That’s what the debate will be about when they take up FISA reform. Here’s how David Rivkin and Lee Casey frame the debate in their WSJ op-ed. In my opinion, they’ve framed it perfectly.

Would any sane country purposefully limit its ability to spy on enemy communications in time of war? That is the question Congress must answer as it takes up reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Privacy activists, civil libertarians and congressional Democrats argue that both foreign and domestic eavesdropping must be subject to judicial scrutiny and oversight, even if this means drastically reducing the amount of foreign intelligence information available to the government, without ever acknowledging the costs involved. It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.

One of the sentences in that paragraph that I disagree with is when they say “It is time the American people had an open and honest debate on the relative importance of privacy and security.” It isn’t that it isn’t important to have such a debate. It’s that we’ve already had that debate. As usual, we’re waiting for the Democratic leadership, indeed all of Washington, to catch up. In poll after poll, the American people have overwhelmingly supported the NSA’s intercept program, which is what we’re really talking about here.

When this legislation was first debated, Democrats caved because they didn’t want to be blamed for terrorists’ communications reaching their destination without us listening in:

The measure would authorize the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

The real debate is in the Democratic Party. In fact, it isn’t a debate as much as it is a all-out food fight. Here’s what MoveOn.org said: (continue reading post »)

That should be the GOP’s theme for 2008. Think of what’s happened each time we enunciated a forward-looking, pro-growth vision. That’s what Ronald Reagan did in 1984 when he told us he’d cut taxes, defeat the Commies and appoint strict constructionist judges. In 1994, Newt’s revolution was made complete with the unveiling of the GOP’s vision for America. George Bush got 23 percent more votes in 2004 than he won in 2000 because he painted a vision of what he wanted to accomplish in his second term by filling his stump speech with things like appointing strict constructionist judges, fighting terrorists, reforming Social Security while keeping taxes low.

Part of why we got whipped in 2006 is because every other GOP commercial only talked about how America wouldn’t like Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco values agenda. The GOP’s message didn’t inspire people to vote for GOP candidates. That’s also why funds trickled into the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC in 2006. People were fed up with Republicans who didn’t act like Republicans. This year, the funds are trickling in again. The cure is in Republicans acting like Republicans. It’s also about them not worrying about tailoring their message to appeal to moderates. Let me explain.

If we put together a coherent agenda that keeps taxes low, that prioritizes how we’re spending the taxpayers’ money, we win because Democrats don’t believe in prioritizing. Their core belief is summarized in one word: MORE!!! More spending. More taxes. More regulations. More restrictions. The only places where MORE isn’t their mantra is more troops to kill jihadists, more freedom from government and more money in people’s pockets. The bad news for Democrats is that the last three issues are the highest priority items on the American voter’s wish list.

Despite all these facts, some of the highest profile pundits say that the GOP faces an uphill fight this election. I don’t agree. Eight months ago, I would’ve wholeheartedly agreed.

That’s a political eternity. In this instance, eight months made an incredible difference. Eight months ago, Speaker-elect Maggie Kelliher told Minnesotans that the House DFL caucus was a moderate bunch. Three months later, that myth had vanished in an unprecedented flurry of major tax and spending increases. Voters knew it because they were bombarded daily with a new tax increase and a new spending increase. Voters knew that the House and Senate DFL didn’t stop pressing that agenda until the last frantic moments of the session.

Eight months ago, the scene in Washington was dramatically different, too. In an attempt to appeal to moderates, Washington Democrats said that they wouldn’t cut off funds to the troops. They used that message last fall to get several ‘moderates’ elected in southern swing districts. That myth has vanished because they’re following MoveOn’org’s orders like a puppet follows his master’s dancing hands. It isn’t arguable that Democrats are now the mouthpiece of the Incoherent Left. (continue reading post »)

Mike Ciresi has had enough of getting beaten over the head with the MoveOn.org ad. That’s why he wants to return to debating the Iraq policy. I’m all for that so let’s have at it. Let’s just stipulate one thing before getting started: that we get beyond the focus group-tested cliches and actually use actual logic. Let’s apply that logic to actual events on the ground. Likewise, let’s talk about verifiable statistics that support our opinions.

Immediately following the general’s testimony on Sept. 11, I said he should receive the gratitude of the nation for his service. Attacks on his veracity and patriotism have no place in the critical debate that Congress must have on Iraq. There never has been any question of our ability to achieve the “military objective” of dampening down violence as a result of our troop surge. Indeed, the nation’s resolve in going after terrorists is an objective supported by all Americans.

While it’s true that Mr. Ciresi said that Gen. Petraeus’ veracity shouldn’t be challenged “immediately following the general’s testimony”, it’s equally true that he flinched a bit immediately after that:

Ciresi’s campaign just flubbed an opportunity to take a centrist position by repudiating their perceived repudiation of MoveOn.org’s attack ad.

The blogger who contacted Ciresi’s campaign also claimed his spokeswoman “did not respond to a separate question asking what Ciresi saw in the Congressional testimony that targeted Petraeus as ‘unpatriotic.’”

So, Ciresi’s campaign won’t provide an example of what qualifies as the attacks on Petraeus’ “veracity and patriotism” as mentioned in their email of September 11, 2007. But, according to Ciresi’s spokeswoman, it’s apparently not the MoveOn.org ad.

Let’s get back to actually debating the policy. Here’s what passes for policy with Mr. Ciresi: (continue reading post »)

After Nancy Pelosi’s panderfest at the , it was inevitable that she’d get ripped for her irresponsible statements there. Brian Bilbray used the opportunity to rip Ms. Pelosi and like-minded Democrats of playing politics with national security:

“In a post-9/11 world, our borders represent a major vulnerability to our homeland security,” he said. “We have not only the right, but the responsibility to act now so that we can protect ourselves against all potential threats to our country…Speaker Pelosi clearly does not understand the link between border security and homeland security.”

EXACTLY RIGHT. Let’s see if his statements get any national coverage. There aren’t any national articles out yet about it so I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t.

Bilbray is right in highlighting the national security aspects of border security because it forces Democrats to give us their solution to the illegal immigration problem. Just spouting the words ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ have lost their punch. The American people don’t buy that anymore. When people first started using the term, it enjoyed a certain level of support. That phrase has lost all impact following the crash of the Senate’s “Grand Bargain”. (continue reading post »)

According to this article, a judge has ruled that Rep. John Murtha must testify in a defamation lawsuit. That isn’t his only obligation:

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

If Murtha is forced to giving a deposition, he’ll likely be forced to say who, if anyone, gave him this information. If one of his cronies in the Pentagon fed him this information, it’ll expose that person’s anti-war (or possibly anti-Bush) agenda. If Rep. Murtha made this up, then he’s in deep trouble. Even if another court rules that his accusations were part of his official responsibilities, he’ll be exposed to the entire world as pitching these Marines’ constitutional guarantees aside.

At that point, it won’t matter if he’s made daily trips to Walter Reed. It won’t matter if he’s helped win billions of dollars of funding for the troops. His railroading these Marines will be his legacy. PERIOD.

That’s why I’m betting that Murtha will do everything in his power to quash this judge’s order to have him give a deposition. The judge in this lawsuit is Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush appointee. Here’s what she said:

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won’t know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha’s testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

“You’re writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?” Collyer said, adding later, “How far can a congressman go and still be protected?”

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.

(continue reading post »)

That’s the sarcastic answer I’d give Nancy Pelosi after reading her latest foolish quote. Here’s what the uproar is about:

A controversial advertisement for a San Francisco festival that depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party falls within the First Amendment and is not harmful to Christianity, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday.

The ad for the Folsom Street Fair, to be held in Pelosi’s district on Sunday and which is partly funded by San Francisco’s Grants for the Arts program, which is funded by the city’s hotel tax, sparked outrage from Christian groups because it mirrors Leonardo Da Vinci’s famous painting of “The Last Supper” but replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys.

It’s insulting to think that Ms. Pelosi would try spinning such a disgusting thing this way. QUESTION: Why do Democrats automatically resort to “It’s a First Amendment issue” every time one of their perverts starts spewing this type of disgusting stuff? We know that people have the right to say this type of stuff. It isn’t about the First Amendment in the sense that it’s a matter of public decency. (continue reading post »)

Minutes ago, CNN reported that Abu Osama al-Tunisi was killed. The Guardian reported that al-Tunisi was killed in a US airstrike on Tuesday:

The US military today said one of the most senior al-Qaida figures in Iraq has been killed in an air strike, describing it as a “key loss” to the terror network. Brigadier General Joseph Anderson said Abu Usama al Tunisi had been instrumental in bringing foreign fighters into Iraq.

“Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders…the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle,” he said.

Brig Gen Anderson also described al-Tunisi, a Tunisian, as a close associate of and likely successor to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Egyptian believed to head al-Qaida in Iraq.

This should silence Sen. Schumer after his foolish statements about how the surge wasn’t responsible for the Sunni sheikhs turning on AQI terrorists in al-Anbar Province:

We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.

We wouldn’t be getting the high quality intelligence it takes to find and kill a major terrorist leader if the people didn’t trust Americans. This airstrike simply wouldn’t have happened if the Iraqi people didn’t trust us.

That isn’t the only good news coming from Iraq:

Addressing a Pentagon press conference from Baghdad, he said recent operations involving both Iraqi and US forces had helped halve the influx of foreign fighters into Iraq, numbers of which had been running at around 60 to 80 a month.

Brig Gen Anderson claimed the US was having “great success” in isolating pockets of foreign militants in remote areas.

“They are very broken up, very unable to mass and conducting very isolated operations,” he said.

It sounds to me like the surge has foreign terrorists in total disarray. It sounds like the extra troops are preventing terrorists from initially entering Iraq, too. I’d say that that’s pretty good results for a failed strategy that needs changing ASAP.

Technorati Tags: AQI, Abu Osama al-Tunisi, Surge, David Petraeus, Intel, Chuck Schumer, Anbar Province

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

That’s the best way for me to talk about French President Nicholas Sarkozy after his speech to the UN General Assembly. Based on his column, it’s apparent that that’s Charles Krauthammer’s opinion, too:

On the largest possible stage, the U.N. General Assembly, President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran’s nuclear ambitions “an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world.”

His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had earlier said that the world faces two choices, successful diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the U.S. in imposing serious sanctions.

“Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace,” he warned. “They lead to war.” This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions.

Any French president with the courage to state that policy with that conviction is someone I can deal with. In fact, I wish there were more like-minded Western European leaders in the Sarkozy mold. Sarkozy’s statements have put Democrats in a bit of a box, though. For months (years really), we’ve heard about how ‘The World’ hates us because of President Bush’s reckless policies. That paradigm is losing credibility because leaders like President Sarkozy are embracing President Bush’s policies.

That’s the reason why the landscape in Washington has shifted so dramatically:

Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate Wednesday by 76-22, declaring that it is “a critical national interest of the United States” to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq, most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail? (continue reading post »)

This video of Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly ridiculing Dr. Boyce Watkins’ remarks is must viewing:

In my opinion, Dr. Watkins is a parasite who’s living off of the virtuous, positive movement that Dr. Martin Luther King started. Dr. Watkins doesn’t have a bit of moral standing after calling Juan Williams a “happy negro”. Dr. Watkins doesn’t have the moral right to criticize Juan Williams about anything.

Juan Williams is a man for whom the Civil Rights Movement is deeply personal. Anyone who’s paid attention to Juan Williams knows that he’s a proud man who’s been inspired by the Civil Rights Movement that Dr. Martin Luther King gave his life for. Anyone who’s paid attention to Juan Williams knows about his appreciation for Justice Thurgood Marshall.

I’d further state that Bill Cosby and Juan Williams better represent the type of ideals that Dr. King espoused. Let’s also include Rep. John Lewis in that group, too. These men are the type of men that represent the best that the Civil Rights Movement had to offer. They are the real leaders, not charlatans like Boyce Watkins.

I’d stongly recommend that everyone buy and read these books if you haven’t already done so:

Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary
Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America–and What We Can Do About It

Technorati Tags: Juan Williams, Martin Luther King, Bill Cosby, Thurgood Marshall, John Lewis, Bill O’Reilly, Boyce Watkins, Civil Rights

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

In another signal that she’s an open borders proponent, Speaker Pelosi criticized the border fence currently being built. She made these comments as part of her pandering to the Hispanic Engineering, Science & Technology Week conference (HESTEC).

“I have been against the fence, I thought it’s a bad idea even when it was just a matter of discussion,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. “These are communities where you have a border going through them, they are not communities where you have a fence splitting them.”

In making these comments, Ms. Pelosi is essentially saying that she’s placing a higher priority on not splitting up communities than on enforcing the law. She’s also essentially saying that ‘not splitting up communities’ is a higher priority than closing down the border so we can stop terrorists before they get here.

Ms. Pelosi’s pandering shows that Democrats put politics ahead of national security. Simply put, Ms. Pelosi’s panderfest is meant to collect votes. Based on these quotes, it’s obvious that she either doesn’t care about setting intelligent national security policy or she’s willing to deceive Hispanics with her rhetoric while practicing another thing.

That isn’t the only subject on which she pandered: (continue reading post »)