“I am happy to be in Michigan this morning. I’m happy to have my brother Scott and sister Lynn here. And I’m proud to have all my children and grandchildren here too.
“Michigan is where Ann and I were born. It is where we met and fell in love. I still love Ann. And I still love Michigan!
“During my parents’ campaigns, I visited all 83 Michigan counties, doing my best to convince Michiganders that Romneys and Republicans could lead the state back to prosperity.
“You know my father as a business leader, a governor, and as an advocate of volunteerism. But he came from humble roots. He labored with lath and plaster. He never graduated from college. But like many other Americans, he made his dreams come true.
“And he made a difference. My father worked here to improve Detroit Schools. He worked to write a new state constitution. And he worked as your governor for six years to get Michigan on the move. His character and integrity left an impression that has lasted through the decades.
“It was Mom who did the lion’s share of raising Lynn, Jane, Scott and me. Dad said, that as a successful Mom, she had accomplished more than he. Later she worked in charities, in foster care, in music and the arts, and in volunteerism. She even ran for U.S. Senate.
“I always imagined that I would come back to Michigan someday. That’s why I took the bar exam here. I hadn’t imagined it would happen this way, but I sure have come back to Michigan today.
“I chose this site for a number of reasons. It’s filled with cars and memories. Dad and I loved cars. Most kids read the sports box scores. Dad and I read Automotive News. We came here together, him teaching me about cars that were built before my time.
“The Rambler automobile he championed was the first American car designed and marketed for economy and mileage. He dubbed it a compact car, a car that would slay the gas-guzzling dinosaurs. It transformed the industry.
“This place is not just about automobiles; it is about innovation, innovation that transformed an industry, and in doing so, gave Americans a way of life our grandparents could never have imagined.
“The DC 3 above us was the first true commercial airliner. It transformed aviation from a luxury to a standard mode of transportation.
“Next to us is a Ford hybrid. It is the first giant step away from our reliance on the gasoline engine. It is already changing the world of transportation.
“Just outside is Thomas Edison’s laboratory. There, electricity that Benjamin Franklin discovered was transformed from a novelty into a necessity.
“Innovation and transformation have been at the heart of America’s success. If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.
“We have lost faith in government, not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government.
“We are weary of the bickering and bombast, fatigued by the posturing and self-promotion. For even as America faces a new generation of challenges, the halls of government are clogged with petty politics and stuffed with peddlers of influence.
“It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve.
“I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements…and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading.
“I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world.
“Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation. It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and successes, from the private, public and voluntary sectors, from small and large enterprise, from leading a state, from being in the arena, not just talking about it. Talk is easy, talk is cheap. It is doing that is hard. And it is only in doing that hope and dreams come to life.
“This Christmas, Ann and I gathered my five sons and five daughters-in-law to ask them whether I should run for President.
“We talked about the special time this is in the history of America - the challenges and the opportunities. We talked about the qualities that are needed in our leaders. They were unanimous. They know our hearts. They know our values. They know my experience innovating and transforming, in business, in the Olympics, and in Massachusetts. And they know we love this country.
“And so, with them behind us, with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States.
“It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams.
“I love America and I believe in the people of America.
“I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God. We are all sisters and brothers.
“I believe the family is the foundation of America — and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it.
“I believe in the sanctity of human life.
“I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges.
“I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed. Washington is spending too much money.
“I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders.
“I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us, because…
“I believe in America!
“At this critical time, we must 1) transform our role in the world, 2) strengthen our nation, and 3) build a brighter future for the American family.
“Today, as we stare at the face of radical violent Jihad and at the prospect of nuclear epidemic, our military might should not be subject to the whims of ever-changing political agendas. The best ally of peace is a strong America!
“Our role in the world must be defined not only in terms of our might, but also by our willingness to lead, to serve, and to share. We must campaign for freedom and democracy in our own hemisphere, now threatened by a second aspiring strongman. We must extend our hand to Africa’s poor and diseased and brutalized. We must lead the world’s civilized nations in a partnership that will support moderate Muslim nations and peoples, to help them embrace principles of modernity and defeat violent Jihad. We must link arms with all responsible nations to block Iran from realizing its nuclear ambition. America must never engage and negotiate with Jihadists who want to destroy us, destroy our friends, and destroy our way of life!
“Across the nation, there is debate about our future course in Iraq. Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die; that Iraq’s Sunni region could become a base for Al Qaeda; that its Shia region could be seized by Iran; that Kurd tension could destabilize Turkey; and even that the broader Middle East could be drawn into conflict. The possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating. It could mean a future with far more military involvement and far more loss of American life. For these reasons, I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.
“And no matter how Iraq is resolved, we must honor and care for the veterans who risked their lives, and for the families whose loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice. Our nation has a sacred pact with those who defend freedom. It is a pact we must never break!
“America must regain our standing in the world. Our influence must once again match our generosity. Over the entire 20th century, no nation gave more, shed more precious lives, and took less for itself than America. Our sacrifice for freedom and for human dignity continues unabated. But this is not the way it is seen by others. America’s goodness and leadership in the world, must be as bright and bold as our military might!
“America can also overcome our challenges and seize our abundant opportunities here at home, but only if we follow the right course.
“There are some who believe that America’s strength comes from government - that challenges call for bigger government, for more regulation of our lives and livelihood, and for more protection and isolation from competition that comes from open markets.
“That is the path that has been taken by much of Europe. It is called the welfare state. It has led to high unemployment and anemic job growth. It is not the path to prosperity and leadership.
“I believe the American people are the source of our strength. They always have been. They always will be. The American people: hard working, educated, innovative, ready to sacrifice for family and country, patriotic, seeking opportunity above dependence, God-fearing, free American people. When we need to call on the strength of America, we should strengthen the American people, not the American government!
“We strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology.
“Our government has become a weight on the American people, sapping their strength and slowing their climb. We must transform our government — to become a government that is smaller and less bureaucratic, one with fewer regulations and more freedom for our people. The innovation we need today is to make government more responsive to the needs of everyday American citizens. It’s time to put government in its place, and to put the American people first!
“At America’s core are millions of individual families: families of children and parents, aunts and uncles and cousins, grandparents, foster parents. There is no work more important for our nation’s future than the work done in the home.
“But the work done in the home isn’t getting easier. Values and morals that have long shaped the development of our children are under constant attack. In too many cases, schools are failing. For some, healthcare is inadequate. Family expenses and government taxes take a larger and larger bite. America cannot continue to lead the family of nations if we fail the families at home.
“How is the American family made stronger? With marriage before children. With a mother and a father in the life of every child. With healthcare that is affordable and portable. With schools that succeed. With taxes that are lower. And with leaders who strive to demonstrate enduring values and morality.
“This was the agenda I pursued as governor of Massachusetts. This is the agenda I will pursue if elected president.
“When I was a boy, the American dream meant a house in the suburbs. The American dream today must mean more than a house. The new American dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable healthcare, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland. It’s time to build a new American dream for all of America’s families.
“How will this new American dream be built? Our hopes and dreams will inspire us, for we are an optimistic people. But hope alone is just crossing fingers, when what we need is industrious hands. It is time for hope and action. It is time to do, as well as to dream!
“As we look around us in this museum, we see the evidence of American innovation - airplanes, automobiles, appliances. But these are not America’s greatest innovation. America’s greatest innovation is freedom. Without freedom, we have nothing. With freedom, nothing can hold us back.
“Freedom has made the American dream possible. Freedom will make the new American dream possible. And with the work, sacrifice, and greatness of spirit of the American people, freedom has made America — and will keep America — the greatest nation on earth. God bless America.”
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Friday, February 9, 2007
Anti American Sentiments Helping Terrorism
Question: Does anti-American speech play into the hands of American enemies?
Answer: The analysis of one top Australian official affirms that it does.
Alexander Downer, foreign minister from Australia, discussed how the incentive for terrorism is being driven by the irresponsibility of some European leaders.
Telegraph Co. quoted the minister as saying, "People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad." And further, "That only encourages more horrific behaviour. Every time there is an atrocity committed, it is implicitly America's fault, so why not commit some more atrocities and put even more pressure on America?"
Downer accurately explains, "The al-Qa'eda leadership has said on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of the battle is a battle in the media. The more you can get media denigration of America, the more that the war against terrorism is seen to be an indictment of America, the better for those who started this war."
In a less blaming tone, Downer expressed the possiblity that these prominent European leaders are not intentionally seeking to bring harm on U.S. interests.
Even still Downer goes on to say, "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."
I would sound this same warning to our own politicians in Congress. It is democracy in action to disagree and debate with the White House. It is self mutilation to degrade and deface the White House and vice versa.
Our government should represent the nation's will, resolve and strength. For the President of the United States to be pinned down by frivolous, internal rhetoric means the advancement of a determined and deranged enemy.
Answer: The analysis of one top Australian official affirms that it does.
Alexander Downer, foreign minister from Australia, discussed how the incentive for terrorism is being driven by the irresponsibility of some European leaders.
Telegraph Co. quoted the minister as saying, "People in the West, and not only in Europe, blame America for a suicide bomber in a market in Baghdad." And further, "That only encourages more horrific behaviour. Every time there is an atrocity committed, it is implicitly America's fault, so why not commit some more atrocities and put even more pressure on America?"
Downer accurately explains, "The al-Qa'eda leadership has said on many occasions that more than 50 per cent of the battle is a battle in the media. The more you can get media denigration of America, the more that the war against terrorism is seen to be an indictment of America, the better for those who started this war."
In a less blaming tone, Downer expressed the possiblity that these prominent European leaders are not intentionally seeking to bring harm on U.S. interests.
Even still Downer goes on to say, "Before you leap out there and vigorously attack America, think about what you're saying and the consequences of what you're saying."
I would sound this same warning to our own politicians in Congress. It is democracy in action to disagree and debate with the White House. It is self mutilation to degrade and deface the White House and vice versa.
Our government should represent the nation's will, resolve and strength. For the President of the United States to be pinned down by frivolous, internal rhetoric means the advancement of a determined and deranged enemy.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The Right Direction!
Governor Mitt Romney on Senator Hillary Clinton and Iran
Saturday, Feb 03, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390
Louisville, KY - Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney will keynote the Kentucky GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. Governor Romney will make remarks on the right strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran.
Excerpt Of Governor Romney's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery:
"Recently, the question of how we deal with Iran has been the subject of debate between myself and another potential White House candidate.
"In a speech two days ago in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote 'understand' unquote Iran better - and we need to quote 'engage Iran' unquote. She argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran.
"I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.
"Instead of responding to my policy criticisms, Senator Clinton has chosen to attack me personally. Let's take a step back and consider the broader and more pressing issue at hand - Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas and the threat they pose to us, Israel, and the civilized world.
"Ten days ago, I was in Israel and heard firsthand from those who have been on the front lines of the war against the Jihadist radicals. Indeed, just a few months ago, the Israelis were confronted with a war by Hizbullah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria.
"Against the backdrop of last summer's war, I was especially stunned to learn that Senator Clinton is now advocating for better 'understanding' of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas. Rather than attacking me, why doesn't she join me in calling for a policy that puts even more pressure - not less - against these adversaries?"
One may ask, Is Mitt really getting information from the ground?
Well, I have commited, in a small way on this blog, to keep these messages flowing. I cannot of course, give credit where credit is due in many cases.
One message from the ground goes like this. "Iraqis know the situation and know what needs to be done, but no one is listening to them."Another message from the ground is that, "The U.S. should deal with Iran in a more agressive way, to keep Iraian agents out of Iraq. We should be developing the correct tactics here in Iraq so that we can use them in Iran."
Further, "I wish the private companies would do more, but they don't seem inclined to do so."Sadly, "I have sent the message through every channel I know of, but I think I need to do more.
"The (withheld) is not doing his job because if the army cannot go to check the area; a good relation with General Qais and colonel Abbas will be enough to stop the attacks. But here we are no more connected. The Embassy is just like a prison and no one outside is related to it. If you weren't my boss like before; I would not tell you what I said because that could hurt others. The solution is so easy.
"The program is failing because the HG are seeing weak people not ever able to protect themselves. The army here is not moving. No one do nothing. It is a mess. The (withheld) is careless with issues of the people outside."
"I think that you can work with this program with the Army. Try your best to connect that program because they need your experience really (Program refers to training a group of political agents in an attempt to include the Iraqi people in the huge job of building Iraq)."
I have been hearing so much about the U.S. trying to do too much of the work themselves. Not trusting the local population, which Democrats have the world believing are not fit for deomcracy. Not only are these locals fit for democracy, they are the group that will lose the most if we fail against radical islam.
The right direction in Iran means the right direction in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Not to mention the rest of the Middle East.
Saturday, Feb 03, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390
Louisville, KY - Tonight, Governor Mitt Romney will keynote the Kentucky GOP Lincoln Day Dinner. Governor Romney will make remarks on the right strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran.
Excerpt Of Governor Romney's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery:
"Recently, the question of how we deal with Iran has been the subject of debate between myself and another potential White House candidate.
"In a speech two days ago in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote 'understand' unquote Iran better - and we need to quote 'engage Iran' unquote. She argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran.
"I believe this strategy to be a mistake, and yesterday, to a group of fellow conservatives, I said as much. Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.
"Instead of responding to my policy criticisms, Senator Clinton has chosen to attack me personally. Let's take a step back and consider the broader and more pressing issue at hand - Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas and the threat they pose to us, Israel, and the civilized world.
"Ten days ago, I was in Israel and heard firsthand from those who have been on the front lines of the war against the Jihadist radicals. Indeed, just a few months ago, the Israelis were confronted with a war by Hizbullah, a terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria.
"Against the backdrop of last summer's war, I was especially stunned to learn that Senator Clinton is now advocating for better 'understanding' of Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas. Rather than attacking me, why doesn't she join me in calling for a policy that puts even more pressure - not less - against these adversaries?"
One may ask, Is Mitt really getting information from the ground?
Well, I have commited, in a small way on this blog, to keep these messages flowing. I cannot of course, give credit where credit is due in many cases.
One message from the ground goes like this. "Iraqis know the situation and know what needs to be done, but no one is listening to them."Another message from the ground is that, "The U.S. should deal with Iran in a more agressive way, to keep Iraian agents out of Iraq. We should be developing the correct tactics here in Iraq so that we can use them in Iran."
Further, "I wish the private companies would do more, but they don't seem inclined to do so."Sadly, "I have sent the message through every channel I know of, but I think I need to do more.
"The (withheld) is not doing his job because if the army cannot go to check the area; a good relation with General Qais and colonel Abbas will be enough to stop the attacks. But here we are no more connected. The Embassy is just like a prison and no one outside is related to it. If you weren't my boss like before; I would not tell you what I said because that could hurt others. The solution is so easy.
"The program is failing because the HG are seeing weak people not ever able to protect themselves. The army here is not moving. No one do nothing. It is a mess. The (withheld) is careless with issues of the people outside."
"I think that you can work with this program with the Army. Try your best to connect that program because they need your experience really (Program refers to training a group of political agents in an attempt to include the Iraqi people in the huge job of building Iraq)."
I have been hearing so much about the U.S. trying to do too much of the work themselves. Not trusting the local population, which Democrats have the world believing are not fit for deomcracy. Not only are these locals fit for democracy, they are the group that will lose the most if we fail against radical islam.
The right direction in Iran means the right direction in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Not to mention the rest of the Middle East.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
The Peacefulness of Antiwar Protesters
During recent anti-war protests in our Nations Capital, the peaceful hippies show, shall we say, a less peaceful side. Iraqi vets stand on the side lines and ask simple questions while the screaming, degrading crowd shows a lack of gratitude for, these former soldier's, military service.
With great leaders like Mitt Romney trying to rally unity and self comprehension within our divided country with words like:
"What is the culture of this country, what are our underpinnings? We respect hard work ... We are self reliant, we respect human life, we are a religious people... We are a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit.
"Iran must be stopped and can be stopped," (Romney said to a standing ovation at the Herzliya Conference, an annual gathering of leading Israeli and American political figures and security specialists), Anti-war activists are saying George Bush must be stopped, George Bush can be stopped.
Is there no sense of gratitude anymore, in this great country, for this great military?
And what of congress? What messages are they sending? I say a message of weakness and disorganization is being trumpeted throughout the world.
A message of poll chasing:
Chuck Hagel: "What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."
A message of uncertainty:
John McCain: "In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there,"
A message of irresponsibility:
Hillary Clinton: "I want to be very clear about this: If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war,"
Hillary Clinton: "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,"
Please Mitt Romney, with the help of God, save us.
With great leaders like Mitt Romney trying to rally unity and self comprehension within our divided country with words like:
"What is the culture of this country, what are our underpinnings? We respect hard work ... We are self reliant, we respect human life, we are a religious people... We are a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit.
"Iran must be stopped and can be stopped," (Romney said to a standing ovation at the Herzliya Conference, an annual gathering of leading Israeli and American political figures and security specialists), Anti-war activists are saying George Bush must be stopped, George Bush can be stopped.
Is there no sense of gratitude anymore, in this great country, for this great military?
And what of congress? What messages are they sending? I say a message of weakness and disorganization is being trumpeted throughout the world.
A message of poll chasing:
Chuck Hagel: "What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."
A message of uncertainty:
John McCain: "In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there,"
A message of irresponsibility:
Hillary Clinton: "I want to be very clear about this: If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war,"
Hillary Clinton: "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,"
Please Mitt Romney, with the help of God, save us.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Mitt Confronts our Nation's Greatest Challenge
I admire these words delivered by Mitt Romney regarding Hillary's desire to engage in talks with Iran. Here is a little of what he says, "Someone else considering a run for the White House recently addressed the Iran issue, and you won't be surprised to find out that I don't agree with her approach.
"In a speech last night in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote 'understand' unquote Iran better - and to help her with her education process, that we should quote 'engage Iran' unquote.
"Friends, someone who doesn't understand Iran hasn't been paying attention - at this point, we don't need a listening tour with Iran. While I support gathering intelligence about our adversaries in any way possible, engaging is not the right policy. To the contrary, economic and diplomatic isolation must be our priority.
"Indeed, she argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran. Now, for all the former Soviet Union's flaws, at least they maintained a commitment to national survival. They were not suicidal. The same cannot be said about the Iranian regime. And we must stop making analogies that are disconnected from the world in which we operate.
"And someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity towards a terrible threat."
Michael Freund who writes for the Jerusalem Post conducted a very comprehensive study of polls on radical isalm. His results are frightening.
1. five months ago, and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified.
2. 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.
In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling.
4. A survey in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "sometimes" acceptable.
5. Only 28% said they were never justified.
6. Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, "roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam."
7. less than half of Jordan's Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified.
8. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.
9. Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping(Cpl. Gilad Shalit ),
10. 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks (Cpl. Gilad Shalit ).
11. More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.
in September,
12. On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes.
13. July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida.
14. Lebanon six months ago, Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.
15. A majority of Palestinians backed Hamas in parliamentary elections last year? Sure, there are also places where support for violent jihad is not as high. As
16. Reuters reported on October 15, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.
"Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings."
I like the way Michael Freund ends his article, concluding;
"POLITICIANS and journalists might wish to believe, as we all do, that the backers of violent jihad are few and far between, and that they do not represent large numbers of people with like-minded extremist views. But that is simply not the case. The arithmetic of jihad is quite straight-forward, and it is time we stopped looking the other way and pretending otherwise.
The threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism to Israel and the West can, and must, be met. With determination and a sense of purpose, victory is not out of reach."
What has Mitt Romney been saying? What have the soldiers and Iraqi security forces been saying all along? See Here
Michael continues with his comclusion, "But the longer we continue to underestimate the extent of the problem, the more difficult it will be to defeat it. So let's put aside all that wishful thinking, and roll up our collective sleeves and get to work. Like it or not, the war on terror still faces a long road ahead."
Mitt Romney, once again spoke loudly and clearly about the mistake to "Not lift a finger," in our own defense.
"In a speech last night in New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton said that she needs to quote 'understand' unquote Iran better - and to help her with her education process, that we should quote 'engage Iran' unquote.
"Friends, someone who doesn't understand Iran hasn't been paying attention - at this point, we don't need a listening tour with Iran. While I support gathering intelligence about our adversaries in any way possible, engaging is not the right policy. To the contrary, economic and diplomatic isolation must be our priority.
"Indeed, she argued that our strategy of engagement with the Soviet Union during the Cold War was a model for how we could deal with Iran. Now, for all the former Soviet Union's flaws, at least they maintained a commitment to national survival. They were not suicidal. The same cannot be said about the Iranian regime. And we must stop making analogies that are disconnected from the world in which we operate.
"And someone who wants to engage Iran displays a troubling timidity towards a terrible threat."
Michael Freund who writes for the Jerusalem Post conducted a very comprehensive study of polls on radical isalm. His results are frightening.
1. five months ago, and broadcast on Britain's Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified.
2. 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England's democratic system.
In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling.
4. A survey in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are "often" or "sometimes" acceptable.
5. Only 28% said they were never justified.
6. Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, "roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam."
7. less than half of Jordan's Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified.
8. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.
9. Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping(Cpl. Gilad Shalit ),
10. 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks (Cpl. Gilad Shalit ).
11. More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.
in September,
12. On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes.
13. July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida.
14. Lebanon six months ago, Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.
15. A majority of Palestinians backed Hamas in parliamentary elections last year? Sure, there are also places where support for violent jihad is not as high. As
16. Reuters reported on October 15, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.
"Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings."
I like the way Michael Freund ends his article, concluding;
"POLITICIANS and journalists might wish to believe, as we all do, that the backers of violent jihad are few and far between, and that they do not represent large numbers of people with like-minded extremist views. But that is simply not the case. The arithmetic of jihad is quite straight-forward, and it is time we stopped looking the other way and pretending otherwise.
The threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism to Israel and the West can, and must, be met. With determination and a sense of purpose, victory is not out of reach."
What has Mitt Romney been saying? What have the soldiers and Iraqi security forces been saying all along? See Here
Michael continues with his comclusion, "But the longer we continue to underestimate the extent of the problem, the more difficult it will be to defeat it. So let's put aside all that wishful thinking, and roll up our collective sleeves and get to work. Like it or not, the war on terror still faces a long road ahead."
Mitt Romney, once again spoke loudly and clearly about the mistake to "Not lift a finger," in our own defense.
Friday, January 26, 2007
A good Read.
This is some very good work and a worthwhile read.
Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in IraqAdministration Strategy Stirs Concern Among Some Officials
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; A01
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.
"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."
Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.
But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."
"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.
The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.
The administration's plans contain five "theaters of interest," as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.
The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the "Blue Game Matrix" -- a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran's funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan.
In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.
Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq.
Two officials said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, though a supporter of the strategy, is concerned about the potential for errors, as well as the ramifications of a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian troops on the Iraqi battlefield.
In meetings with Bush's other senior advisers, officials said, Rice insisted that the defense secretary appoint a senior official to personally oversee the program to prevent it from expanding into a full-scale conflict. Rice got the oversight guarantees she sought, though it remains unclear whether senior Pentagon officials must approve targets on a case-by-case basis or whether the oversight is more general.
The departments of Defense and State referred all requests for comment on the Iran strategy to the National Security Council, which declined to address specific elements of the plan and would not comment on some intelligence matters.
But in response to questions about the "kill or capture" authorization, Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC, said: "The president has made clear for some time that we will take the steps necessary to protect Americans on the ground in Iraq and disrupt activity that could lead to their harm. Our forces have standing authority, consistent with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council."
Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force. In his last few weeks as the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. sought to help coordinate the program on the ground. One official said Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "hostile entity," a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action.
Casey's designated successor, Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, told Congress in writing this week that a top priority will be "countering the threats posed by Iranian and Syrian meddling in Iraq, and the continued mission of dismantling terrorist networks and killing or capturing those who refuse to support a unified, stable Iraq."
Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.
With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program.
R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an interview in late October that the United States knows that Iran "is providing support to Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq that have posed a problem for our military forces." He added: "In addition to the nuclear issue, Iran's support for terrorism is high up on our agenda."
Burns, the top Foreign Service officer in the State Department, has been leading diplomatic efforts to increase international pressure on the Iranians. Over several months, the administration made available five political appointees for interviews, to discuss limited aspects of the policy, on the condition that they not be identified.
Officials who spoke in more detail and without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.
The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said a group of senior Bush administration officials who regularly attend the highest-level counterterrorism meetings agreed that the conflict provided an opening to portray Iran as a nuclear-ambitious link between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the death squads in Iraq.
Among those involved in the discussions, beginning in August, were deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, NSC counterterrorism adviser Juan Zarate, the head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, representatives from the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and outgoing State Department counterterrorism chief Henry A. Crumpton.
At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."
Two weeks later, Crumpton flew from Washington to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. A principal reason for the visit, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussion, was to press Abizaid to prepare for an aggressive campaign against Iranian intelligence and military operatives inside Iraq.
Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation.
But senior officials saw it as too timid.
"We were making no traction" with "catch and release," a senior counterterrorism official said in a recent interview, explaining that it had failed to halt Iranian activities in Iraq or worry the Tehran leadership. "Our goal is to change the dynamic with the Iranians, to change the way the Iranians perceive us and perceive themselves. They need to understand that they cannot be a party to endangering U.S. soldiers' lives and American interests, as they have before. That is going to end."
A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.
"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there. But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah.
In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.
Asked whether such a designation is imminent, Johndroe of the NSC said in a written response that the administration has "long been concerned about the activities of the IRGC and its components throughout the Middle East and beyond." He added: "The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force is a part of the Iranian state apparatus that supports and carries out these activities."
Staff writer Barton Gellman and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in IraqAdministration Strategy Stirs Concern Among Some Officials
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; A01
The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.
For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.
"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."
Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.
But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."
"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.
The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.
The administration's plans contain five "theaters of interest," as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.
The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the "Blue Game Matrix" -- a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran's funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan.
In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.
Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq.
Two officials said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, though a supporter of the strategy, is concerned about the potential for errors, as well as the ramifications of a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian troops on the Iraqi battlefield.
In meetings with Bush's other senior advisers, officials said, Rice insisted that the defense secretary appoint a senior official to personally oversee the program to prevent it from expanding into a full-scale conflict. Rice got the oversight guarantees she sought, though it remains unclear whether senior Pentagon officials must approve targets on a case-by-case basis or whether the oversight is more general.
The departments of Defense and State referred all requests for comment on the Iran strategy to the National Security Council, which declined to address specific elements of the plan and would not comment on some intelligence matters.
But in response to questions about the "kill or capture" authorization, Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC, said: "The president has made clear for some time that we will take the steps necessary to protect Americans on the ground in Iraq and disrupt activity that could lead to their harm. Our forces have standing authority, consistent with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council."
Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force. In his last few weeks as the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. sought to help coordinate the program on the ground. One official said Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "hostile entity," a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action.
Casey's designated successor, Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, told Congress in writing this week that a top priority will be "countering the threats posed by Iranian and Syrian meddling in Iraq, and the continued mission of dismantling terrorist networks and killing or capturing those who refuse to support a unified, stable Iraq."
Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.
With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program.
R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an interview in late October that the United States knows that Iran "is providing support to Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq that have posed a problem for our military forces." He added: "In addition to the nuclear issue, Iran's support for terrorism is high up on our agenda."
Burns, the top Foreign Service officer in the State Department, has been leading diplomatic efforts to increase international pressure on the Iranians. Over several months, the administration made available five political appointees for interviews, to discuss limited aspects of the policy, on the condition that they not be identified.
Officials who spoke in more detail and without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.
The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said a group of senior Bush administration officials who regularly attend the highest-level counterterrorism meetings agreed that the conflict provided an opening to portray Iran as a nuclear-ambitious link between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the death squads in Iraq.
Among those involved in the discussions, beginning in August, were deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, NSC counterterrorism adviser Juan Zarate, the head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, representatives from the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and outgoing State Department counterterrorism chief Henry A. Crumpton.
At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."
Two weeks later, Crumpton flew from Washington to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. A principal reason for the visit, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussion, was to press Abizaid to prepare for an aggressive campaign against Iranian intelligence and military operatives inside Iraq.
Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation.
But senior officials saw it as too timid.
"We were making no traction" with "catch and release," a senior counterterrorism official said in a recent interview, explaining that it had failed to halt Iranian activities in Iraq or worry the Tehran leadership. "Our goal is to change the dynamic with the Iranians, to change the way the Iranians perceive us and perceive themselves. They need to understand that they cannot be a party to endangering U.S. soldiers' lives and American interests, as they have before. That is going to end."
A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.
"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there. But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah.
In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.
Asked whether such a designation is imminent, Johndroe of the NSC said in a written response that the administration has "long been concerned about the activities of the IRGC and its components throughout the Middle East and beyond." He added: "The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force is a part of the Iranian state apparatus that supports and carries out these activities."
Staff writer Barton Gellman and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Words from Those Who Know
A friend of mine, in Iraq, works as an english translator. He is very well educated and would be a compliment to any working democracy. Recently, played a role in helping to track down a group of terrorists. These terrorists had kidnapped a certain number of Americans. Their hope was to trade for these American hostages for Iranian prisoners. The Iraq army handled the situation with speed but could not save these American lives. When the terrorists were captured, they were found to be Iranian.
As a matter of discussion, Iranians in Iraq often act the part of Suni and Shiite when performing acts of violence on the opposing sect.
My friend explains, “It is Iran who is doing all that troubles in the Middle East. Look at Lebanon, Palastine and Iraq. Najadi thinks that one day after he has the nuclear weapon; he will ask to be the head of the world.”
He also said, “Sadir people are going to Iran because of the new security plan and the Maliki who did that to save his people.”
Very few including my friend have much confidence or trust in Maliki. I might note that Nancy Pelosi is scheduled to visit with Maliki for talks.
Here is the irony, my friend is Shiite by religion. Funny, most or all of his associates feel the same way. Maliki was a big mistake and Iran is the culprit. Much of the same sentiment felt here in the States.
Ultimately, they want Iran out and a new, more represenative, government in.
My friend goes on to say, “we need to change the Government, to one temporary, for 2 years or less little and bring one man to decide all the government like Allawi Or Al-Aloosi as Sonnie. They are not Radicals and not following Iran and in the same time the US have to support them, to make the people accepting them, by seeing the changes and there will be changes.
Believe in me, people here starting to feel that they got decieved by giving votes for the Radicals Shea'a.
It is Tough for the President to do that because it is against his goal, which is Democratic Iraq, but it is a step on the way up. Im sure because I see the life here”
This brave Iraqi man holds out hope that America can help to resolve the problems in Iraq without having to attack Iran. He believes this can be accomplished.
The only problem is that America is in a fight for credibility. Mitt Romney, in speaking to the Herzliya audience, warned against the temptation to, "not lift a finger," in our own defense. We would onlt do this if,
As a matter of discussion, Iranians in Iraq often act the part of Suni and Shiite when performing acts of violence on the opposing sect.
My friend explains, “It is Iran who is doing all that troubles in the Middle East. Look at Lebanon, Palastine and Iraq. Najadi thinks that one day after he has the nuclear weapon; he will ask to be the head of the world.”
He also said, “Sadir people are going to Iran because of the new security plan and the Maliki who did that to save his people.”
Very few including my friend have much confidence or trust in Maliki. I might note that Nancy Pelosi is scheduled to visit with Maliki for talks.
Here is the irony, my friend is Shiite by religion. Funny, most or all of his associates feel the same way. Maliki was a big mistake and Iran is the culprit. Much of the same sentiment felt here in the States.
Ultimately, they want Iran out and a new, more represenative, government in.
My friend goes on to say, “we need to change the Government, to one temporary, for 2 years or less little and bring one man to decide all the government like Allawi Or Al-Aloosi as Sonnie. They are not Radicals and not following Iran and in the same time the US have to support them, to make the people accepting them, by seeing the changes and there will be changes.
Believe in me, people here starting to feel that they got decieved by giving votes for the Radicals Shea'a.
It is Tough for the President to do that because it is against his goal, which is Democratic Iraq, but it is a step on the way up. Im sure because I see the life here”
This brave Iraqi man holds out hope that America can help to resolve the problems in Iraq without having to attack Iran. He believes this can be accomplished.
The only problem is that America is in a fight for credibility. Mitt Romney, in speaking to the Herzliya audience, warned against the temptation to, "not lift a finger," in our own defense. We would onlt do this if,
Thursday, January 25, 2007
It's Time For Strength
The world looks to the United States and depends on its leadership and a strong President for global security. President Bush has proven he is a strong leader with tax cuts, and other tough domestic policies as well as his strong stand against terrorist and global Jihadists. Unfortunately, the President has been weakened. A weak U.S. President will result in many failures around the world. If the Nation fails to get behind the President and support his agenda the following will probably happen:
1. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Seniora will fail and democracy will cease in Lebanon.. A large number of moderate Muslims and Christians will die as a result.
2. Israel will be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians from a weakened position. They will loose credibility and territory, and put themselves closer to another genocide.
3. The likes of Ayman Zawarhairi will continue to take innocent lives around the world and mock the President (really the Nation) with impunity.
4. Troop moral in the global war on terror will continue to decline until it causes serious decent with in the ranks.
5. Democracy in Afghanistan will give way to Taliban rule.
6. The United States will bow to Iran and Syria and give away 400 billion dollars and 3,000 lives to the enemy. The world oil supply will be in the hands of radical Islam.
7. Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and many other places around the world including France and Great Brittan where western civilization has began and even flourished will turn toward the advance of fanatic Islam.
The Democrats and some Republicans know this all to well, but encourage it. They are betting that they can get away with destroying President Bush and then put things back in order once they’re in power. They believe that their superior intellect and diplomacy will solve the world’s problems. It won’t !
Set aside the tragic loss of life and treasure that their political scheme has cost; their plan won’t work for one basic reason. The fanatic Jihadists only understand one thing; Superior power and authority. It may be many years before a strong President comes back to power and the United States has the resolve to take on this hideous enemy.
A U.S. President was destroyed while in office and the military withdrew from the battle field of Vietnam. Communism was eventually defeated when a strong President came back to power, but this time it won’t be the same. When you consider the nuclear threat, the whole equation changes. Unfortunately, the American public have been misled, and they don’t understand what’s at stake. The best presidential candidate will be one who can educate the public on the reality of the world we live in today.
1. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Seniora will fail and democracy will cease in Lebanon.. A large number of moderate Muslims and Christians will die as a result.
2. Israel will be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians from a weakened position. They will loose credibility and territory, and put themselves closer to another genocide.
3. The likes of Ayman Zawarhairi will continue to take innocent lives around the world and mock the President (really the Nation) with impunity.
4. Troop moral in the global war on terror will continue to decline until it causes serious decent with in the ranks.
5. Democracy in Afghanistan will give way to Taliban rule.
6. The United States will bow to Iran and Syria and give away 400 billion dollars and 3,000 lives to the enemy. The world oil supply will be in the hands of radical Islam.
7. Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and many other places around the world including France and Great Brittan where western civilization has began and even flourished will turn toward the advance of fanatic Islam.
The Democrats and some Republicans know this all to well, but encourage it. They are betting that they can get away with destroying President Bush and then put things back in order once they’re in power. They believe that their superior intellect and diplomacy will solve the world’s problems. It won’t !
Set aside the tragic loss of life and treasure that their political scheme has cost; their plan won’t work for one basic reason. The fanatic Jihadists only understand one thing; Superior power and authority. It may be many years before a strong President comes back to power and the United States has the resolve to take on this hideous enemy.
A U.S. President was destroyed while in office and the military withdrew from the battle field of Vietnam. Communism was eventually defeated when a strong President came back to power, but this time it won’t be the same. When you consider the nuclear threat, the whole equation changes. Unfortunately, the American public have been misled, and they don’t understand what’s at stake. The best presidential candidate will be one who can educate the public on the reality of the world we live in today.
Danger Thrives in The Silence
Reports have been confirmed. High tech, anti-aircraft, rockets have been transfered to Iran. The grantor; Russia. The new home of these rockets; Iranian nuclear facilities.
Then, the presence of North Korean nuclear specialists visiting with Iranian leaders and their nuclear staff.
During all this activity, we get more threatening words from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."
Mitt Romney and other world leaders, spoke out about these activities during sessions of the Herzliya Conference. Of the former governor's speech, former Ambassador Ronald Lauder said, “I just want to say that you have heard one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran. I must say I have heard many different statements on Iran. This was as good as it gets, as straight as it gets, and I for one am very, very much impressed. I think Governor Mitt Romney has it all together.”
We have heard the plan from McCain, more troops. But what of the Democrats? I know of one plan, (Bidon - Gelb), which is a makeshift plan at best. I would say a more of a glorified version of CUT AND RUN.
Here is the most troubling. We have nothing coming from the top Democrat presidential candidates like Hillary and Obama. This alone is more horror than than any human should be exposed to. But is gets even more scary. These two are sitting high in their party's polls. What will it take to wake this public up?
Then, the presence of North Korean nuclear specialists visiting with Iranian leaders and their nuclear staff.
During all this activity, we get more threatening words from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."
Mitt Romney and other world leaders, spoke out about these activities during sessions of the Herzliya Conference. Of the former governor's speech, former Ambassador Ronald Lauder said, “I just want to say that you have heard one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran. I must say I have heard many different statements on Iran. This was as good as it gets, as straight as it gets, and I for one am very, very much impressed. I think Governor Mitt Romney has it all together.”
We have heard the plan from McCain, more troops. But what of the Democrats? I know of one plan, (Bidon - Gelb), which is a makeshift plan at best. I would say a more of a glorified version of CUT AND RUN.
Here is the most troubling. We have nothing coming from the top Democrat presidential candidates like Hillary and Obama. This alone is more horror than than any human should be exposed to. But is gets even more scary. These two are sitting high in their party's polls. What will it take to wake this public up?
An Earlier Article
Mitt on the War
In 2004 John McCain addressed the War in Iraq. He recommended that the generals on the ground be overruled by the highest levels and that more troops be sent in. His words were as follows, "Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur. Abraham Lincoln overruled his generals. Franklin Delano Roosevelt overruled his military people because -- as Napoleon said -- war is too important to be left to the generals."
Now, McCain awaits the announcement of the Administrations new plan for Iraq. Will President Bush ask for more troops? Will Nancy Pelosi dam up war spending?
In any case Mitt Romney has a great position here and is right on the mark. After coming back from a tour of the situation in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, points out the real problem in Iraq. He describes an need for Iraqis to get more involved with the security of their nation.
Earlier Mitt Romney laid out a strategy for Iraq when he stated, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."
Main points here(per Mitt Romney):
1. Support modern Muslim nations.
2. Promote secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade and human rights.
In all this Iraqis must take part in the building, or face collapse when their support is taken away.
The last thing we want right now is fighting between our generals on the ground and the "highest levels" of government. We know that many generals had it right in World War II. Patton's push through Africa into Italy and then later into the heart of Germany came with much criticism from the "highest levels." Was he right? He was worth listening too at the very least.
Our next president needs to shed the tendency of errogance common from the "highest levels," lest he find himself at odds with his main workhorses on the ground. McCain is the propietor of errogance and hard headedness. Look at his stance on immigration in the face of his trusting conservative constituency. His stance on interrogation unravelled the present war on terror information.Mitt Romney remains untouched.
Mitt Romney is one capable of uniting this divided country on ficsal issues as well as the war.
In 2004 John McCain addressed the War in Iraq. He recommended that the generals on the ground be overruled by the highest levels and that more troops be sent in. His words were as follows, "Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur. Abraham Lincoln overruled his generals. Franklin Delano Roosevelt overruled his military people because -- as Napoleon said -- war is too important to be left to the generals."
Now, McCain awaits the announcement of the Administrations new plan for Iraq. Will President Bush ask for more troops? Will Nancy Pelosi dam up war spending?
In any case Mitt Romney has a great position here and is right on the mark. After coming back from a tour of the situation in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, points out the real problem in Iraq. He describes an need for Iraqis to get more involved with the security of their nation.
Earlier Mitt Romney laid out a strategy for Iraq when he stated, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."
Main points here(per Mitt Romney):
1. Support modern Muslim nations.
2. Promote secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade and human rights.
In all this Iraqis must take part in the building, or face collapse when their support is taken away.
The last thing we want right now is fighting between our generals on the ground and the "highest levels" of government. We know that many generals had it right in World War II. Patton's push through Africa into Italy and then later into the heart of Germany came with much criticism from the "highest levels." Was he right? He was worth listening too at the very least.
Our next president needs to shed the tendency of errogance common from the "highest levels," lest he find himself at odds with his main workhorses on the ground. McCain is the propietor of errogance and hard headedness. Look at his stance on immigration in the face of his trusting conservative constituency. His stance on interrogation unravelled the present war on terror information.Mitt Romney remains untouched.
Mitt Romney is one capable of uniting this divided country on ficsal issues as well as the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
