Of shoes and liberty

In case ye socks missed it this weekend, El Presidente made a surprise visit to Baghdad.

While he was there, some idiot decided to take off his shoes and throw them at him.

Apparently, that's some big insult in the Arab world.

Whatever.

The bigger story, the one the rest of the press corps failed to highlight in their coverage of this display of bad manners, is that nobody got killed in its aftermath.

That wouldn't have happened just a few years ago.

Nobody would have dared throw footwear at Sodamn Insane, because they would have paid with their lives.

Were it not for the target of his contempt, the idiot shoe-tosser would not enjoy the freedom of speech that allowed him to go home to his family after his little temper tantrum.

Would that he and his ilk, both there and here, would focus their contemplations along those lines instead of coming up with new ways of voicing their indignation for the sake of being indignant.

The folly of ignoring history's lessons

As the junior senator from Illinois prances about on the world stage this week, making friends and captivating the "mainstream" media, I find it awfully ironic that he is able to do this with any degree of personal safety.

Oh, but, that's right. The surge worked. So, now, all the cut-and-run folks can actually show up in Baghdad in their tie-dye and Birkenstocks without too much risk of getting blown into atheistic oblivion.

Why is it the same folks who just love to play Monday morning quarterback about how we went to war with Iraq are the same folks who are wearing blinders when it comes to the success our troops are currently enjoying over there?

They really do need to crack a history book or two or three.

Don't they understand a rapid withdrawal of American military might from Iraq will create a tremendous power vacuum in which Al-Qaeda and Iran will be able to launch terrorist attacks on regional democracies AND on the U.S. homeland itself?

Read a little Florida history, and pay particular attention to the lesson Old Hickory taught the Seminoles.

Don't they understand that failure to win this round in Iraq can only result in Iraq War III?

Read a little about Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles.

Do they really want to pass such grave obligations to future generations?

That would be a cop-out nearly without parallel in the pantheon of American history.

If he is drinking that kind of Kool-aid, the Democratic nominee is too naive to be our president.

5 years in Iraq

Yesterday marked the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war.

The dominant media used the occasion as might be expected, following their mantra of "hide the heroes, hype the heinous." We got a reminder of the casualty figures (3,987 US troops, 170 Brits, 33 Italians, 21 Poles, 18 Ukrainians, 13 Bulgarians, 11 Spaniards, 7 Danes, 5 Salvadorans, 4 Slovaks, 4 Fijians, 3 Latvians, 2 Australians, and the list went on). We were also reminded of the cost, which now varies between 2 and 4 trillion dollars depending on which pessimist you believe.

What you didn't get was any detailed list of the successes in Iraq since 2003. Sure, you may have gotten some vague concession about the troop surge cutting the level of violence. But, certainly no specifics. And, I for one NEVER saw any media types go thru a list of the very good things that have happened since the war started.

So, to make up for the gross oversight, here's a list of some good things that have happened as a result of this war:

1. Saddam Hussein and his key henchmen are dead or out of power. His sons were also killed, extinguishing any fears of them potentially continuing his reign of terror.

2. Democracy has been established with the adoption of a new constitution in 2005. Some TWELVE MILLION Iraqis came out to vote in the first free election ever held in their lifetimes in December of that year.

3. Coalition forces now control the flow of oil. Not only is it no longer subject to the whims of a maniacal dictator, it did not fall into the hands of terrorists or their state sponsors in the neighborhood.

4. A vital toe-hold has been established in the Middle East that allows the US to more effectively wage the overall War on Terror. Coalition forces have captured hundred of extremists including key al-Qaeda leaders and operatives.

5. The fear of potential weapons of mass destruction being launched out of Iraq has been removed. Whether or not they existed at all is still a bone of contention, but at least the threat isn't there any more.

These are just one man's general observations. The real experts, the boots on the ground, have compiled more lengthy and more detailed lists in their posts back to CentCom--including the reconstruction projects that are delivering water and electricity, repairing/adding infrastructure, reviving commerce, and building schools and hospitals.

But, isn't it pathetic that you don't see any of this good news on your tv news programs or in the liberal print media?

Huckabee had a good run

I have never concealed my ardent support of Mike Huckabee's campaign for the presidency, either in the blogosphere or beyond.

But, his race came to an end last night, when John McCain finally won enough convention delegates to ensure he will be the next Republican presidential nominee.

I am still convinced that he is destined to bigger and better things.

I believe the next big thing for him will be a US Senate race in his native Arkansas. Then, in four years, who knows what the cards may hold.

In the mean time, the GOP is stuck with McCain and needs to spend the next few months mending fences while Hillary and Obama fight it out across the aisle.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. McCain's military service was heroic. But, what he has done in the halls of Congress, are worthy of a lot of scorn.

He is not so much a true rock-ribbed Republican as he is every Democrat's favorite Republican. His candidacy was foisted upon the GOP by a lot of media hype and crossover votes from Independents and liberals intent upon thwarting the conservative agenda. Sour grapes? Maybe.

All that being said, my main problem with McCain is that he is a flip-flopper on too many issues that are important to me. He wants to be everything to everybody. Here are a few of the most glaring examples:

1. TAXES - He didn't just vote against the Bush tax cuts once, he voted against them TWICE! (First in May 2001, and again in 2003.) as late as 26 Nov 2005, he told the Wall Street Journal the reason he opposed the tax cuts: "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do." Now, he's running around the campaign trail saying he wants to make them permanent?!

2. IMMIGRATION - I will never forget 2005, when McCain partnered with Teddy Kennedy to craft the worst piece of legislative piffle in recent memory. It would have granted amnesty to some 12 million illegal aliens. But, this year at the Reagan Library debate, he said he would not vote for it himself if it was brought to the Senate floor?!

3. ABORTION - In an effort to pander to his buddies in the San Francisco media back in 1999, McCain told a Chronicle reporter, and I quote, "I would not support repeal of Roe v Wade." But, when speaking before South Carolina primary voters last year, he said, and again I quote, "I do not support Roe v Wade, it should be overturned."

4. TORTURE - This has been McCain's sacred cow, given his status as a former POW. But, when given the opportunity to require the CIA to abide my the Army Field Manual interrogation tactics, he voted AGAINST the bill last month.

5. IRAQ - McCain would also like to take credit for the successful change of course in Iraq, claiming at the aforementioned Reagan Library debate, "I'm the only one that said Rumsfeld had to go." Poppycock! In December 2004, when his friends in the media were trying to goad him into trashing Rumsfeld, he told them the president "can have the team around him that he wants around him."

Look, I am always willing to accept a true heart-felt conversion. We all evolve as we grow older, at least we should. And, McCain has been on this planet for a very long time. Now that Huckabee has cleared the way for him, the presumptive nominee needs to spend the next few months convincing folks like yours truly that his new positions on issues like listed above were taken from conviction and not just pandering for votes.

And, he needs a good running mate . . .

Reagan's Legacy

Well, the GOP candidates got together again tonight, this time at the Reagan Library out in California. And, yes, Nancy was there, along with the Governator.

Unfortunately, the CNN moderators encouraged the two "leading" contenders to drag the tone of the debate into the gutter. It was truly shameful and, in my opinion, terribly disrespectful to the memory of the Gipper.

The only thing anyone can give John McCain credit for is staying on message. No matter what the question was, his canned answers always came back around to the Iraq surge. Health care? Surge. Economy? Surge. Leadership? Surge.

The other thing he did, with an annoying smirk on his face, was continually bait Mitt Romney about his position on . . . you guessed it . . . the surge.

Unfortunately, despite his much-touted credentials and reputation for a suave demeanor, Romney took the bait. He was visibly upset by McCain's attacks. So much for unflappable. Kinda makes you wonder how he'd react to baiting by Iranian, Venezuelan, Cuban, or North Korean "leaders."

What was particularly annoying to me as a Huckabee supporter was how much time and attention the moderators gave to these two and their bad behavior. They virtually ignored the fact that Huck (and Ron Paul) were on the stage.

However, Huckabee did steal the show right at the end. Anderson Cooper asked the question of all four men, "If Ronald Reagan were alive today, would he endorse you?"

Well, Romney thought he would certainly have gained the Gipper's endorsement, because he was (like Reagan) a governor who would approach problems with an outside-the-beltway mentality. Fairly good point.

McCain claimed he deserved the endorsement because he was "a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution." Pompous to say the least.

Everybody's favorite Libertarian shared stories of Reagan campaigning for him in Texas in the 70s and 80s, and their common love of the gold standard.

Then, Huckabee got the last word.

And, he hit a home run.

He told Cooper, and everyone else for that matter, that we shouldn't engage in conjecture about who Reagan would endorse.

Rather, Huckabee astutely challenged his opponents to join him in endorsing Reagan's ideals. They include lower taxes, smaller government, strong defense, the sanctity of human life, and an optimistic vision of America's future.

That response brought down the house!

It was realy cool to see Ah-nold jump up out of his seat as Huckabee's answer ended what had been a bitterly cantakerous evening. I wish he'd had a microphone on him so we could hear what he said to Huck, but there was some back-slapping a big grin, and a fairly long conversation.

I didn't see Schwarzenegger exhibit that kind of body language with the other candidates.

Kinda makes you wonder why the rumor mills say he's going to endorse somebody else?

Oh, well, time to hit the sack.

In the mean time: GO, MIKE, GO!

U.S. Troops get Scrooged by Nancy Pelosi

In case you missed it, the illustrious Speakeress of the House of Representatives has rallied her Democrat majority to give a collective middle finger to our men and women in uniform.

Just before scurrying away from Capitol Hill to enjoy her Christmas vacation, she rushed thru an omnibus spending bill.

And, she spent like a drunken sailor. We're talking 3,500 pages of itemizations totaling $515,000,000,000 of ye socks' tax money.

But, here's the kick in the teeth: Of that huge wad of cash, she stipulated NO funds should go to our troops in Iraq!

Is she completely out of her mind? How can she do this?!? It is nothing short of an outrage!!

Clearly, she and her ilk want to ignore the success of the recent troop surge. Violence is down in Iraq, and order is being restored.

I think Al Gore would have to call this an "inconvenient truth." You see, it is not in the best interest of the Democrats in Congress for the US to succeed in Iraq. They have a vested interest in seeing America's defeat. They must be so proud of that.

Fortunately, the Senate is expected to thwart the House in their efforts to play politics with the lives of our troops. The Democrat majority in the upper chamber of commerce is razor thin, and is unable to pull the type of shenanigans Pelosi can get away with in the House . The final version of the bill will likely correct her gross miscarriage of duty. And, I guess we will have to be content with that.

But, remember this the next time you're tempted to elect a Democrat to Congress. Their party politics come before the insignificant lives of our fellow Americans, especially those putting everything on the line in a war zone.

Iraq progress report

I don't know how many of you socks stayed up late enough to catch El Presidente's live address to the nation on the success of the troop surge in Iraq.

Suffice it to say that progress is being made, much more remains to be done, but the success of the surge to date means several thousand of our troops will be returning home by Christmas (and will not be replaced with fresh units).

Overall, I'd say that was pretty good news, echoing the report delivered to Congress by General David Petraeus earlier this week.

So, imagine my surprise at the Democrats' response to the news.

Ok, ok, I was NOT surprised at all.

I've been saying for quite some time that the Dems have vested interest in seeing our mission fail in Iraq. They want our troops to have to withdraw in disgrace. I guess they see it as the best way to improve the pitiful public opinion of their Congressional leadership.

Just pathetic.

Here's an exercise for you. Draw a line down the center of a piece of paper. On the left hand side, write down the names of everyone who have a stake in a stable Iraq. I come up with the American people, our troops, the Iraqi people, etc., etc.

Now, on the right hand side, write down the names of those who want to see democracy fail in Iraq. If you're an honest sock, you'll come up with Al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc.

Like it or not, Dems. You shall be judged by the company you keep.

Go, Mike, go!

I don't know how many of you socks were able to catch Gov. Mike Huckabee on Hannity & Colmes this Monday, but the more I hear from him the more I like him. Here are a few of the things he had to say:

1. On the war in Iraq - He disagrees both with the "shock and awe" theory of the hawks and the "cut and run" cries from the left. Instead, he advocates a new policy of "snatch and grab."

2. On leadership - True leaders don't make decisions based on public opinion polls. Those that do, are just "thermometers," gauging the heat of a given issue. What America needs is more "thermostats," people who won't just tell you how hot it is but will actually try to do something to change the temperature.

3. On tax reform - Our federal tax system is broken and won't be fixed with the tap of a hammer, twist of a screw driver, or a little duct tape. It needs a complete overhaul.

Now, some critics will say Huckabee is a little glib with his remarks. And, I suppose they may be perceived as a little jingoistic. But, keep in mind that he has a proven record of putting his philosophies into action as Governor of Arkansas.

With Giuliani's liberalism, McCain's age, and Romney's questionable credentials, I find Huckabee to be a beacon of light in this otherwise muddled field of GOP candidates.

If you'd like to find out more about Mike, check out his campaign website at: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/