Last night, I had the privilege of interviewing Jim Beatty, the man who’s attempting to unseat John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. I’d done some research on Mr. Beatty prior to the interview. His national/homeland security resume is quite impressive, having served in the Delta Forces, as a FBI Special Agent and with the CIA. In addition to that, Mr. Beatty owns a business that called TotalSecurity.US, which he started in 1992.

According to his campaign bio page, here are some of his accomplishments:

In transportation, www.TotalSecurity.US has written the Anti-terrorism Action Plans for both the American Trucking Associations and the American Bus Association. Further consulting support has been given to 25 major US cities and the FMCSA, FTA, WMATA, MBTA and MASSPORT.

On a Global scale Mr. Beatty and www.TotalSecurity.US worked on major international meetings and special events like the Rose Bowl and Rose Parade, Superbowl, Asian Development Bank, BIOTECH and 4 Olympics.

In other words, his resume suggests that he’ll be more than able to hold his own on these issues with Sen. Kerry.

I’d be doing Mr. Beatty a disservice, though, if I left the impression that he’s a one issue candidate. He isn’t. The first question I asked was intentionally a softball. What I asked was why he’d be a better senator than Sen. Kerry. His response was measured but to the point. He said that he’d “protect Massachusetts’ families, protect our country & protect Massachusetts’ jobs.” (continue reading post »)

This morning, a number of Israeli newspapers are quoting Sen. Biden as saying that Israel will just have to live with a nuclearized Iran. Here’s what Sen. Biden is quoted as saying:

“Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran,” Army Radio quoted Biden as telling the unnamed officials. “It’s doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”

If these reports are accurate, then Sen. Biden has just told Israel to accept a death penalty. It’s obvious that Sen. Biden doesn’t take Iran’s threats to blow Israel off the map seriously.

It won’t take long before Obama-Biden will be backtracking from Sen. Biden’s statement. They should be embarrassed. We started the weekend worried that Sen. Obama didn’t have the national security/foreign policy credibility. Serious people thought that Sen. Biden would bring that credibility to the ticket. (I wasn’t one of them but serious people thought that’s what he’d bring to the table.)

That myth was just shattered. (continue reading post »)

Foxnews.com has just posted the transcript of Sen. Obama’s acceptance speech. Now’s the time to dissect it and find out how often his rhetoric didn’t match reality. Here’s the first instance where rhetoric didn’t match reality:

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit cards, bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

I can’t argue that many have lost their homes. I can’t argue that home prices are dropping. But saying that “more Americans are out of work” doesn’t match the fact that we’ve had very low unemployment. It’s also worth noting that the reason why people “have cars [they] can’t afford to drive” is because the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate have obstructed legislation that would’ve increased domestic energy production.

If we want change, I’d suggest that we change the party that’s in charge of Capitol Hill.

Here’s one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I’ve ever heard in a political speech:

Now, I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know.

Sen. Obama doesn’t think that. It’s one of most despicable cheapshots I’ve ever heard, much less in an acceptance speech. While we’re on the subject of who gets it and who doesn’t, let’s explore that a bit.

When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama called for the Russians, who invaded a sovereign nation, and the Georgians, who were killed en masse, to both act with restraint. Sen. McCain called it a Russian invasion right from the start. Most serious foreign policy experts said it’s Sen. Obama that didn’t have a clue.

Sen. Obama said again tonight that he’d negotiate directly with Iran: (continue reading post »)

When fighting broke out last week, John McCain got on the phone to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to find out what was happening in the tiny democratic nation. Sen. McCain then said that the Russians were the aggressors and that their actions needed to stop. Three statements and a day later, presumptive Democratic nominee caught up with where McCain was from the start.

Proving yet again that he’s the adult in the room, McCain has just said that he’d back Georgia’s bid to join NATO if he’s elected:

“I would move forward at the right time with the application for membership in NATO by Georgia,” McCain told Fox News television. “As you know, through the NATO membership, that if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all,” said the Arizona senator, alluding to Russia’s military aggression on Georgia. “We don’t have, I think, right now, the ability to intervene in any way except in a humanitarian, economic way, and do what we can to help the Georgians,” he added.

The thought of that happening frightens Russia because, like Sen. McCain says, an attack against one is an attack against all. In fact, admitting all of the former Soviet satellite nations into NATO, starting with Ukraine, would undoubtedly give Putin pause.

Meanwhile, here’s how Sen. Obama responded today:

Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus.

“No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country,” said Obama, 47. “There is no possible justification for these attacks,” he added.

“No matter how this conflict started”? Sen. Obama still can’t quite get past that moral equivalency thing. Sen. McCain gave a lengthy, detailed speech on what’s happening in Georgia today. Sen. Obama issued a brief statement, then got back to the sand & surf with his family. (continue reading post »)

According to this article, US combat deaths will show a massive decline from the 66 combat deaths from July, 2007. This month’s combat death toll currently sits at 5. To be fair, though, it should be noted that last July, US troops were just getting started with the Surge’s offensive.

With those statistics in mind, we should ask Sen. Obama some questions. Here’s the first question I’d want answered:

Q1: How flexible would your 16 month plan be if Gen. Petraeus said that he didn’t want to lose the gains that the Surge has produced?

Q2: Do you think the Iraq war is winnable? If you don’t think it’s winnable, why not?

Q3: Are you committed to winning in Iraq so that we’ll have a strong, stabilized ally in the heart of the Middle East? If you aren’t committed to winning there, why aren’t you? (continue reading post »)

I didn’t listen to Sen. Obama’s major national security speech but this article gives me something to comment on. According to the article, here’s Sen. Obama’s priorities:

If elected president, he said, he would also finish the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; secure nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations; achieve “true energy security”; and rebuild the nation’s alliances.

While Sen. Obama takes teh view that Iraq isn’t a central front in the war against the jihadists, the jihadists have said that it is. That sounds like the Dems’ approach that we weren’t at war with Radical Islam in the 1990s. Then as now, Democrats are ignoring the facts.

As for finishing the fight against al-Qa’ida, why not stay in Iraq and finish deplete their recruits there? If they’re sending people to us, the hospitable thing to do is give them one 21 gun salute after another.

Sen. Obama’s goal of securing “nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue nations” is a worthwhile goal but that won’t happen by meeting with Ahmadinejad or by not keeping the threat of war hanging over his head. (continue reading post »)

Though you’d never know it from the NY Times’ front page or the lead story on NBC, it’s fact that Muqtada al-Sadr’s regime is crumbling. Here’s the political situation in Iraq:

Already Mr. Sadr’s partisans and members of his Mahdi Army militia believe that ISCI and its affiliate party, the Badr Organization, previously known as the Badr Brigade and ISCI’s armed wing, instigated the recent US-Iraqi military operations against the Mahdi Army in southern Iraq and Baghdad. They allege it was part of an ISCI/Badr plot to dismantle Sadr’s organization ahead of elections.

On Friday, Sheikh Salim al-Darraji, an ISCI official based in Basra, was assassinated in a part of the city traditionally controlled by Sadrists. It comes one week after Basra’s chief of military intelligence was killed in a predominantly Shiite part of eastern Baghdad.

The ultimate goal of ISCI and Badr is to consolidate their grip on southern Iraq and to create a nine-province Shiite region on par with the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north. This is a subject of great controversy among many Iraqis, including the Sadrists.

“We believe the elections are extremely important. We will run jointly with (ISCI). We both have a significant base of public support,” says Hadi al-Ameri, Badr’s leader and a senior member of the Iraqi parliament.

ISCI was part of the Shiite coalition during the JJanuary and December elections in 2005. Now they’re the dominant force in a major political coalition in October’s elections. Wisely, they’ve chosen to align themselves with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Here’s an example of Badr’s blunt talk about Sadr: (continue reading post »)

This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren’t the least bit serious. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:

Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.

Yesterday’s proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the “internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq.”

Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can’t focus on killing al-Qa’ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won’t take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can’t involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.

While it’s true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it’s equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa’ida’s terrorists and the last of Sadr’s militias.

Here’s what Rep. McGovern sees happening:

The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I posted about Ralph Peters’ column in which he debunks the whoppers thats Democrats have told about Iraq. Gateway Pundit just posted the YouTube of Col. Peters’ appearance on last night’s Geraldo At-Large. It’s simply the best anti-Reid/Pelosi refutation known to mankind. Here’s a partial transcript of Peters:

I think it’s easy to get wrapped up with details but this isn’t one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front, then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. (continue reading post »)

That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:

Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.

And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.

Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.

Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).

Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status. (continue reading post »)