Not if this Reuters article is right. They’re saying it will be operational within a year:

Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, the deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Monday.

The United States activated the ground-based system last summer when North Korea launched one long-range and six short-range missiles.

North Korea’s intercontinental Taepodong 2 missile fell into the Sea of Japan shortly after launch but the short-range tests appeared successful, said Brig. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, deputy director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency.

This will be a great day for the United States. I suspect that other countries, especially North Korea, have taken notice. This also means that they’ll soon be refining existing technologies that will make this even more effective.

O’Reilly said work by North Korea and Iran on long-range ballistic missiles underscored the need for a viable U.S. missile defense system.

The war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militants last summer also highlighted the dangers of ballistic missiles and their use by non-state actors, he said. “We know we must be prepared for all contingencies.”

I wonder if Reuters intentionally misquoted O’Reilly when they quote him using the term “Hezbollah militants.” I find it odd that a military commander wouldn’t call Hezbollah terrorists. Maybe O’Reilly said that. I just think that it sounds odd.

Technorati Tags: Missile Defense, Iran, North Korea, Taepodong, Hezbollah, Terrorism

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Is she starting to bite her lip, too?

Not according to Yahoo!’s disclaimer: “This is not an endorsement. We are not siding with any candidate or party — in general or for the 2008 US elections. We’re hopeful that people from all perspectives will realize the great insights that the Answers community can have, and will turn to us for future discussions.”

That’s great. We look forward to seeing Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guiliani getting on Y! and engaging the community real soon. But we won’t hold our breath.

The NY Times has resumed their never-ending quest of helping our terrorist enemies. Here’s their latest attempt to undermine national security:

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering. (Ed.- emphasis added)

The CIA has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

Notice that this isn’t taking in hundreds of thousands of names. It says that it’s been done on “hundreds of Americans.” That’s hardly being abusive. In fact, I’d argue that it’s rather restrained. (continue reading post »)

After a closer examination of Leonardo Maugeri’s Newsweek article, I found this gem:

Today the average recovery rate for oil is about 35 percent of the estimated “oil in place,” which means that only 35 barrels out of 100 may be brought to the surface. And only a part of those 35 barrels is considered “proven reserves,” which means they are immediately available for production and commercialization. The role of technology is critical. Over the decades, technology has greatly expanded the quantity of oil that can be extracted, through the injection of water and natural gas as well as horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing and more. All this progress has boosted the average recovery rate, which was only around 20 percent as late as 30 years ago, and less than 15 percent 60 years ago. In the future, further gains are expected from technologies that are still in their infancy.
Simply put, new exploration methods have increased existing reserves over time, even without any new discoveries. The oil literature is full of examples. A most astonishing one is the Kern River field in California, discovered in 1899. In 1942 its “remaining” reserves were estimated at 54 million barrels. Yet from 1942 to 1986 it produced 736 million barrels, and still had another 970 million “remaining.”

Here’s what I said in the first article:

I remember how the extremists predicted that the Alaskan Pipeline would destroy the caribou herds for a few measly years of crude oil. Thirty years later, they’re still pumping it through that original pipeline, with no end in sight. (continue reading post »)

That’s the main message from this Newsweek article. I’ve never bought into the environmental extremists’ claims of just how much oil is left under the earth’s surface. Here’s a key section in Newsweek’s article:

How much oil lies beneath the Earth’s crust? The only thing we know for sure is that history is littered with estimates so far off the mark, usually below the mark, that they border on the comical. In the 1920s, for instance, the Anglo-Persian Oil Co. (now BP) refused to take a stake in Saudi Arabia, thinking that the country didn’t hold a single drop of oil. In 1919, the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that the United States would run out of oil in nine years. Yet by the time nine years had passed, huge discoveries, topped by the Black Giant field in Texas, had created a massive oil glut that almost destroyed the industry. In the 1970s, the consensus turned grim again: oil production would peak in the mid-1980s and then drop precipitously. A famous CIA report predicted the “rapid exhaustion” of accessible fields, while President Jimmy Carter warned that oil wells were “drying up all over the world.” Instead, in 1986, oil prices collapsed in the midst of a huge supply boom, as they had done many times before.

I’m willing to give the early oil drillers the benefit of the doubt because they didn’t have the technology to accurately predict what lied beneath the earth. I’m totally unwilling to give today’s naysayers that same benefit. Instead, I’ll rip the environmental extremists for lying through their teeth about the supply of oil.

I remember how the extremists predicted that the Alaskan Pipeline would destroy the caribou herds for a few measly years of crude oil. Thirty years later, they’re still pumping it out of Prudhoe Bay from along Alaska’s North Slope, with no end in sight. (continue reading post »)

Yesterday, I laid out the first 3 points in moving forward: (1) that we’re ok with a big tent as long as the RINO’s are with us on the big things; (2) that we have a coherent appealing agenda and (3) that we need to pick some ideological fights.

My 4th point is related to the third point:

We must get back to our idealist roots. That means talking proudly of the effects of the tax cuts. That means talking about the necessity of missile defense. That means talking about the attacks that the Patriot Act and the SWIFT and NSA intercept programs thwarted. That means talking about closing down the Mexican border before any immigration reform legislation moves an inch. That means talking about confirming judges that aren’t squishy moderates or make up the Constitution on the fly.

I’d frame missile defense in the context of North Korea developing ICBM’s. I’d frame the Patriot Act, the SWIFT and NSA programs as tools that we’ve used to prevent real terrorist attacks, specifically citing the terrorist plots they’ve prevented. Let Democrats defend their actions. Put them in position where they either abandon their positions or they’re forced to say ‘Yes, we want to prevent terrorist attacks but we’re more worried about American’s civil liberties.’ Filibuster the immigration reform legislation. Let them defend the position of granting illegal immigrants citizenship so illegal immigrants ruin municipal and state budgets. (continue reading post »)

AP reports: “Google Inc. snapped up YouTube Inc. for $1.65 billion Monday in deal that catapults the Internet search leader to a leading role in the online video revolution.

The all-stock acquisition unites one of the Internet’s marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars.”

PREDICTION: GoogleTube and Al Gore’s CurrentTV will merge. You heard it here first, folks…

—

Michelle Malkin is concerned…

Maybe with good reason. CNET reports:

“Just in time for the November elections, Google has made a strategic move already familiar to fellow technology heavyweights seeking to wield influence inside the Beltway.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based search giant confirmed Monday that it filed the federal paperwork necessary to set up a political action committee, or PAC, an organization designed expressly to raise money for political candidates and causes.”

Calling Chairman Al Gore…

It’s obvious they’ve got money to throw around.

RELATED:
Google Co-Founders Cash In
Google: “Lofty Ideals Meet Reality”
“Current” Bias: Getting Ready for GoreTV
Google Is Biased: No Search Required
(includes MANY more links!)

In one of the most bizarre statements I’ve ever read, Harry Reid tried responding to President Bush’s attacks on Democrats’ fecklessness on national security. Here’s what he said:

“Instead of ranting and raving every day on the campaign trail, President Bush should spend more time on the trail of Osama bin Laden. The American people are tired of the President’s empty tough talk. They want leaders who are tough and smart. The President and his Republican Congress have no credibility left, and it’s time for a new direction.”

Of course, Mr. Reid isn’t saying that President Bush should fly over to Afghanistan and join the troops. This is just his inept way of pointing out that UBL hasn’t been captured. I do agree with him that Americans want “leaders who are tough and smart”, though those people are in short supply in the Democratic Party. They’re especially lacking in that area amongst their leadership.
Harry, Remember something for me. There’s nothing strong or tough about “killing the Patriot Act.” That’s best characterized as stupid and dangerous. (continue reading post »)

In an attempt to spread fear and propaganda, AQ no. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri is saying that fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq is a waste of coalition’s forces. Here’s the money quote:

“You should not waste your time in reinforcing your troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are doomed to defeat and are already all but defeated. Instead, you have to reinforce your troops in two regions. First is the Gulf, where you will be thrown out after you are defeated in Iraq, at which point your economic ruin will be achieved,” he said. “The second is Israel, because the jihad reinforcements are getting closer to it.”

Dr. Zawahiri, forgive me if I don’t take your threats seriously. I thought that the goal behind 9/11 was to destroy our economic, political and military infrastructures. Your supposedly fearless leader said:

“The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country.”

Dr. Zawahiri, forgive me but I don’t think that the twin “towers of morale in that country” have crumbled. Quite the opposite. In fact, in the days immediately following 9/11, people bought so many flags that people couldn’t find them on the store shelves. Frankly, al-Zawahiri’s speech is mostly bluster.

Zawahiri also condemned the U.N. peacekeeping forces being deployed in Lebanon:

“What is so terrible in this resolution…is that it approves the existence of the Jewish state and isolates our Mujahideen in Palestine from Muslims in Lebanon,” he said in excerpts of the video aired on Al-Jazeera television. “This is consecrated by the presence of international troops who are hostile to Islam,” he said. “Anyone who accepts this resolution means that he accepts all these catastrophes.”

If the past is an indicator, then the countries who comprise the UN peacekeeping forces should think of this as a threat.

Technorati Tags: Zawahiri, UN Peacekeepers, al Qaeda, Israel, Hezbollah

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Or will he just continue whining about the Bush administration? That’s essentially the question Diana Irey is asking in this press release:

“Jack Murtha says he’s all for fighting the war on terror, he just doesn’t think the President is doing it the right way. Well, in the coming days, Jack Murtha will have an opportunity to prove himself, he can offer his leadership, and cast his vote, in favor of giving the President the tools he needs to better prosecute that war.
“Yesterday and today, the President has taken two giant strides forward in the prosecution of the war on terror: yesterday he announced the transfer of 14 suspected terrorists from overseas CIA prisons to the U.S. Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, and asked Congress for legislation specifically authorizing military tribunals so they can be tried properly and brought to justice; today, he asked Congress for new legislation that would specifically authorize the National Security Agency to surveil suspected terrorists abroad who are calling contacts inside the United States.
“In both cases, the President is doing the right thing to enhance American security in the face of the Islamofascist terrorist threat we face, and putting the ball squarely in the court of Congress. The only question now is, will Congress step up to the plate? Jack Murtha has already made his views known: on December 21, 2005, in an interview on CNN, he had this to say about NSA wiretapping:
“They’re violating the Constitution and the laws. All they had to do is come to Congress.”
“So now the President is taking Jack Murtha at his word, going to the Congress, and it’s up to Jack Murtha to prove that he can live up to his promises.”

It’s put up or shut up time for Murtha and the Democrats. Are they just carping about President Bush’s prosecution of the war for political gain? Or are they serious about fighting the terrorists with a multi-leveled, complex strategy? The next 18 legislative days will give us a clear answer.

If Murtha, Pelosi and other Democrats don’t provide leadership in moving this vital legislation forward, then I hope that that would be uppermost in the minds of voters, whether they’re in PA-12 or wherever they are in the U.S. We can’t afford to not use everything in our arsenal in fighting global jihadists.

If Murtha votes against military tribunals and against warrantless intercepts of terrorist communications, then one thing will be obvious: Murtha MUST Go.

Technorati Tags: Election 2006, Murtha, Gitmo, NSA, Pelosi

Cross-posted at Murtha Must Go