Sadaam's Death: End of a Brutal Regime

Yes, I've watched the crude videos online of Sadaam Hussein's execution by hanging. (I won't post the links here. You can find them if you want them.)

His death marks the final end of his brutal Baathist regime. True, he's been out of power since he was dragged ignominously from his spider hole by courageous and effective U.S. troops. But, as long as he was alive he was still able to inspire fear in Iraqis who have seen him come back before, and hope in his followers who wanted to return to power and were willing to continue to commit daily violence to make that happen.

His death ends all of that, and will allow Iraqis to move forward in building their democracy, post Sadaam. It was an important "milestone" event, as President Bush called it, and was sadly necessary. Not only necessary, but justified by the unspeakable murder Sadaam and his henchman visited on upwards of 300,000 of their subjects. Let's just say his hanging was much more humane than his victims, some of whom were fed into wood chippers while still alive, received. Good riddance.

The topic of Sadaam's impending hanging came up in conversation while I was in Germany on business back in November. My hosts wanted to make sure to convey their deep feelings of opposition. "Sadaam should not be hanged." No one should, they solemly informed me. Their implication in their lecture to me was that America was wrong in supporting the death penalty, even for a murderous dictator, and that we were on the wrong side of morality.

Exuse me? The irony of them lecturing me on that topic was not lost on me. Clearly, their history of launching two aggressive and genocidal wars on the world in the last 100 years has turned them completely pacifist. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But they are wrong on the topic of just punishment for crimes against humanity. There is a proper place for judgement and justice from the official representatives of so many aggrieved. And Sadaam received that just punishment. Good riddance.

It also hasn't escaped my attention that there are many in America, always on the political left, who hate George Bush more than they hate murderous villans like Sadaam Hussein and who go so far as to actually wish it was Bush swinging instead of Sadaam. Twisted, demented, and distorted. But true. Don't believe me? Here's a quote from a questionaer at a recent press conference hosted by John Edwards, Democrat running for President:

Another questioner, Davey van Greenen, asked Edwards whether Bush should be tried and face the same fate as Saddam. "He should be hanged in public himself," van Greenen said to considerable applause.

To Edward's eternal credit, he repudiated that question with his answer:

"I'll say to you very directly I don't agree with what you just said," Edwards responded, to similar applause.

Lefties, pull your head out of your behind. We are at war. There is an enemy sworn to kill us. We have a President that is aggressively waging the war on offense. And you can't distinguish that act from the genocidal acts of a murderous dictator who had rape and torture rooms as tools to subjugate his own civilian population?

Idiots.

What News?

My wife and I have a recurring scenario, which happened again this morning. It always starts with her question "Have you seen the story about.....". Fill in the blank with whatever "news" story she's seeing on the network news. My answer is always the same. "Yes, I saw it several days ago in my news sources."

Today's story happened to be about our military in Iraq using "silly string" to detect booby traps in buildings in Iraq. Saw it several days ago on the internet.

Folks, if you're counting on the mainstream news media (networks, CNN, newspapers) for your "news", then you're really only getting the "olds" and the "incompletes". It's becoming more and more obvious, and is the chief factor for the decline in ratings for networks and subscriptions for newspapers.

I'm more worried about the "incompletes". Here are some recent examples:

1. The most underreported story at the moment, in my opinion, is the story of the investigation of the death of former KGB agent Litivenko from radiation poisoning. The media in general is following only the most simplistic possibility, which is an option, that he was killed by Vladimir Putin for being a dissident.

The story you are not hearing, which I've followed on the internet, is that Litivenko - who converted to Islam right before his death - may have been in the process of procuring weapons grade nuclear material for Islamic terrorists for a dirty bomb. Plausible, with Al Qeada having put out a buy order for this material. Why aren't you hearing this story in the MSM?

2. The unasked question in the MSM: "What about winning."

Case in point: the nomination hearings for Mr. Gates to become Secretary of Defense. The media was in lockstep glee because of Gate's "realism" and "candor" for admitting that we are not winning the war in Iraq. They reported with glee his statement that "all options are on the table."

The natural, but unasked, follow-up question to a nominee to head the Defense Department for a nation with troops in the field in a declared war:

" Are you prepared to win?"

The answer to that question would have been news, had it been asked.

3. Lemmings off the cliff:

If you want a glaring example of how the mainstream media marches in lockstep to the beat of non-news, all you had to do was open any newspaper on a single day last month, when the headline of every media outlet in the country was some version of:

"War in Iraq now exceeds the length of time of World War II!"

Every outlet breathlessly reported this "news" as if it was accurate. Why? Because it lined up with the "hate-Bush" agenda of the media. Another way for the media to say "see we told you it was a mistake!"

The only problem is, it's patent nonsense.

What we all know very clearly now is that there are different phases in these wars. Combat first - which took, what, 3 months in Iraq? Then stabilizing the defeated country while you rebuild it, including defending it from be overtaken by neighbors. That phase has been going on for approximately 3 months now.

Let's go back and compare that to World War II.

We can calculate the combat phase from the beginning of the attack on Pearl Harbor to V-E day and V-J day. That phase probably lasted as long as both phases of the Iraq War have taken to date.

But, how long were we in Germany rebuilding that government into the ally that they are today? Answer, we were there a long time, and we still have troops there today. When I went into the military in 1983 I was stationed in Alaska with a unit that had as our mission defending Germany from invasion by Russia.

How long did we dominated Japan's government, as a occupier, rebuilding them into the ally they are today? Answer, a very long time and there are still troops there today.

Clearly, the rebuilding / defense of Europe phase lasted a lot longer than the official end of World War II. And clearly, the media was comparing only the combat phase of World War II with the total war in Iraq - an invalid and useless comparison. But hey, did anyone as the followup to question their "news"?

Sound the Retreat!

We are at a milestone, a turning point, in the global war on terrorism and it's imminently clear which way the power elite in Washington wish to turn - to the rear. Retreat. Surrender in Iraq is the order of the day. And it could not be more wrongheaded or dispiriting.

The midterm elections were the first trumpet call. The report issued yesterday by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is the covering fire for the retreat.

Why bother with the ISG report, was my first question. The conclusions were a foregone conclusion, with the appeasers in Congress and the elite media lined up in lockstep to promote a "change" in our policy in Iraq.

As I left my hotel on Tuesday morning, a day before the ISG's report was officially delivered, I picked up a copy of Newsweek magazine. The bold headline, in large font over an ominous picture of ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton, was "Will Bush Listen".

Excuse me? Will Bush listen? No bias there, Newsweek. How about a fairer question. One that presupposes that the report should be evaluated before a judgement is made and a course is suggested. How about "Are they right?"

Are they (the ISG) right in their conclusions - those chiefly being that we've failed in Iraq and should retreat under diplomatic cover? What qualifications do these esteemed government retirees bring to the table in this conflict? How, if they only made one trip to Iraq and stayed in Baghdad the entire 4 days, do they qualify as experts? How are they more informed than our President, who has the whole National Command Authority at his disposal for daily threat briefings? It's absurd.

But, apparently absurdity is irrelevant. The elites have decided. Iraq was a mistake. Consensus on retreat is the only pressing issue. How do we retreat with dignity and "realism" is their only concern.

It's a disgrace. Retreat leaves us more at risk to terrorism, not less. And it wastes the sacrifices of our brave troops who have paid the price, not these power elites in Washington.

Mr. President, do not take the bait. Do not surrender to the forces of retreat. Win the war! That's the right course. Unleash the military to squash the Mahdi army and secure Iraq. Win the war.

Catching Up!

Wow, it's been a month since my last update! Let me catch up on current events:

Some thoughts on the Congressional Mid-Term election in November:

First, I had the unique opportunity of watching American elections while overseas. Germany, to be precise. It was odd and exhilirating at the same time. Not only were the Europeans interested in the elections, they had strong opinions about them. They weren't entirely factually accurate on the elections, with many thinking that George Bush was on the ballot, but that didn't stop them from having strong opinions. Almost everyone that I met that learned that I was an American wanted to share their opinion of the elections with me. Jointly, their opinions on the War in Iraq. The overwhelmingly unanimous consensus: the war was wrong and the Democrats needed to win the election to change things in America. As you can imagine, it was an interesting week to be a Republican overseas! I didn't argue with anyone. I just listened to their viewpoint and soaked in their culture.

Second, boy did I call that election wrong. I had hopes right up to Monday night that the Republican base would turn out strong and just eke out a victory in both branches. Surely in the Senate. Boy was I wrong.

Third, it's clear that the dominating issue was the war in Iraq. And, on those grounds and several others, the Republicans did truly deserve to lose the elections. The occupation which followed the triumphant overthrow of Sadaam has been waged very poorly, and Americans will not long suffer losing. I, like many Republicans, was discouraged that it has not been waged more aggressively to victory. "Staying the Course" was a terrible slogan masking a horribly misguided policy of stalemate and drip-drip-drip attrition of our troops needlessly. Fight it and win it was the right answer, but President Bush and his cabinet failed to make that case and they lost the Congress as a result.

Fourth, saying that the Republicans deserved to win does not in any way mean that the Democrats deserved to win. They have no policy on Iraq except surrender. And the policies that they do have on domestic agendas are going to take the country in a completely wrong direction.

America, do you know what you have wrought in expressing your displeasure on the War by handing over the Congress to the Democrats?!!! I think not, at least not in it's full scope. I know what we have to look forward to: higher taxes, an emasculated military, appeasement to terrorists and dictators, a further slide down the slope on social issues, judges that wreak havoc with social engineering, etc. It's predictible, and it's already started.

Take today's resignation by the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Democrats threw a hissy fit and denied the appointment to Bolton in his Senate hearings. The complaint: he was too mean to be effective in a diplomatic post. All kinds of horrors would ensue. His supporters believed he was just the kind of bulldog we needed at the U.N. to protect America's interests in that corrupt and ineffective organization. President Bush appointed him anyway. It's a year later and we can judge his performance - excellent in all regards and effective at pushing needed reforms at the U.N. Democrats, giddy with newly re-acquired Congressional power, will not admit they were wrong and will block his renomination. So, recongizing reality in the new Congress, Bolton resigned and President Bush accepted it. The result will be a congenial and totally ineffective replacement who will succeed at dinner parties and appeasment. Great. Nice job, America.

I'll try to post more often.