Implied in the british poodle insult is that Bush was on an insane binge of bloodlust driven by his insatiable craving for oil and Blair was too feeble and weak to say no, because he needed something from the US. Now that we have won the war in Iraq, Bush doesn't look so insane and polls show that most in the US think the choice to go to Iraq was the right one. But this lust for oil is an interesting one.

The British (and other European allies) for years have expressed outrage when Americans accuse them of not being reliable allies when it comes to "siding" with us when we are either jointly or individually in danger. They buckle under pressure, or won't let us fly over their airspace, or won't extradite or if terrorists land and refuel, they fail to apprehend them, or if they do try them, they release them early or accept bribes. And lets not forget the largest "oil for European politician" bribery network ever, Oil for food at the UN.

270 lives were lost, most of them American, in a terrorist attack that took place in the UK. The US State Department received a tip that a plane would be bombed and our poodle allies were warned, but incompetence and in some cases mistrust caused them to disregard the warning. It departed from London Heathrow carrying a Bomb that ultimately was traced back to Qadafi and the Abu Nidal organization.



This relationship was the model of how rogue states operated in the region. An anti-western dictator threatened America and then used secret relations with terrorist leaders who survived by scooting from place to place being harbored by other rogue states. The success of the arrangement relied on the fact that western nations rarely attacked the rogue state in response to attacks or for harboring the terrorist leaders. This model lost that advantage on September 12, 2001.

After the Lockerbie attack, Abu Nidal would make his favorite safe Haven a government funded home in Saddam Hussein's capital, Baghdad. He moved there permanently in the late 90s. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Abu Nidal was one of several terrorists living under the Protection of Saddam that Tariq Aziz offered to hand over if Bush could be deterred. Bush would not be bought. Just before the US attacked Iraq, Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad.

So in summary, the rogue dictators of the Islamic world developed a "rational" model that worked well against the european politicians that included using clandestine terror networks to attack the west, bribe the European leaders (usually with oil), and cause the Europeans to pressure the US to have a less vigorous security approach to the region. The "crazy" George Bush changed that. Obama and his supporters claimed they wanted the world to return to a simpler time when terrorists were an "annoyance" and Europe liked us. Obama wanted the old model.

The return of the Lockerbie bomber in a UK deal for oil, is a signal that the people that called Blair a poodle and Obama who called for change in European relations are getting their wish. We are going back to the way things were and soon the model that worked so well for leaders like Moamar Qadaffi will be back in place and we can go back to relaxing in front of our Televisions watching friendly news anchors telling us about the annoyances of American skyscrapers falling to the ground and Jetliners falling from the sky.

I guess the British can enjoy cheaper petrol and they won't have to worry about having their leaders act as "Poodles" to those crazy Americans. Now their leaders are poodles to the terrorists that kill their constituents.

The name of this blog, "Falling Beams adjustment" refers to the parable by Dashiel Hammet that describes the curious and almost subconscious way human beings adjust to traumatic shocks. Bush adjusted one way. Obama and Brown do not adjust in the same way.

Was Obama's statement an open admission of Racial Prejudice?

When I was younger the term Prejudice, Bias and Racist were nearly interchangeable. You don't hear the terms bias and prejudice as much these days. I was listening very carefully to Barack Obama's remarks regarding the arrest of his close friend, Skip Gates and if it does not jump out as racist, or the remarks of a person with a hair trigger racial prism by which he views the world, then at the very least it is most definitely a text booked case of racial prejudice and racial bias.

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of prejudice:

A prejudice is an implicitly held belief, often about a group of people. Race, economic class, gender or sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and religion are other common subjects of prejudice. It can be used to characterize beliefs about other things as well, including "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."

I was always told that bias and prejudice, or "pre-judging", was a matter of "not having all the facts" about a specific person or event and applying your generally held beliefs about the skin color or group identity of the individuals involved and drawing rash leaps of logic about the events or individuals based on their group identity. An example would be calling someone "stupid" or saying they "acted stupidly" based not on the facts, but on your own recollection of perceived stereotypical outcomes when members of these groups interact. If one was to make such a leap to use such an insult like "stupid" in a personal, casual, or non-public event it could be considered hostile or even "fighting words", but when such perjoratives are used in a formal public event, it is not only considered a faux pas to exhibit racial prejudice in a campaign speech, for instance, but to call someone stupid from the podium of a Presidential Press conference, even if he were referring to Kim Jung Il would be considered a major break with Presidential decorum.

Let's imagine one of Obama's predecessors making these remarks, and let's go over the transcript and see where the prejudice is. Here is the question:

LYNN SWEET: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?

I remember when GHW Bush commented on the Rodney King beating video it created a buzz that the top law enforcement officer in our government would imply guilt before a fair trial had been given. Many pundits have pointed out that two of Obama's opening remarks about not having the facts and he is a friend of mine are usually followed with, "So, no comment". Not for this President. When a Massive Health Care Presser is clearly going to the toilet, fall back on ol' faithful, race baiting.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

Not only is Skip his friend, he is one of Obama's friends that makes his salary and his celebrity status commenting on how black people are oppressed and at one point during the campaign Obama wanted and needed the support of this group, many of which questioned his "blackness", which sounded troubling and disturbing to many Americans. So Skip and Barack have a bond that Obama values for political reasons amongst other things.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

People should be concerned about their Neighbor's homes, regardless of their race right? ...and remember the home had been broken into recently, so the neighbors and police were on the ball here.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

This hasn't been addressed much, but I am thoroughly offended and disturbed each time Obama and the First lady joke about or discuss the different ways that our president might be killed. I consider it an exercise in self importance and drama that has been traditionally an off limits topic for all Presidents and why this one gets away with repeating this again and again is beyond me. It makes his security detail's job more difficult and puts our governments stability in danger.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

We are soon going to hear the tape of this "exchange of words" the President is skipping over when the Cambridge Police release the tapes. He was not arrested immediately after providing Identification, he pursued the officer when the officer said he was leaving.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. BUT I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry;

Every young white male is going to be questioned by a police officer at some point and most will, at least once, be accused falsely or at least treated with suspicion by a police officer, or told to cooperate or move along or whatever, at a time when you are minding your own business and not doing anything wrong. This has happned to me many times. Most young white males will witness a friend or other white male who talks back to the officer or is in some way uncooperative. This type of behavior nearly always has an unhappy ending for the youth, when the officer attempts to encourage compliance. Little kids know this stuff, this is not the type of material that needs to be in a university sylabus. Apparently Skip Gates has not experienced this reality in the mean streets of the Harvard Commons or at his home in Martha's Vineyard, but unlike the young white youth, he seems to think harrassing an officer who has rushed to his aid, is an opportunity to uncover some cosmic truth and that is that he is an oppressed victim struggling against a massive conspiracy to keep him trapped in his nightmare of being forced to live with million dollar salaries and luxurious homes and being forced to appear on regular television shows and awards dinners. I have never been angry at a police officer who approached my house for any reason and the few times I was frustrated or unhappy about receiving a ticket or being told what to do, I never openly expressed anger at the officer. I have no idea why the President is trying to have us "understand the rage".

...number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

The President is either, as he admitted ignorant of the facts, in this case, what the actual charges are against Skip Gates, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the public to make his pal look good and the cops look bad. Let's remember, one of the few things Obama claims on his micro resume is that he is an Uber Attorney. Skip Gates was not charged with burglary. Obama knows that. When the officer was finally able to get Gates to interupt his lunatic ranting long enough to hand over his ID, which was a task the officer was required to do before leaving the scene, Crowley told Gates he was leaving. The burglary investigation was complete. The charge of disorderly conduct was based on Gates behavior before during and after the identification. Obama knows this. He is exhibiting bias by attempting to mislead and on Thursday when he refered to Gates age and his cane, he again was trying to mislead the public, by implying that disorderly conduct has an age limit or is limited to those that are capable of violently overwhelming an officer.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

If this so called fact, is "separate and apart" from this event which the President has admitted he is ill informed, then why bring it up. Why imply that this so called fact is relevent in this case, if you have no proof that it is. What if Bush said something like this. When Bush called Jose Padilla a "Bad Guy", the left accused him of profiling and worried that Hispanics would be targeted as terrorists. Latino Muslims complained of being targeted even though the number of Latino Muslims in America is believed to be only a few hundred.

What Obama is doing here is what he so often does. As Thomas Sowell points out, like a magician, Obama has a tendency to tell you he is not saying X or doing X, and then with his other hand and using different words he proceeds to do or say what he just claimed he was not doing. It is the equivelent of some old fart starting a story with, "Now, I'm not a racist or anything, BUT.....".

Obama is claiming Racial profiling is seperate and apart from the facts, but he in fact is including it as one the three facts that he claims "its fair to say" when characterizing the event. If we go back to the original "prejudice" of a person applying what they believe is a pattern in general about groups and making a leap of logic without knowing the specifics or the facts. Furthermore, Obama is intentionally trying to obscure the facts of the case. Then he follows up with his public legislative and legal works to address this apparent scourge of racial profiling.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

What haunts us? Having people falsely charged because of the color of their skin or their group identity? He is the top law enforcement officer and he is calling this man stupid, for following every conceivable procedure that he has been trained to follow. Gates has told the media that he was arrested by a "white" officer who couldn't handle a black man standing up for himself. Obama, by defending Gates "anger" and then droning on about us being haunted, is using his prejudice about white people and white police officers as well and saying they can be trained and trained and trained, they can be partnered with a hispanic officer and a black officer, and yet, if they come across a black man who is flipping his lid and yelling and screaming to the onlookers and refusing to cooperate, that somehow, because he is white, he STILL can not escape his inherent racism. This message is surprisingly similar to the rantings of friends of the Obamas like the Farakhans and Jeremiah Wrights when they refer to the "white devils". This is "pre-judging" Sgt. Crowley and attempting to destroy him and give him the Joe the Plumber treatment, for daring to get in the way of the King.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and often time for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.

Interesting how he ends with "bias" as he started by admitting that he is "biased", albeit biased because Gates is his friend. I can't imagine what would happen if Bush commented about the arrest of a friend and called the officer stupid what would happen. Every Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern would claim that Bush is trying to retaliate against opponents to protect rich texas oilmen who want to destroy the universe. So He ends by claiming bias is a bad when others are guilty of it.

He goes on to say he has been a crusader against racial profiling and he is currently working to end the "haunting" so we can "improve policing techniques" with local law enforcement. So he is implying that had there been better training or policies in Cambridge. Gates would not have been arrested. Gates did nothing wrong? He was in his home watching America's Idol and the cops stormed in and dragged him away because he is a "black man in America"

I have to know, What policies could they adopt that might help? What have they not done? Where did the system break down? Officer Crowley has been awarded and congratulated by his African American superior who applauds his 10 years of training others in how not to racially profile. He was accompanied with a black cop and a hispanic cop, who apparently should also be experts in racial profiling. What else can they do? What other hoops should law enforcement jump through?

Is it possible that Gates was wrong? Is it possible for the first time in history a black man FALSELY ACCUSED a white person of racism. Is it possible when Gates threatened the officer and said, "You don't know who you are messing with", what he meant is, "I am a powerful race baiter that makes my living portraying white cops as devils and my best friend is the most powerful man in the world who also happens to be black, and if I pick up the phone, he will call you a stupid white cop and you will be destroyed"

Henry Louis Gates is the equivalent of Mel Gibson yelling at his arresters and saying "Do you know who I am, You dirty SOB!!". He is a self important celebrity who was tired and frustrated after a long trip and who has a racial chip on his shoulder.

It is interesting to view Obama's Sotomayor appointment under this context. In the Ricci case, white New Haven Firemen are assumed to be favored or possibly cheating if they score better than African Americans. Obama sees a ranting lunatic correctly arrested for disorderly conduct and he claims the cop is racist, cheating, poorly trained, and stupid, because he is white.

I think when you consider the nature of Obama's logic in his statement, what we witnessed was an American President stand up in a formal press conference and make open statements of Racial Prejudice, admit he is biased in a case where he attempts to demonize the officer which will definitely result in his being harrassed, and worse yet, he tries to use his demonstrated racial attack as an example why he is making America a better place.

I imagined we got past this behavior with the defeat of George Wallace. I never thought I would witness this type of misguided use of Presidential power in my lifetime.

What happens if we create an energy insurance plan?

When considering the Obama arguments regarding Health Care, such as "If we don't spend more, our nation will go bankrupt", what if we applied the same arguments to Energy and more specifically Carbon based energy.

In the 1970s, they did not say "we need to become energy independent, so green jobs will create a booming economy". They said, "We have an energy shortage". That meant that the demand for energy in the most prosperous nation on earth was higher than the supply available at that time. This caused high prices. I remember finding it difficult to afford gas as a young man, because of the shortage.

Why didn't they create "Energy insurance" or "gas insurance" for me. The rich could drive to grandma's house, commute long distances to a higher paying job and escape the crime ridden Leftist controlled Urban centers for the suburbs. I needed a subsidy and an insurance policy to allow me to meet my basic transportation needs so I could live the American dream. Without Grandma, higher pay, and a tranquil neighborhood, I could have spiraled into a cess pool of despair and poverty and even starvation.

Let's assume, they institute energy insurance today. Americans would have the choice to purchase "private insurance" by paying monthly premiums, that would deliver "Energy care" or an amount of gas that you need each month. You pay "reasonable" premiums each month. The average gas price would be $3.00 per gallon even when summer blends drive up costs.

What about the poor? What about those that can't afford much gas, or no gas at all. The government would provide "government option gas insurance" and you pay no premiums. When you need gas you go down to the gas station and fill up as much as you want. If Grandma lives 1000 miles away, go for it. Commute 3 hours each way if you please. Live in Aspen and use your "free gas card" to travel to work in LA.

Would gas consumption go up? Yes. Would the middle class suddenly start trying to qualify for "Government option gas insurance"? Yup! Would the total amount of demand for gas go up? Oh Yes.

But we have a shortage. We also are told there is a Doctor Shortage and a Nursing Shortage that is driving up costs, making it difficult for people to afford health care.

At what point would the government start telling you when to get gas and how much? They call it rationing. In the 1970s, they had odd even days where the last digit on your license plate decided which day you could buy gas. How does the government deter these poor gas guzzlers from loading up and driving like mad. What is to stop those same people from going to the MAYO Clinic when they have bad gas. How does Bill Gates get in to see his Doctor when he is in line behind the Bad Gas patients?

Its called rationing. Our current energy policy is designed to force us to consume less. Why did Obama consider suspending the Gas tax a gimick in 2008? Because he wanted high gas prices to inhibit consumption. He even said, if we suspend gas taxes, it would cause a spike in demand that would result in a shortage and even higher prices than before the tax cut. Huh?

Using that logic, cutting health care costs with Obamacare will result in a rush to scoop up cheap health care that would result in higher prices than we had before his Debacle.

Obama seems to have selective understanding of Supply and Demand. Which leads us to believe, this is not about relieving our burden, it is about taking control, which results in placing a bigger burden on every American, including those who are not yet able to vote against this yoke on our shoulders.

We had the Spend, Spend,...Now here comes the Tax, Tax!!

They are called Tax and Spend Liberals, ..........but not necessarily in that order.

Six Years Out: Rummy was Right! US troops stand down as Victors

On June 27, 2005, Donald Rumsfeld appeared for the full Hour on Fox News Sunday to talk about the two year old Iraq war. Now four years later the Troops are pulling out of the cities and handing security over to the Iraqis. They will now be stationed at bases in the countryside, not unlike Subic Bay in the Phillipines, or Ramstein in Germany. The War is over. We won.

Now the the Iraqis are the Old Sages of Liberty in the Middle East.

Here is what Donald Rumsfeld said in that interview four years ago about the average lifespan of an insurgency.

We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

Reading this interview now as we look back on how we won and how bad it could have been had we lost is a fascinating exercise.

At one point he is asked about a comment Cheney said about the insurgency being in its "last throes". Rumsfeld responds that people in the media use the term "Quagmire" and they ignore the Iraqi Political successes that are required for Democracy to emerge and the fact that the left and the media see the conflict through "quagmire" lenses. He explained that the term last throes could mean the Insurgency is entering a very violent "last throes" that will spike during elections and will "ebb and flow" and eventually die out once the people begin to see that the emergence of Democratic Rule is possible and a reality.

It is generally accepted that although 2007 was the most violent year, it was also the year that the Surge was methodically dismantling the enemy. The year 2006 was nearly as violent, but the violence was not the same.

Let's look at what was happening the year prior to Rumsfelds interview. The Madrid bombings scared away one of our key allies. Al Qaeda attacked the Russian school in Beslan and continuing to flex its mucscles.

A week after this interview were the Al Qaeda bombings in London. Four months later was the French Intifada that immobilized Paris.

But two events stand out as watershed events. One of them an over reach by Al Qaeda and another event that exacerbated the violence in Iraq and most definitely lengthened the occupation. The bombing of the Wedding in Jordan that killed the producer of the movie "Halloween" and his family was a major PR blunder by Al Qaeda. Many Muslims across the middle east when asked, admit that their view of Al Qaeda changed because of the imagery of such a brutal attack on such innocent civilians. This was the beginning of many in Iraqi's Sunni Triangle turning against Al Qaeda.

The other event was the bombing of the Dome of the Al Asakari Mosque in Sammara nine months after the Rumsfeld interview in February of 2006. This Al Qaeda act of terrorism turned 2006 into a bloody sectarian conflict that would take months to dampen the emotions.

What is key to remember is that one year after Rumsfeld discussed the Ebb and Flow and the "Last Throes" being possible a very violent "last throes", the commanders that would later become famous for being the architects of the winning strategy were beginning to share ideas that would later be known as "the Surge".

McKiernan, Odierno, and Petraeus were investigating new techniques and new bold personalities were moving to the forefront, as they tend to do in American Wars, and less bold personalities that lacked vision or feared the negative ramifications of American Domestic Political events on their careers fell back and eventually lost command. Civilians like Fred Kagan and Ret. Gen Keane continued to offer support and key congressional input from John McCain, Roy Blunt and estranged Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman all bolstered Rumsfeld's basic premise, which is Insurgencies take time, and especially a move from insurgency to Democracy in a land where Democracy is alien. I believe Rumsfeld was also trying to argue that the 5 to 12 year window that insurgencies usually tend to last for MAY have been a required transition period for the people to work out long simmering issues and decide whether Democracy was right for them or not.

There was a time a couple of years ago that Iraqis when polled had a surprisingly large number of respondendents advocating a "Strong man" leader with an Iron fist. Now polls show a large majority of Iraqis favoring democracy and predicting its ongoing success.

Another premise that should be considered. The left argued we should just "cut and run". They argued that these people are incapable of understanding democracy, that they are driven by primal religious bigotry and hatred and they do not deserve our help or "one more drop of American blood".

One, with the pullout of US troops today, they were proven wrong on so many levels, and exposed as cynical and bitter opportunists that are willing to put their own selfish domestic political interests before that of our nation and the freedoms and principles we are founded on.

But more importantly, what would have occurred had Rumsfeld waved the white flag and done the bidding of the Pelosis, the Reids and the Obamas.

The greatest fear of the Sunni Muslims in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other gulf states for the last 30 years (Thanks to Jimmy Carter) has been a Hegemonistic Revolutionary Islamic campaign launched by the Shiite Muslim Fanatics that run the theocratic government of Iran. The image of Iranian tanks entering Kuwait City was the threat that Saddam used to convince the Royal family to bankroll his war. Saddam bombed the Saudis after feeling betrayed during the gulf war after he had protected them from the Ayatollah's plan to spread out across the middle east by way of Hezbollah, Terrorism, and all out war.

That fear of a Shiite wave spreading west across the Mid East never went away and the image of Iranian tanks and Missile launchers arriving on the shores of the Red Sea in site of Israel and Egypt was a very really concern during the "Cut and Run" debates of 2006. When the Left claimed the Mid East countries hated us, they would have heard a very different tune behind closed doors had we pulled up stakes in 2006 and left.

Of course the left argue that we would "redeploy" to Turkey or Okinawa and if "things got real bad" in Iraq, we would come back and show 'em who's boss!

Does anybody really believe that if we had pulled out after the Sammara Mosque Bombing and let them kill each other that we would under any circumstances have gone back in, especially if the violence was far worse? Even Obama argued that we were willing to tolerate Genocide if need be to get out. The Jordanians, Saudis, and Gulf States knew good and well, that if we left, there would be no cavalry, and no hope of return. If the Al Sadr Militia took on the Sunnis and without the Americans in country then asked for help from the Iranians, there would be nothing stopping the Iranians finishing the unfinished business of the Iran Iraq war of the 80s and reuniting Iraqi Shias under the banner of their Theocracy. Obviously they would not stop there. Knowing that the Americans political situation, they would only have a limited amount of time to take the ground to the west without western intervention, and surely they would have struck.

The Genocide Obama referred to would have occurred and what would have happened when the Iranian and quite possibly Syrian tanks arrived on the Jordan River. Would Obama's Genocide turn into a Nuclear Holocaust?

Obama ran on the premise that the Iranian government "Might" want to solve our differeances peacably. They may want to bargain away their Nuclear Weapons through negotiations. The Iranians can be reasoned with. There was also the premise that, if we discover that they can not be reasoned with and if they turn out to be garden variety thugs that oppress their own people, are not interested in the prosperity of their populace and who are neither religious nor are they interested in Morality, that we would fall back to a more aggressive approach.

I think we have discovered just that. Obama seems to be frozen like a deer in the headlights. Iran is not coming over for the Fourth of July BBQ, they are not to be reasoned with. Important Religious leaders like Ayatollah Montezeri, Rafsanjani, and yes, even Ali Sistani from, hold on,...drumroll,...the Democratic and Sovereign nation of Iraq are meeting in Qom to argue that the Iranian leadership is not only not behaving in an islamic or moral manner, but that they are actually just a brutal dictatorship that lives to retain its own power.

So where does that leave Obama. He claimed to have a hidden backup plan that contained a more "aggressive approach". He claimed that a Nuclear Iran was "unacceptable".

OK, so baby back ribs and sparklers for the Ayatollahs didn't work out so well, so whats next? We're all ears.

I happen to think Obama has no backup plan. They loved asking Bush, "If the Surge doesn't work, what is yoru back up plan?". I think his term "unacceptable" really means "hope". As in...I "hope" the Iranians "change" and disarm themselves. Turn on your TV and see if they have any intention of being peaceful and reasonable.

I like Donald Rumsfeld and I realize George Bush was President and deserves the majority of the credit for standing firm and winning this war, but on this VI day (Victory in Iraq) I wanted to revisit Donald Rumsfelds contribution to winning in this theater of "the long war". I miss his clarity, his honesty, and his ability to dispose of bullshit questions from "Drive by" media Dingbats and Info babes who have no idea of Rummys 5 decades of service to his country.

Rummy was right. This Insurgency would take 5, 6 8, 10 or twelve years. It was actually over in 5, which is the low end estimate, but here we are at 6 so lets celebrate. Whether the insurgency we fought in the Philipines or in Latin America or any number of examples in the last century by the British. This is not the first time this has happened, nor is it a re-run of Vietnam as the questioner posited. Rumsfeld had studied this well and he served his President well. The level of force over the long run was not to small, and he was right that a larger force would have alientated the populace.

In the end we leave Baghdad as victors. The people we liberated are our friends and for now, they are greatful for our sacrifice. Rumsfeld knew this was merely a theater in the long war, but as we are seeing Iraqi Shiites lecturing their oppressed brothers in Iraq about the right path to take...as if the Iraqis are old and wise regarding the ideals of Freedom and Democracy,...Well, Ironically, in that part of the world, they are the old sages of liberty, and like our forefathers they earned the title through their blood sweat and tears. In fact they are wiser about liberty than the Americans that were willing to watch them all die in a genocide for their own selfish power grab.

Yes, the Iraqis are the Old Sages of Liberty in the Middle East. God Bless them and wish them well.

Remember...

Occasionally, in order to remember, we need to revisit our recent past as the Drive By media fights feverishly to make America forget.

George W. Bush was indeed a courageous man...

Chrichton gave the best refutation of Global Warming two years ago

One of my favorite Refutations of "Catastrophism" in Global Warming by the late Michael Chrichton. My appreciation for his intellect continues to grow with his passing. Every high school senior should watch this interview. Start at minute 22 for the global warming stuff. The first 22 minutes is about his final novel, "Next", which was about Biogen companies that own a disease as well as its cure and the new problems posed by genetic research, pandemics and government intervention in medicine. Very timely.

This interview was two years ago and to see how different the rhetoric by Charlie Rose then and now demonstrates how much has changed and how he impacted the argument by being one of the few that had the courage to stand up and say "Bullshit".