Below are excerpts and here is the link to the whole transcript. Enjoy and save. MTP would not let Graham appear with Murtha and the next step may be to blackball Graham and replace him with Hagelmonster.

Enjoy (you can also watch the whole show on the MSNBC website)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Lindsey Graham, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Thank you, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you some latest polling data on the war in Iraq with the American people.

SEN. GRAHAM: OK. Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: The war in Iraq, the president’s proposal for more troops, 32 percent support it, 67 percent—two out of three Americans—oppose. And look at this, was the war worth the fight? Thirty-four percent say yes; not worth fighting, 64 percent. Can the president continue the war in Iraq when two out of three Americans are against the war?

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah, and I think those polls also say that two out of three Americans do not want to cut off funding. What do—what are the polls telling us? I’m no expert, but here’s what I think’s going on, based on conservation talks in South Carolina, is that people are frustrated. They’re beginning to doubt whether the Iraqis can get their act together among themselves. Are we’re in the middle of a group of people, no matter how long we stay and how much money we spend and how many Americans are killed, are they capable of pulling this off? I think people doubt that. And they’re frustrated that—based by our own expectations. The biggest mistake we made early on was underselling how hard it would be. I think people have lost sight due to frustration, that it’s part of the overall war on terror.

The president’s going forward based on an assumption that a failed state in Iraq is a mighty blow in the overall war on terror. He’s going forward based on the assumption that, if you put military reinforcement, political and economic reinforcement, you can turn it around. You’re never going to have democracy with this much violence. General Petraeus has come up with a plan that requires more troops. The goal is to surge on all fronts—militarily, politically and economically—to give the Iraqi government the capacity and the breathing space to make these hard decisions. Americans don’t want to lose in Iraq. That’s why they don’t want to cut off funding. But Americans are not so sure we can win. And I can’t guarantee that we win, but the best chance we have left is to follow General Petraeus. Eighty-one-to-nothing, the Senate confirmed him. And all these resolutions and all this talk about what to do, if you don’t cut off funding, the Congress is getting itself in a dangerous situation Constitutionally, and every resolution has the effect of delivering a death blow to General Petraeus’ plan, which I think is our last, best chance to win.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the—but the Democrats are saying we should spend only a year in Iraq; and if you complete your service you shouldn’t be kept in the service, you should be allowed to come home; and that you should be ready, prepared to go over there with the proper equipment. How could you be opposed to that?

SEN. GRAHAM: The truth is that Jack Murtha’s a wonderful fellow. He is using the readiness issue to stop the surge. And I want to work with Jack on readiness, but this is not about the readiness issue. He said publicly this is about stopping something he’s against. The Democrat Party is the dog that caught the car. What do you do now? The left is saying get out yesterday. The reason we don’t have a vote on cut off funding is because the American public understand that’s responsible. So all of these efforts to micromanage the war—I’ve been a military lawyer for 20-something years. Some of these resolutions are just nightmares for a commander. You can fight al-Qaeda, but you can’t fight people involved in sectarian violence. You can go here, and you can’t go there. The Congress cannot—there’s a reason there’s only one commander in chief. So, if you’re not willing to cut off funding, which is the Congress’ responsibility, then everything else really hampers General Petraeus. It’s really a signal to him that, “We have no faith in you.” Either stop him from going or give him the resources to do their job. Everything is else is just political theater. That’s dangerous.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, the Democrats are also going to propose, according to Congressman Murtha, that the troops come home in six months if the Iraqis do not stop the violence. And here’s where the American people are on that. Should U.S. withdraw troops? Yes, 42; 56 percent, a solid majority, say withdraw the troops.

SEN. GRAHAM: All I can tell you is that we’re not going to win this war through polling, and we’re going to learn through our mistakes or we’ll lose this war.

.................................................

General Petraeus has a plan that makes sense to me. It’s not more of the same. Thank God there’s not 535 commander in chiefs, there’s only one. So what I am saying is give this a chance. No guarantees it will work. But if you start putting time limits and deadlines and benchmarks, then it is a road map for al-Qaeda and other extremists in Iraq. If you pass these new resolutions that say, “We’re coming out unless A, B, C and D is achieved; if this level of violence exists in six months, we’re going to leave,” you’re telling the terrorists and the extremists exactly what they have to do to win. All of these benchmarks, designed by patriotic people to tell the Iraqis you got to get your act together is also a signal to the people we’re fighting and are killing our kids. They know what they’ll have to do, because you’re giving them a road map as to what make America—what will make America leave.

So here’s what I’m saying. If you can’t cut off funding, if you’re not willing to stop the troops from going, quit putting out one idea after another that cripples the commander, invades the commander in chief’s responsibility, and tells the enemy exactly what they have to do to win. I am going to fight these ideas because they’re not responsible. If you don’t like this war, if you think it’s a lost cause, then cut off funding. Otherwise, let the generals be the generals.

.................................................

SEN. GRAHAM: I’m here on your show, and you can get clips from my past appearances, I was wrong about certain things. The weapons of mass destruction issue, the whole world was wrong about it. I think Saddam believed he had the weapons, but apparently he didn’t. Here’s what I can promise you, and no one wants to talk about this. Do you leave in six months, do you put benchmarks, do you pull out 50,000 now and wonder what happens? Last week, Senator Edwards says, “I’m not so sure what would happen if you bought into my idea of taking 50,000 people out of Iraq now. I’m not so sure what would happen if you say we’re going to leave it X amount of time unless benchmarks are achieved by the Iraqi government.”

Here’s the one thing I can guarantee you, that if a failed state in Iraq occurs, the war gets bigger, not smaller. Here’s what I’d like to do going forward. Give the commanders what they haven’t had in the past, the resources they need, give them the breathing space to do it, allow the Iraqi people to regroup, but insist that they do better, and understand that a failed state is a nightmare for this country. Plan for the worst, and don’t assume the best. All these democratic resolutions, none of them think through what happens if we leave Iraq in six months or a year. I believe very passionately that the worst thing this country could do is have a failed state in Iraq, because it’s part of the war on terror. The war doesn’t stop the day we leave Iraq, if it fails, it gets bigger and wider, that the Shia south becomes a puppet regime for Iran—they’re the biggest winner of a failed state—that the Turks are not going to sit on the sidelines and watch Iraq degenerate into chaos and allow an independent Kurdistan. That the Sunnis are going to be slaughtered. Do you think it’s bad in Baghdad now? We leave—I talked to a citizens group on my last trip made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds living in Baghdad. The one thing that united them was, “Please don’t leave. If you leave here, there’s going to be a bloodbath.” There are four million Sunnis; there are two million Shias in Baghdad. If this thing fails, they’re going to be slaughtered, they’re going to be pushed into Anbar Province. Sunni Arab states are not going to sit on the sideline. Plan for the worst. Reinforce Iraq politically, economically and militarily because this is our last best chance, and think about the consequences, the future presidents, future commanders. We’re living for the political moment. All the polls you put up is what everybody’s focused on. I’m not focused on the polling for the moment. I’m focused on what happens to Iraq if it fails, long-term national security interests.

SEN. GRAHAM: Here’s what I believe. We’ve been there four years, and, within that four-year period, we’ve gone from a dictatorship, brutal, and we didn’t realize how much Saddam Hussein raped his country economically, politically, how much he destroyed the capacity of this country to govern itself. The police under Saddam Hussein were protecting the dictator. Four years later we’re trying to get police to protect the people. The rule of law that we’re trying to create now is for all Iraqis, not just for the dictator. It took us from 1776 to 1789 to write our Constitution. The Maliki government is less than a year old. Yes, they need to do more. Why don’t we solve Social Security and immigration? Because special interest groups give us a hard time. Can you imagine being an Iraqi politician, Tim, where the opponents of your plan don’t just come after you politically and run commercials, they try to kill your family. We will not have the rule of law as long as you assassinate judges. We need reinforcements politically, economically and militarily. Forty percent unemployment in Baghdad.

Mistakes, we have made plenty. It has made this war more difficult. It has cost us more in blood and treasure. We make mistake in every war. The biggest mistake is yet to come, and I’m not going to sit on the sidelines and be silent about it. We’re not going to allow the Congress to become the commander in chief. We’re not going to send a signal to the terrorists that, if you do the five things in these resolution, you win. The biggest mistake would be leaving Iraq as a failed state. There are some early signs of success. General Petraeus is a general I have confidence in. I love my colleagues in the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle, but I don’t have confidence in them being generals. I have confidence...

MR. RUSSERT: How much time do you give General Petraeus?

SEN. GRAHAM: Whatever resources he needs and whatever time he needs, he’s going to get. How much time did we have to win World War II? Did we ever think about just fighting the Germans and not engaging the Japanese? This to me is World War III. This is a central battlefront in a global struggle against terrorism. Moderates are fighting extremists in Lebanon, they’re fighting extremists in Palestine, they’re fighting extremists in Afghanistan, they’re fighting extremists in Iraq. It is my belief that our long-term national security interest is to stand with moderates, as imperfect as they are, wherever we can find them and say no to the extremists.

MR. RUSSERT: But Iraq is Sunni fighting Shiites.

SEN. GRAHAM: Iraq...

MR. RUSSERT: So who’s the extremists?

SEN. GRAHAM: Iraq is Sunnis and Shias wanting to live together under the rule of law and democracy and elements of Sunnis and Shias that want to destabilize the country. I have talked to military members who’ve been there. I’ve been there five times. I have met people on my first trip who are now dead. There are plenty of Iraqis who want to live together in peace and want the same thing for their family you want for yours. But the moderates are being shut out by the extremists. Small in number in terms of the overall population, but a desire to win at any and all cost. Do we have the desire to win? Do we have the desire to stand beside imperfect moderates, who I think are the future of the Mideast? Are we going to let car bombs and extremists run us out of Iraq? And where do you go? Where do you deploy to if you lose in Iraq? Because if al-Qaeda tastes the blood of Americans leaving and they can say with certainty they broke our will and ran us out of Iraq, and we go to Kuwait, they come wherever we go. The Gulf states are next. If we lose in Iraq, the moderate Gulf states are next. People like King Abdullah in Jordan, they’re on the hit list. We cannot allow Iraq to fail, because if you fail in Iraq, every moderate voice in the Mideast has a death sentence on their head.

MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like the domino theory that we heard in Vietnam.

SEN. GRAHAM: It’s not a domino theory, it’s their own words. It’s not me saying what they’re going to do, it’s them saying what they’re going to do. And I believe them. I believe the president of Iran, if he had a nuclear weapon, would attack Israel. I don’t believe in sitting down with him and talking about world problems until he acknowledges the Holocaust exists. This is 2007. The president of Iran, sitting on a sea of oil, has openly said in the United Nations, “My goal is to wipe Israel off the state—the face of the earth,” and their nuclear weapons program is not about peaceful power, it’s about a nuclear weapons...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the Iraqi government is closer to Iran than they are the United States?

SEN. GRAHAM: I think the Iraqi government is a lot closer to Iran, because they’re their neighbors. The Iraqi government...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, ideologically.

SEN. GRAHAM: No. I—here’s what I—Sadr represents a Shia view. Maliki and others represent the—what’s best for Shias? Is it to have the country partitioned, and Iran become stronger, where other—every Sunni Arab state would be threatened? No. What’s best for the Shias, according to Maliki and others, is to be the dominant political force in a democracy. What’s best for the Sunnis in Iraq? To be run out of the country? No. To have part of the oil. The oil revenue sharing deal is on the verge of being successful. It could change everything. What’s best for the Kurds in the north? To live in a confederation where your, your children can be prosperous and you never have to worry about Turkey invading you. It’s in all of their interests to live together in a loose confederation under the rule of law and democracy. I believe that.

Graham is da man, now. Forget the past. I was a big critic when he was part of the 535 CINC wannabe crowd. He has seen the light and we need to accept the fact that people can improve. He has, so enjoy that fact rather than attacking him for the past.

We have a war to win, and we need Graham and more Grahams that can get on the MSM and beat Russerts at their game.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

While you’re at it, Lawyer Giuliani, also tell us your opinion of Roe vs. Wade without mentioning Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.

(Originally posted at Race 4 2008 - see link below)

Today is one of the greatest days in constitutional law history in the affirmation of inalienable rights. One of the greatest judges of all time, Laurence Silberman penned the 2-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in overturning gun laws in the District of Columbia that have been characterized as among the most restrictive in the nation.

See Redstate's JohnRicharson's excellent DC Circuit strikes down DC gun ban

(Gamecock will post a legal analysis essay at a later date.)

The laws you happily enforced in NYC as mayor have also been so characterized.

I saw your interview last month on Hannity & Colmes when you left the script and lapsed into a reference to “respect for precedent” when responding to a question about Roe. I haven’t forgotten what less savvy and/or in the tank for you ”journalists” and commentators missed the significance of or buried to protect you.

They can’t protect you from Gamecock defending the conservative Henhouse and the US Constitution.

You are a lawyer, sir. You want to be the man that chooses lawyers to serve as judges that interpret the word “is” and the rest of the words in the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than hiding behind the robes of judges your former boss Reagan and your post-9/11 hero Bush and his dad picked, tell us your opinion of Roe and the monumental gun rights case handed down by the D.C Court of Appeals today.

Please.

We don’t care to hear you play objective TV commentator. You want us to hire you to make decisions. So tell us sir what you think of these cases.You have told us what you think of many other cases that restricted the rights of police. On those cases you didn’t lapse into any deference to the court or Alito worship.

The DC case declares that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a fundamental INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to protect one’s home, even if its in a big city like New York City. The case makes no distinction of such rights in big cities vs. non-big cities like you have.

What is your opinion of the Silberman opinion?

I have never owned a gun, but I, and the rest of WE THE PEOPLE own this country, and if you want to be hired, please completely answer all questions on the job application.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Today’s verdicts finding Scooter Libby guilty of perjury is a travesty of justice as was the whole prosecution. Libby was the Chief of Staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney before he was indicted for perjury.

(Originally posted at Redstate.com and  Promoted from diaries by Mark I. and Jeff Emanuel to front page)

From the decision to appoint a special prosecutor due solely to press demands on behalf of a CIA employee who long ago was “outed” by her Husband and D.C. cocktail parties through Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s decision to set up Libby for today’s events after he learned that Libby was not guilty of outing a CIA agent and that the State Department’s Richard Armitage was the person that outed Joe Clinton-Kerry lackey Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson had named his wife in Who’s Who, but other than that and the cocktail parties, she was in deep cover. Right. She was also more than five years removed from security work that implicates the law protecting identities of agents.

Read on . . .

One also has to question the competence of Libby’s attorneys and the adequacy of the Judge’s instructions.

Regrettfully, statements by jurors concerning a “fall guy” call into question either the control the judge had over the jury, their compliance with instructions to avoid publicity and/or the decision not to sequester the jury in the first place.

In any event, should Libby lose his appeals, he should be sentenced the same as the last convicted perjurer, Bill Clinton.

Libby should pay a fine, lose his law license if he has one, and be President of the United States until the next president is inaugurated.

(Originally posted at The HinzSight Report and cross-posted at Race 4 2008. Links below)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008

We would, OF COURSE, destroy the terrorist organization that killed Americans and the regime that harbored them.

Of course.

We would also not wait for gathering threats to attack. We would pre-empt them as best we could.

We identified an Axis of Evil whose kingpin had been an enemy of the United States since 1979's initial act of war and who was responsible for more American deaths directly or through their western infantry The Hezbos than any other enemy since the 1970's until 9/11.

Iran, the world recognized leading terror nation state, was put on notice to stop accessorizing the killing of Americans, in speeches; in private warnings when we invaded Afghanistan; and in being surrounded on 3 sides by the arsenal of freedom, i.e. our troops.

Meanwhile we eliminated the most imminent threat and openly defiant terror nation in Saddam's regime in Iraq.

We have known since 2004-5 that our enemies in Iraq were killing Americans with Iranian supplied munitions.

We trust our patient President because he is a proven evil regime remover.

President Bush recently revealed even more evidence of the obvious with captures of major Iranian military officials in Iraq and with evidence of the Iranian government's Quds forces in delivery of weapons into Iraq and of their participation in combat against Americans.

pause
pause
pause

IRAN IS WAGING WAR AGAINST AMERICA.

Deep Breath.

America is asleep, including our candidates for President, Fox News and too many at Redstate.

One would think that with all the non-Coulter conservative talent including from Redstate that participated in questioning the candidates at the CPAC forum that one of our mouthpiece eyes and ears could have pressed the guys that want to take the Oath to defend Americans about this elephant in the room that no one will acknowledge.

But no, we would rather ask them to comment on a bad joke from a book hawking blond, because that

"story is in the news cycle."

Who put it in the news cycle?

And when are our outlets going to make a news cycle rather than follow the trivial MSM template.

...iran is killing americans in iraq

...Iran is waging war against America in Iraq

...IRAN IS WAGING WAR AGAINST MY COUNTRY AND YOURS AND KILLING

K*I*L*L*I*N*G

AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ.

That is THE NEWS. Report it. Ask would be Commanders in Chiefs about it.

Do we just want to participate in a Rome is falling game the libs created?

Or do we want to make the world all over again as Reagan proposed?

Iran is not a gathering threat.
Iran is not an imminent threat.

They are not merely violating 17 UN resolutions and a ceasefire. They are not merely firing on planes and trying to kill ex-presidents of the United States. They are not playing games with Hans Blix.

They, like al Qaida, have and are KILLING Americans.

There isn't even a need for a Bush or any other doctrine to inform us what we must do when a nation has and is attacking our troops,

NOW.

The News is that Iran is waging war on this country.

Report. Demand that our candidates Romney, et al acknowledge the facts and tell us what they would do.

It is obvious.

In a serious nation and in a serious political movement of the redstate variety.

Was my party switch in vain? Flyerhawk says I beat war drums while Iran kills Americans and too many here at Redstate say things like:

"they don't think now is the time for war with Iran."

As Iran kills Americans.

I know what the Democratic Party and liberals had become and I left that sick party.

What am I to think of this party and even many here at Redstate?

Iran is killing Americans in Iraq.

You have heard the news.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Saddam is no more. North Korea is contained. Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979. Iran has been the main state sponsor of terror since then, as recognized by four presidents.

Iran was directly involved in the Khobar Towers bombing. Iran has waged war against us and our allies via The Hezbos for decades and are responsible for more American deaths than any other nation or terrorist organization save al Qaida. Iran was accurately identified as the axis of the Axis of Evil by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Bush has now surrounded Iran with American troops and Naval ships on three sides in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Iran publicly defies the UN in pursuit of nuclear power and materials that can be used to arm a missile guided weapon or dirty bombs. Iran has missiles. Iran has dirty bomb deliverers. Iran is Terror, Inc.

Iran aids, abets, adheres to, and wages war with our enemies in Iraq to kill American troops. If Iran were an American citizen, even this Administration would charge them with treason.

Iran is at war with the United States in Iraq and around the world.

Who will be the first GOP nominee for President in 2008 to state this fact publicly? Shouldn't our nominees be adept at identifying elephants in rooms?

History awaits its recognition.

I can't hear you McCain, Romney, Giuliani,...

We don't expect the appeasement party to identify an enemy.

We count on our own to do no less that identify the enemy and the obvious path we must take in light of reality.

Which one will be the first to have the guts to state the obvious?

The path away from minority reports and to the Majority Report is paved with such truthful utterances akin to when Ronald Reagan endured liberal snickering at the thought of good and evil empires.

Romney accurately pronounced Hillary timid on Iran last week. Good start.

Now, let us not be timid. Iran is the Elephant in the war room.

GOP nominees. Acknowledge. If you can get Ann and what libs think off your minds.

Ok GC is done.

Had you all missed me while I make this country run, bought a house and watched UNC-Duke?

Go Braves!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

So, true to form, post 2004 "conservatives" obsess over joke deemed politically incorrect by their masters, i.e. The Left.

Yet, nary a word is heard when the Democrats and MSM daily, 24/7, as a part of their standard political talking points, call conservatives racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, liars to get us into war and question our patriotism explicitly; repeat al Qaeda’s talking points; call for socialist confiscation of profits; promise defeat in war by date certains; never obsess at the supposed far left's (the left and far left are the same folks) excesses and lie every time their lips move.

Correction, words are heard from our GOP heroes' lips. They politely say that their "honorable" friends from the other side of the aisle "simply disagree" or have "bad judgment" but certainly are patriotic and love America.

Iran is waging war on America.

Who knew? They took hostages in 1979. They have been on the rogue regime and terror sponsor nation list from 1979 thru today. They are the acknowledged leading axis of evil terror sponsoring nation, especially since 9/11 which killed 3000 here without WMD. They overtly pursue nukes as they vow to destroy Israel and the USA.

Iran is explicitly and publicly caught aiding and abetting the killing of Americans in Iraq by the Administration and even some Democrats.

In WWII and every other war known to man, this is called allying oneself with our enemy in waging war against us.

American soldiers are killed in Iraq due to Iran's intentional acts in aiding our enemy.

Yet, no candidate will state that obvious fact and demand that the US wage war and defeat Iran.

But they will pause to comment on a writer's joke?

I have reviewed what Ann said. I have noticed that many conservatives have used valuable print and internet space and radio and TV air time to express outrage about Ann Coulter.

I have read no more than one or two sentences of same when I realized that the usually interesting commentators or candidates were wasting my time.

Too many of our own still dance to the "rules" of the PC liberal MSM.

I don't.

My country is at war. The opposition party revels in appeasing enemies of my country and the socialism of Europe that they would impose on us.

Focus people.

We should set the agenda, not dance to the old PC playbook.

We are at war.

Let's talk about what matters that candidates say and do and demand they comment on weighty matters.

EzOnTheEyez has eloquently covered the absurdity of republicans behaving like liberals do when white libs assume they need to protect blacks.

Grow up.

This is silly.

War isn't.

Let's ask our future '08 would be heroes what they think about Iran.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

We win when we unapologetically run on economic and social conservative principles and as strong on defense war hawks that refuse to lose. See 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994-2004 in Congress, 2000 and 2004.

We lose when we water down our message with tax hikes and moderation. See 1992, 1996 and 2006 in Congress.

We win when the Dems are McGovern or perceived as such. See 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 2004. Bill Clinton ran after the Cold War and distanced himself from the far left.

The Dems running for the '08 nomination are trying to see who is the most McGovern like.

The 2006 Year Six election was unique and is not translatable to an election of a new commander in chief in a time of war. Americans do not pick known defeatist appeasers. We picked a commander in chief in 2004 specifically on the issue of war and rejected the Vietnam loser when the issue was joined. In 2006 too many republicans were equivocal on the war and most Dems did not openly oppose victory.

So we need not fear Hillary or any Democrat.

Moreover, there is no evidence that social issues cost the republicans any seat.

Yet many republicans here at Redstate seem to want to return to pre-1980 mode when we lost elections. Many demand we settle for one of the Big Three and that we dare not even closely challenge their views on social issues nor insist upon promises to win our votes.

Hear Investors Business Daily editorialize:

The Presidency: As the race for the White House begins, a sad but inescapable fact emerges: None of the candidates with a serious chance firmly believes in the principles of either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani may have gained national esteem gallantly coordinating the city's response to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, not to mention comforting the families of thousands of victims. But can a full-fledged supporter of abortion rights and homosexual unions win the Republican Party's nomination without a self-destructive bloodbath?

Will GOP primary voters in the Midwest and the South really pull the lever for a twice-divorced Brooklynite gun-control supporter who dutifully marched in the Big Apple's gay pride parade each year, and who seems to have an odd penchant for attending televised events dressed in drag?

What's more, as columnist Joseph Farah noted last week, Giuliani in 1996 remarked to the New York Post that "Most of (Bill) Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine."

Giuliani's positions as mayor have indeed been liberal on an array of issues, from amnesty and other leniencies for illegal aliens to opposition to both the Defense of Marriage Act and to banning partial-birth abortion.

Giuliani, who currently leads Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton 48%-43% among U.S. voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, has also refused to sign the Americans for Tax Reform's anti-tax increase pledge.

The GOP 2008 presidential candidates who have signed ATR's promise to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates" include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, and former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore.

But all, even Romney, are viewed as long shots against GOP front-runners Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona. According to Quinnipiac, "Mitt Romney is nowhere, actually losing to (Democratic Sen. Barack) Obama and (former Democratic Sen. John) Edwards in red states, where voters probably just don't know the former Massachusetts governor."

McCain, of course, voted against Bush's tax cuts during his first term, and in 2000 ran against Bush with what was mocked as a meager "Clinton Lite" tax-cut plan. And in spite of McCain's much-touted opposition to pork barrel spending "earmarks," the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner notes in his new book "Leviathan on the Right" that McCain "has shown a disturbing predilection for elevating every personal pet peeve — from steroids in baseball to airplane service quality — to a federal issue."

As Tanner observes, McCain, Romney, Brownback, and even former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who also is considering running, "all support different variations of big-government conservatism."

For the Republican Party, this is shaping up as an alarming reversal, with disastrous implications.

Viewed in historical context, the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 transformed America's political landscape. Reagan was the only president of the 20th century elected as the leader of a political movement.

Control of the GOP had finally been wrenched from its northeastern "dime-store Democrat" wing by conservatives who were intellectually committed to challenging rather than containing Soviet expansionism, lowering taxes, cutting government and fighting the erosion of traditional moral values.

Reagan, and now Bush, may have fallen short in some of these areas of policy, especially taming big government. But again and again they both boldly succeeded in going against the political grain in Washington — and were both handily re-elected.

Reagan dug us out of a near-depression with income-tax cuts that in 1980 were considered as economically foolish as they were politically impossible. Then he won the Cold War.

Bush has remarkably protected the homeland from attack for more than five years, and he's the first president to face reality on the disaster that awaits the country if we refuse to use private investment to reform entitlement programs such as Social Security.

The challenges ahead require a president who believes deeply in those principles. Right now, that candidate is nowhere in sight.

But let's look at Reagan's Secret Formula:

I'm about to commit speechwriter sacrilege and reveal the secret formula to all of Ronald Reagan’s most powerful speeches.

But first, let’s address the elephant in the room: conservatives’ lugubrious mood heading into the 2008 presidential election. Ask yourself this question: which Republican delivered the last speech you watched or read that surged with spine tingling, foot-stomping excitement while crackling with core conservative values?

No, I mean other than Ronald Reagan.

Was it John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani? Probably not. And that’s the point.

Conservatives’ current gloom is, in part, a symptom of a perceived “eloquence gap” among the top Republican presidential contenders. Moreover, it is a sign that somewhere amid the Donkey Party’s 2006 congressional stampede, Republican rhetoric got knocked off-key and is in desperate need of tuning.

Looking across history’s arc of great Republican speeches, one finds that they all contain three key themes—three communicative “pillars”—that when combined create powerful and enduring messages that transcend time.

Read it all at Townhall.

The conservative message is a winner. It wasn't heard in 2006. If it had been heard louder in 2004, Bush would have won 3-4 more states at least.

There has been some sentiment expressed that maybe young voters will vote in larger numbers and that this means the GOP should soft pedal the social issues. Yet, wasn't it Reagan that especially appealed to youth?

Right now, Romney and Hunter best fit the bill. Rudy will never completely fit the bill, but he could make himself acceptable with some rhetorical changes and promises to conservatives not to advance a liberal social agenda, and appoint judges that will uphold the free speech rights of the faithful and uphold the right of the people to govern themselves in their states and not have judges make up federal rights to kill developing lives in the womb.

What must not happen is for social conservatives to dummy up at the behest of Chicken Little Republicans that fear Hillary or any other McGovernite.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

The Confederate Flag WAS REMOVED from atop the SC State House, a position of sovereignty and authority, and moved to the grounds of the State House, which is essentially an outside museum, with the approval of the SC Black Caucus and the NAACP.

There are statues of confederate heroes on the grounds and a section dedicated to the legacy of slavery there as well.

Years after the removal, the NAACP decided to use race again for their political purposes and decided to back a boycott of their own state unless the flag was removed even from the grounds, i.e. museum. Seems they decided that seeing the flag in the sunshine was unacceptable too.

Pretty soon we will only be able to have dedications to ....non-whites?

Hundreds of thousands of brave non-slave holding men died under that flag to defend their states and their Independence just as those that died under Old Glory in 1776.

The survivors that fought under that flag and many generations to follow were persecuted under Old Glory during Reconstruction.

Yet, the descendants of those that fought under the flag Hillary deigns to vanquish even the sight of under the Sun, volunteered at a greater rate than the descendants of those that vanquished them, to fight under the Stars and Stripes for the Mexican War and all wars fought by the United by Lincoln States of America since, to defend the free speech rights of Hillary and her ilk.

Hillary and Bill celebrated Confederate Flag Day for years in Arkansas. They said then that the KKK should not have the power to besmirch a symbol thousands died fighting under. She and he were right then.

Now she plays the race card.

Secondly, I deem only George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as worthy of having national holidays celebrated in their honor.

Thirdly, I have always allowed my office employees to be off on all days banks are closed, except for this day after it was changed from Washington's Birthday to Presidents Day.

Those I deem worthy of celebrating today and why:

1 - Washington for his military leadership, character, conduct in office and his voluntary relinquishment of power which sealed the greatest political revolution in Earth's history.

2 - Adams for his religious faith, steadfast loyalty to the Revolution, and his sacrifices for the revolution.

3 - Jefferson for his Declaration of Independence, unilateral defeat of the radical Muslim Barbary Pirates (without congressional approval) that sought to control access to sea trade lanes, and Louisiana Purchase.

4 - Jackson for his military leadership including his actions that saved New Orleans and put an exclamation point of defeat on the British in the War of 1812, his removal actions that prevented the Cherokee Nation for being eliminated by angry Georgians due to the Indian's violation of private property rights, his defiance of an unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling that sought to prevent him from said action, his expansion of democratic rights and participation beyond the aristocratic class, being born in South Carolina and for not invading his home state over disputes with John C. Calhoun over nullification.

5 - Polk for Texas, 54.40 or fight and the Gadsden Purchase

6- Lincoln for saving what Washington made possible.

7 - FDR for leading us through the Great Depression and WWII, and for bringing the South back into the United States.

8 - JFK for his "this issue is as old as the Bible" Oval Office speech on race that framed the issue in moral terms that Southerners understood.

9 - Reagan for standing up to communists that tried to take over his union in Hollywood and until his death, supply side tax cuts, Strategic Defense, i.e. Star Wars, rebuilding the US military, lifting the American spirit, calling Evil by its name, defeating the evil USSR and liberating nearly half the world, aiding the Contras, his Christian faith, walking out on Gorby in Iceland, making the moral case against abortion and for Knute Rockne, All American and Heaven's Gate.

10 - George W. Bush for his strong leadership after 9/11 thru today, for never showing weakness to the enemy, for liberating two countries, for making the case for freedom and self government for all, tax cuts, great judges, refusing to cave on opposing carving up new fetuses for science, for running a color blind administration, and for his living witness of the power of faith in Christ.

see also discussion at Redstate

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The Minority Report

Democrats have lost the compassion and will to bear burden for liberty

MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer

"I don't care about the people of Iraq."

I was shocked when that statement was made to me last year by a Democrat friend.

I shouldn't have been!

That quote pretty much sums up the moral bankruptcy of modern-day liberalism and my former party today.

The sentiment expressed in that quote is consistent with the giggles I heard from fellow liberal Democrats in 1983 in reaction to President Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech.

I was also shocked then. I shouldn't have been!

The best reason for why I should not be shocked occupies the receptionist chair in my SouthPark office.

She is a descendant of the Hmong people of Laos who were allies of the United States until the government of South Vietnam fell in 1975. Massive slaughter of millions followed at the hands of the North Vietnamese communists and Cambodia's Pol Pot. More than 300,000 Laotians, mostly Hmong, fled. But thousands of Hmong continued to fight against the evil of communism; hundreds of their guerilla fighters surrendered only last month.

In 1975 I was an idealistic teen animated by the "Bear any burden for the cause of liberty" rhetoric by President John F. Kennedy, complimented by the "Love they neighbor" rhetoric of Jesus Christ, but quite ignorant of the details of the Vietnam War. I was a self-identified liberal anxiously awaiting my 18th birthday so that I could actively participate in my grandfather's party.

Eyes averted from slaughter

Sadly, almost from the beginning of my political activism, I had to reconcile the irreconcilable, i.e. the rhetoric of JFK with the reality of the words and actions of the flower children of the 1960s and the McGovernites who took over the party. Democrats cut off funds from our South Vietnamese allies, averted their eyes from the slaughter and celebrate their role in "ending the war" as one of their greatest accomplishments even to this day. I shamefully averted my ears from the liberal Democratic giggles at Reagan's notion of good and evil until the summer of 2001.

The "conservative epiphany" came as a result of confronting what I knew in my heart was true as I read Reagan's letters and speeches and books about his long war against communism. Reagan cared so much for the oppressed that he even deemed the policy of containment to have immorally sentenced half the globe to slavery. He told the so-called "realists" in 1981 that henceforth, American policy toward the Soviet Union would be "We win, they lose."

This was the liberal I had been looking for.

Did liberals stop caring about the oppressed when their hero was assassinated in 1963 or when they faced the draft board in 1968?

When I was an idealistic teenager, it was a given that America was good, that totalitarianism was evil, and that what America should be most proud of was our liberation of the oppressed. I still consider this a given.

The post-Watergate liberal Democrat Congress was warned of the likelihood of falling dominoes of slaughter in 1975, but they chose to avert their eyes. Many warn that the same fate will await the Iraqis if we abandon them a second time.

Will we betray Iraqis?

One of the most credible is John Burns, war correspondent for The New York Times, who covered genocide in Bosnia.

Asked to compare the situation there with Iraq, he said, "There's all likelihood if the United States withdraws its forces that there will be a great deal more killing."

Of course, I don't need Burns to tell me that betrayal is wrong, especially when greeted daily by my Hmong receptionist.

My eyes, ears, heart, mind and soul tell me that the most powerful nation on earth must love its neighbors enough to bear any burden for liberty, especially when it is so inextricably tied to our own liberty and, especially, our honor.

I care about the people of Iraq and my country's soul.

This conservative never lost his liberal heart.

Mike

DeVine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Observer community columnist Mike DeVine is vice president of Intequity Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, blogs as "Gamecock" at http://gamecock.townhall.com, www.race42008.com, and http://www.theminorityreportblog.com and is legal editor for http://www.hinzsightreport.com.

Write him c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or at mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com.

Iran aids, abets, adheres to, and wages war with our enemies in Iraq to kill American troops. If Iran were an American citizen, even this Administration would charge them with treason.

Iran is at war with the United States in Iraq and around the world.

Who will be the first GOP nominee for President in 2008 to state this fact publicly? Shouldn't our nominees be adept at identifying elephants in rooms?

History awaits its recognition.

I can't hear you McCain, Romney, Giuliani,...

We don't expect the appeasement party to identify an enemy.

We count on our own to do no less that identify the enemy and the obvious path we must take in light of reality.

Which one will be the first to have the guts to state the obvious?

The path away from minority reports and to the Majority Report is paved with such truthful utterances akin to when Ronald Reagan endured liberal snickering at the thought of good and evil empires.

Romney accurately pronounced Hillary timid on Iran last week. Good start.

Now, let us not be timid. Iran is the Elephant in the war room.

GOP nominees. Acknowledge.

Townhall bloggers are enduring a virus. Naturally, given all Hewitt's work, TH viruses are benign, but, here are apparently the rules I received from Maggie and Prysson:

"People who get tagged need to write a blog stating 6 unusual or weird things about themselves as well as state this rule clearly. In the end of the post, you need to choose 6 people to be tagged and list their names and links. Don't forget to leave a comment that says you are tagged in their comments and tell them to read your blog."

1 - I celebrated my birthday on May 30, until my 12th, when I had to get a birth certificate to play football. The Birth Certificate, filled out by an anal retentive nurse, documented by birthday as 11:59 PM, May 29. Since then, I have celebrated my Birthday on the same day as JFK and Bob Hope. Not bad.

2 - I quit High School, worked in a cotton mill for 18 months, took the GED, entered college with my High School class and went on to make summa c*m laude, phi beta kappa BA in economics, JD in law school and a Phd in the school of hard knocks. 

3 - I was a geek that could play sports and fight, and a bully in grammar school. At first I bullied the geeks, but very soon switched to defending the geeks against redneck bullies.

4 - I applied to and was accepted by Columbia University law school, just to prove that I could, then attended a law school in Columbia, SC that actually imparted useful knowledge.

5 - I was a contradiction in terms from my teen years thru 2000, i.e. I was a Democrat Hawk. Now I am a Republican.

6 - I love The Holy Bible, C.S. Lewis, Elvis, The Beatles, Sam Cooke, old black and white movies, Columbo, Andy Griffith, All in the Family, Sanford and Son, Dallas, Spiderman, Network, Gone with the Wind, Robert Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Reagan. Rush, Prager, Medved, Hewitt, Family Guy, 24, American Dad, Redstate, Dubya, the USC Gamecocks and the Clemson Tigers, the Ramblin Wreck from Georgia Tech, Shaq, the Colts since Johnny U, Namath, Randall Cuningham, Earl Campbell, OJ before he was a murderer, Johnny Carson, The Charlotte Observer, Dominique Wilkins, The Lakers, Elton Brand and the Clippers, and

The Atlanta Braves!

Who I am tagging…

The Dutchmeister

SwampFox

Conservative Outpost

O Theophilus

1 more to come

Mike Gamecock DeVine Op-Ed @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor @ The HinzSight Report and The Minority Report
Original Contributing Writer for Race 4 2008
Blogs at Redstate

They seem to be able to defend any statement made by any fellow American liberal as being either patriotic, or, at least not un-patriotic, even if the statement echoes statements by al Qaeda, Saddam's lawyers, Iran's Members Only Jacket-ijad, or Venezuela's dictator.

So, I am left wondering if ANY statement can be made that self-described patriotic liberals would deem to be un-patriotic.

I have never made this challenge in a blog entry however, so here goes:

Friends, Americans, and countrymen, lend me your ears. Since it appears that we are all patriots no matter how we respond to poll questions, let's have some of the liberals that found the poll question (that was the subject of the above Jon Sandor blog) to be too vague for patriotism determinism, or just any old garden variety liberal, draft for us a statement or two that you would deem to be un-patriotic.

Have at it, unhindered by poll question drafters.

Below is a blog I wrote not too long ago, about which I would love to be proven wrong.

The Ease of Discerning the Patriotic from the Un-Patriotic/Lovers from Siblings

*UPDATE*

What is supremely sad are those that want to claim patriotism and want us to lose the war because they think that would teach us a lesson, not understanding either that we are the good guys or the consequences of losing wars.

Bin Laden cites our cut and run from Vietnam as part of what defined us for him as a "paper tiger" and that could be defeated if made to engage an enemy for more than 100 days.

*UPDATE*

I probably should distinguish statements that have unpatriotic effects from the mouths of the patriotic that disagree, and this goes for liberals and conservatives, even to the armchair QB hawks that won't shut up long enough to convince one al Qaeda type that we might be united behind the President for one minute.

Many patriotic individuals don't love their country more than they love the sound of their voice, and oftentimes, the sounds coming out embolden the terrorists even more that the kook left.

We have one President at a time and one plan at a time, and if it doesn't work, then America's plan won't work. The president is America in this regard. And this is the only way it can be.

You seem to me to be a true patriotic liberal much as I was in my 20 years in the dem party. I was always a hawk. History shows that when America acts, America and the world are better for it.

See GC's MSM Debut Column in The Charlotte Observer
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The Minority Report

The troops already in harms way are about to be joined by more. Don't embolden the enemy now, as you have for the past three years. How much blood can your liberal hands hold?

For the sake of argument only (and be sure, only) let's assume you love your country. The question then is, do you love your country enough to shut up and present a united front in to the enemy?

Of course, I and we, know that you don’t and won't.

The purpose of this blog is to make clear to the patriotically-confused, just what is patriotism at this moment.

As Bill Kristol on FNS exasperated, and I paraphrase: "Must they pass these resolutions now. Can't they just shut up for a few months and give the troops a chance."

(see Bill's All We Are Saying . . .
Is Give Petraeus a Chance, which is excellent, as well)

*Vulture Politics Update*

Unfortunately however, even when they ostensibly shut up, the Dems manage to do so by investing in the defeat of their own country. Exhibit A: Rahm "smart Clintonite that lied pre-2006 election re his knowledge of the Foley IMs more than a Gutless Coward" Emanuel

Rahm's also a Vulture feeding on the carcasses of dead American soldiers:

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

Excerpt from Tony Blankley's piece:

But it is that second paragraph that sits up and grabs one's attention. With America at war and our troops dying regularly in battle with greater national danger and death in prospect: "Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces." [!]

This is vulture politics. It is so far from respectable that it brings to mind the admired liberal twice Democratic candidate for president against Eisenhower, Governor Adlai Stevenson's, definition of patriotism:

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility ... a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

But Rahm Emanuel's Democratic Party is so bereft of a sense of national responsibility that he apparently feels comfortable brazenly telling the Washington Post that his plans for his Democratic Party is to not even try to stop things from getting worse in Iraq -- so they can pick up the political pieces afterward. Mr. Emanuel is a "smart" politician. He thinks the more dire America's place in the world is in 2008, the more likely the voters are to vote Democratic. The more of our troops are left in more pieces the better for Rahm Emanuel's Democrats.

Unity was also demanded during many recent "thens", but how much more so, Now, especially given the Democratic Party's leaders' statements that they will not seek to cut off funds now. THE (ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE OR WILL HAVE FOR 24 MORE MONTHS) Commander in Chief, after many weeks and months of analysis and input from our military leaders, is sending in reinforcements to assist our troops already in the field.

The mission: to help the Iraqi army and police that have grown in size and ability under our tutelage, to pacify Baghdad and al Qaeda infested Anbar province once and for all.

Moreover, we already see progress in the recent arrest of Mookie al Sadr's right hand Shia kook.

Yet, what do we get from Democrats? The same old same old defeatism that emboldens the enemies these very troops are preparing to face! I contend now, as I have since the Bushlied party continued to function after Election Day 2004, that the blood of American soldiers' is on the Democratic party's leaders' hands as much as blood is on the foreign enemies' hands that have fired weapons that have killed the soldiers. The message the Dems send is that all the enemy has to do is hold out a bit longer, and Iraq will be theirs.

I also think that Bush's oath of office demands that he call out the enemies at home in some way, if not explicitly. Maybe in the State of the Union he could explain American law and the cowardice of the Democrats to the enemy and make it clear that he would not stop killing them until January 21, 2009, that the Democrats have not the guts or votes to stop him, and that the president that takes over when he departs will also kill them relentlessly given that never in our history have we elected anyone to lead us in war that comes from the ilk that is seated to his (right or left, whichever the case may be). You know, something subtle. And he can also tell the enemy that if any in his Party oppose the troops, they will not be back after they next face their people at home.

My heart beats with furious hatred for my former party whose leaders say and do for free what al Qaeda would be happy to pay for them to say and do.

But don't just listen to Rooster crowings (even if they are regularly published and posted on an MSM outlet!). Read (and listen by following the links) what Paul Harvey's successor being groomed in process and former senator for the Volunteer State says:

Stomachless Senate

Won't the Senate resolution diminish our chances for success in Iraq?

By Fred Thompson

Preparation continues in the House and Senate for the introduction of a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the president’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq in order to quell the violence there. The resolution will have no legal affect. A congressional vote to cut off funding could stop the troops or could stop the war altogether but the critics of the plan don’t have the stomach for that. It might be politically dangerous. One sponsor of the Senate resolution said that the goal is to demonstrate that the president is “on his own.”

Last week I said that it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops (which, incidentally, would bring the troops up to a number that is still less than the number of troops we have had there in the past) because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great. Understandably people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read this week in The Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the president’s plan as our last best chance to prevail there. But I can see the arguments for the other side. I can even understand a vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we have clearly already lost the war and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss. What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own”?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

Or read Don't Burn Bush Now
by Quin Hillyer in The American Spectator.

The time has come for conservatives, and all good Americans, to rally around the president, around the troops, and around the idea of victory in Iraq.

The reasons to rally are moral, practical, and political.

Moral: As Colin Powell was fond of saying: "You break it: You buy it." We Americans toppled Iraq's illegitimate, murderous government, but did not provide enough security from the very beginning of the post-war period. We owe it to finish the job.

Moral: President George W. Bush was correct that establishing a stable, even quasi-democratic Iraq could help spur a sea-change in the entire Middle East and central Asia. Before we lost control in Iraq, it was already happening. Libya's forfeiture of its nuclear weapons program and the pro-democratic developments in Ukraine, formerly Soviet Georgia, Lebanon, and (to a lesser extent) Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all were catalyzed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein and by Bush's soaring rhetoric about democracy. Even Ted Kennedy acknowledged as much. As columnist Larry Elder noted on March 17, 2005, " 'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos asked Kennedy whether President Bush deserves credit for democratic developments in the Middle East. Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely, absolutely, and I think...what's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive. It's a reflection the president has been involved.'"

Moral: The United States of America is the most moral major force in geopolitics. (The American Left doesn't believe this, but that just shows its own ignorance and/or weak moral compasses.) Leaving Iraq a mess, effectively in defeat, will leave the U.S. horribly weakened diplomatically, just as the Vietnam War did. A weaker United States will be far less able to lead the world community on behalf of human rights, stability, and freedom.

Practical: Now that the president has made his decision, what is the alternative? What good does carping do? President Bush has tried the equivalent of a difficult bank shot in pool; the only way it can work is if other officials don't rock the table. The more they voice dissent, the less likely the Iraqis -- in government and on the streets -- will be to do their part to make the plan a success. And the only way for Bush to hold a strong enough hand to bring other nations on board to help is if he is seen as having significant support here at home. Victory is very, very difficult when the home front is not united. Last I checked, victory is still a highly valued commodity in these United States.

Practical: The surge may work. General David Petraeus is no dummy. If he thinks he and his troops can pull it off, who are we to contradict him?

Practical: Our troops are there already. Getting them out safely, without a victory, might be as difficult as it was to get all the American personnel out of Vietnam. A surge that might just work (by some counts, the president's plan will more than double the troops actually in the city of Baghdad) also might just buy enough time for planners to develop, in the alternative, the actual logistics for a comprehensive exit strategy -- logistics that likely are not fully formed yet. In that sense, even in defeat a troop surge might save the lives of more American personnel than it risks.

Then again, the mindset of American leaders -- other than military staff, who ought to always plan for any eventuality -- should be that defeat is not an option.

Political: Here's where so many Republican solons on Capitol Hill make no sense whatsoever. Some of them may honestly believe the surge won't work or even that the whole war was a bad idea in the first place. That's fine: Sticking by one's principled judgment is always a good thing. But it is patently obvious that a lot of the carping about the surge comes not from conviction but from lack thereof. Whatever metaphor is used about them -- spineless; fingers in the wind; weathervanes; running for the hills; fence-sitters -- it is clear that a lot of Members of Congress are spooked by the surface-level politics of the situation. They hated losing the elections, and now they are reading the short-term polls, and they think the safest thing to do is to say what is most immediately popular.

But if that is their motivation, they are (to be blunt) incredibly stupid. The truth is that no matter what they do individually, if Iraq is seen as a disaster two years from now, all Republicans will get blamed by the public and media for the failures of a Republican president. Their fates are tethered to that of President Bush's historical legacy. If the U.S. leaves Iraq without victory, Republicans (and conservatives, an oft-distinct set) will be punished. There is no way around it, even if the solons do verbal back-flips to try to separate themselves from the president.

On the other hand, every Republican who stands solidly with the president now, when he is most embattled, will garner a huge political advantage if the surge succeeds. The reality is that the left has painted itself into a corner. The entire public knows that the whole congressional Democratic Party is against the surge. Moreover, the public knows that the Democrats have been undercutting the president from just about Day One of the conflict in Iraq. They know that the Democrats, and the nutroot left, has not just sounded defeatist the whole time, but actually antagonistic toward the very idea of victory. The left long ago not only declared defeat but actually wished for it. The left thinks the United States is a negative influence in the world. It thinks our leaders deliberately lie, conspire, torture, maim, and kill.

And even the somewhat "responsible center-left" lacks faith in American might, ingenuity, and will. They see defeat before the clock has even run out. Witness Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic, who in the most recent issue of that magazine writes in the concluding paragraph that "the United States has already lost."

If Beinart is right, then Republicans have already lost decisively, in terms of domestic politics, as well. But if the surge works, if Iraq's peace is secured, the left will be utterly discredited. Nobody who abandoned the president will be able to take advantage of that discrediting of the left -- but everybody who stood with President Bush will reap the rewards.

Moral and practical reasons alone should lead Republicans and intelligent Democrats to support the surge, in order to show American solidarity before a watching world, as the only viable option for victory still on the table. But for politicians crass and weak enough to put politics before morality and practicality, the politics of the situation (rightly understood) argue not against supporting Bush, but in favor.

What is past is past, including President Bush's long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let's give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory.

And yet, all we have gotten are:

1 - Biden-Levin co-sponsoring the resolution Fred Thompson denounces above, and these guys are what passes for the hawks in the Democratic Party.

2 - Biden and Reid asserting that the president hasn't the authority to attack Iran, since same is not explicitly stated in either the AUMF (passed soon after 9/11) or the Iraq War resolution. Of course, the President, as CinC, has the inherent authority and power to order US forces to attack Boston if he pleases, much less an Axis of Evil nation that has been and is in violation of the Bush doctrine since the birth of the doctrine and which is waging war against American forces in the Iraq War theatre. The Iraq War resolution cannot be read, not only to not prohibit attacking Iran, but actually screams out the imperative that we do attack Iran and any other nation or force that is opposing us in Iraq.

And must DeVine Gamecock be the first to mention a little thingy called the War Powers Act, which would prohibit Congress from taking any action to cut off funds for actions against Iran for 90 days. Hmmmmm Chia Pet and Munsters' Gramps.

These people are craven, speaking of which:

3 - Pelosi accusing the president (as Gore and The Swimmer have before. Well, as all elected Dems have, either rout loud or by their conspicuous silence) of making war time decisions based on politics. Cynthia McKinney lost her job the first time saying this and was shunned by the Pelosi’s and the Bidens, yet now, it’s Ok for the Speaker to say it? Bad Hair Gal back in Georgia has a gripe with her Democrat Plantation keepers.

Go to HughHewitt.com and browse for more (much, much more unpatriotic dem behavior) from the Dems over the past week, not to mention our own Paul Cella's Crippling disloyalty masterpiece earlier this week, as I am exhausted thinking of how these craven POS's would have been strung up faster than Saddam in US wars past.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
Also Blogs at The Minority Report

The troops already in harms way are about to be joined by more. Don't embolden the enemy now, as you have for the past three years. How much blood can your liberal hands hold?

For the sake of argument only (and be sure, only) let's assume you love your country. The question then is, do you love your country enough to shut up and present a united front in to the enemy?

Of course, I and we, know that you don’t and won't.

The purpose of this blog is to make clear to the patriotically-confused, just what is patriotism at this moment.

As Bill Kristol on FNS exasperated, and I paraphrase: "Must they pass these resolutions now. Can't they just shut up for a few months and give the troops a chance."

(see Bill's All We Are Saying . . .
Is Give Petraeus a Chance, which is excellent, as well)

*Vulture Politics Update*

Unfortunately however, even when they ostensibly shut up, the Dems manage to do so by investing in the defeat of their own country. Exhibit A: Rahm "smart Clintonite that lied pre-2006 election re his knowledge of the Foley IMs more than a Gutless Coward" Emanuel

Rahm's also a Vulture feeding on the carcasses of dead American soldiers:

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

Excerpt from Tony Blankley's piece:

But it is that second paragraph that sits up and grabs one's attention. With America at war and our troops dying regularly in battle with greater national danger and death in prospect: "Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces." [!]

This is vulture politics. It is so far from respectable that it brings to mind the admired liberal twice Democratic candidate for president against Eisenhower, Governor Adlai Stevenson's, definition of patriotism:

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility ... a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime."

But Rahm Emanuel's Democratic Party is so bereft of a sense of national responsibility that he apparently feels comfortable brazenly telling the Washington Post that his plans for his Democratic Party is to not even try to stop things from getting worse in Iraq -- so they can pick up the political pieces afterward. Mr. Emanuel is a "smart" politician. He thinks the more dire America's place in the world is in 2008, the more likely the voters are to vote Democratic. The more of our troops are left in more pieces the better for Rahm Emanuel's Democrats.

Unity was also demanded during many recent "thens", but how much more so, Now, especially given the Democratic Party's leaders' statements that they will not seek to cut off funds now. THE (ONE AND ONLY ONE WE HAVE OR WILL HAVE FOR 24 MORE MONTHS) Commander in Chief, after many weeks and months of analysis and input from our military leaders, is sending in reinforcements to assist our troops already in the field.

The mission: to help the Iraqi army and police that have grown in size and ability under our tutelage, to pacify Baghdad and al Qaeda infested Anbar province once and for all.

Moreover, we already see progress in the recent arrest of Mookie al Sadr's right hand Shia kook.

Yet, what do we get from Democrats? The same old same old defeatism that emboldens the enemies these very troops are preparing to face! I contend now, as I have since the Bushlied party continued to function after Election Day 2004, that the blood of American soldiers' is on the Democratic party's leaders' hands as much as blood is on the foreign enemies' hands that have fired weapons that have killed the soldiers. The message the Dems send is that all the enemy has to do is hold out a bit longer, and Iraq will be theirs.

I also think that Bush's oath of office demands that he call out the enemies at home in some way, if not explicitly. Maybe in the State of the Union he could explain American law and the cowardice of the Democrats to the enemy and make it clear that he would not stop killing them until January 21, 2009, that the Democrats have not the guts or votes to stop him, and that the president that takes over when he departs will also kill them relentlessly given that never in our history have we elected anyone to lead us in war that comes from the ilk that is seated to his (right or left, whichever the case may be). You know, something subtle. And he can also tell the enemy that if any in his Party oppose the troops, they will not be back after they next face their people at home.

My heart beats with furious hatred for my former party whose leaders say and do for free what al Qaeda would be happy to pay for them to say and do.

But don't just listen to Rooster crowings (even if they are regularly published and posted on an MSM outlet!). Read (and listen by following the links) what Paul Harvey's successor being groomed in process and former senator for the Volunteer State says:

Stomachless Senate

Won't the Senate resolution diminish our chances for success in Iraq?

By Fred Thompson

Preparation continues in the House and Senate for the introduction of a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the president’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq in order to quell the violence there. The resolution will have no legal affect. A congressional vote to cut off funding could stop the troops or could stop the war altogether but the critics of the plan don’t have the stomach for that. It might be politically dangerous. One sponsor of the Senate resolution said that the goal is to demonstrate that the president is “on his own.”

Last week I said that it seemed to me that we ought to support the plan for the additional troops (which, incidentally, would bring the troops up to a number that is still less than the number of troops we have had there in the past) because the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq are so great. Understandably people have strong feelings on both sides of this debate. I read this week in The Economist magazine, which openly dislikes President Bush, that they agree with the president’s plan as our last best chance to prevail there. But I can see the arguments for the other side. I can even understand a vote to cut off funds for the war effort if one believes that we have clearly already lost the war and is prepared to accept the consequences of that loss. What I can’t see is this nonbinding resolution of opposition. Is it really in our country’s best interest to signal to the enemy that they probably only have to wait us out a little longer because congressional determination to defeat them is crumbling? Doesn’t such a resolution further diminish our chances for success at the very time our soldiers are preparing to go into battle? And finally, regardless of our politics is this the time to announce to the world that our president is “on his own”?

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

Or read Don't Burn Bush Now
by Quin Hillyer in The American Spectator.

The time has come for conservatives, and all good Americans, to rally around the president, around the troops, and around the idea of victory in Iraq.

The reasons to rally are moral, practical, and political.

Moral: As Colin Powell was fond of saying: "You break it: You buy it." We Americans toppled Iraq's illegitimate, murderous government, but did not provide enough security from the very beginning of the post-war period. We owe it to finish the job.

Moral: President George W. Bush was correct that establishing a stable, even quasi-democratic Iraq could help spur a sea-change in the entire Middle East and central Asia. Before we lost control in Iraq, it was already happening. Libya's forfeiture of its nuclear weapons program and the pro-democratic developments in Ukraine, formerly Soviet Georgia, Lebanon, and (to a lesser extent) Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all were catalyzed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein and by Bush's soaring rhetoric about democracy. Even Ted Kennedy acknowledged as much. As columnist Larry Elder noted on March 17, 2005, " 'This Week's' George Stephanopoulos asked Kennedy whether President Bush deserves credit for democratic developments in the Middle East. Kennedy replied, 'Absolutely, absolutely, and I think...what's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive. It's a reflection the president has been involved.'"

Moral: The United States of America is the most moral major force in geopolitics. (The American Left doesn't believe this, but that just shows its own ignorance and/or weak moral compasses.) Leaving Iraq a mess, effectively in defeat, will leave the U.S. horribly weakened diplomatically, just as the Vietnam War did. A weaker United States will be far less able to lead the world community on behalf of human rights, stability, and freedom.

Practical: Now that the president has made his decision, what is the alternative? What good does carping do? President Bush has tried the equivalent of a difficult bank shot in pool; the only way it can work is if other officials don't rock the table. The more they voice dissent, the less likely the Iraqis -- in government and on the streets -- will be to do their part to make the plan a success. And the only way for Bush to hold a strong enough hand to bring other nations on board to help is if he is seen as having significant support here at home. Victory is very, very difficult when the home front is not united. Last I checked, victory is still a highly valued commodity in these United States.

Practical: The surge may work. General David Petraeus is no dummy. If he thinks he and his troops can pull it off, who are we to contradict him?

Practical: Our troops are there already. Getting them out safely, without a victory, might be as difficult as it was to get all the American personnel out of Vietnam. A surge that might just work (by some counts, the president's plan will more than double the troops actually in the city of Baghdad) also might just buy enough time for planners to develop, in the alternative, the actual logistics for a comprehensive exit strategy -- logistics that likely are not fully formed yet. In that sense, even in defeat a troop surge might save the lives of more American personnel than it risks.

Then again, the mindset of American leaders -- other than military staff, who ought to always plan for any eventuality -- should be that defeat is not an option.

Political: Here's where so many Republican solons on Capitol Hill make no sense whatsoever. Some of them may honestly believe the surge won't work or even that the whole war was a bad idea in the first place. That's fine: Sticking by one's principled judgment is always a good thing. But it is patently obvious that a lot of the carping about the surge comes not from conviction but from lack thereof. Whatever metaphor is used about them -- spineless; fingers in the wind; weathervanes; running for the hills; fence-sitters -- it is clear that a lot of Members of Congress are spooked by the surface-level politics of the situation. They hated losing the elections, and now they are reading the short-term polls, and they think the safest thing to do is to say what is most immediately popular.

But if that is their motivation, they are (to be blunt) incredibly stupid. The truth is that no matter what they do individually, if Iraq is seen as a disaster two years from now, all Republicans will get blamed by the public and media for the failures of a Republican president. Their fates are tethered to that of President Bush's historical legacy. If the U.S. leaves Iraq without victory, Republicans (and conservatives, an oft-distinct set) will be punished. There is no way around it, even if the solons do verbal back-flips to try to separate themselves from the president.

On the other hand, every Republican who stands solidly with the president now, when he is most embattled, will garner a huge political advantage if the surge succeeds. The reality is that the left has painted itself into a corner. The entire public knows that the whole congressional Democratic Party is against the surge. Moreover, the public knows that the Democrats have been undercutting the president from just about Day One of the conflict in Iraq. They know that the Democrats, and the nutroot left, has not just sounded defeatist the whole time, but actually antagonistic toward the very idea of victory. The left long ago not only declared defeat but actually wished for it. The left thinks the United States is a negative influence in the world. It thinks our leaders deliberately lie, conspire, torture, maim, and kill.

And even the somewhat "responsible center-left" lacks faith in American might, ingenuity, and will. They see defeat before the clock has even run out. Witness Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of the New Republic, who in the most recent issue of that magazine writes in the concluding paragraph that "the United States has already lost."

If Beinart is right, then Republicans have already lost decisively, in terms of domestic politics, as well. But if the surge works, if Iraq's peace is secured, the left will be utterly discredited. Nobody who abandoned the president will be able to take advantage of that discrediting of the left -- but everybody who stood with President Bush will reap the rewards.

Moral and practical reasons alone should lead Republicans and intelligent Democrats to support the surge, in order to show American solidarity before a watching world, as the only viable option for victory still on the table. But for politicians crass and weak enough to put politics before morality and practicality, the politics of the situation (rightly understood) argue not against supporting Bush, but in favor.

What is past is past, including President Bush's long-infuriating, now-acknowledged mistakes. He remains our president, and we remain Americans, and Americans are a good and mighty people. Our cause in Iraq, and against terrorists worldwide, is just. Let's give the president the support he needs to lead that cause to victory.

And yet, all we have gotten are:

1 - Biden-Levin co-sponsoring the resolution Fred Thompson denounces above, and these guys are what passes for the hawks in the Democratic Party.

2 - Biden and Reid asserting that the president hasn't the authority to attack Iran, since same is not explicitly stated in either the AUMF (passed soon after 9/11) or the Iraq War resolution. Of course, the President, as CinC, has the inherent authority and power to order US forces to attack Boston if he pleases, much less an Axis of Evil nation that has been and is in violation of the Bush doctrine since the birth of the doctrine and which is waging war against American forces in the Iraq War theatre. The Iraq War resolution cannot be read, not only to not prohibit attacking Iran, but actually screams out the imperative that we do attack Iran and any other nation or force that is opposing us in Iraq.

And must DeVine Gamecock be the first to mention a little thingy called the War Powers Act, which would prohibit Congress from taking any action to cut off funds for actions against Iran for 90 days. Hmmmmm Chia Pet and Munsters' Gramps.

These people are craven, speaking of which:

3 - Pelosi accusing the president (as Gore and The Swimmer have before. Well, as all elected Dems have, either rout loud or by their conspicuous silence) of making war time decisions based on politics. Cynthia McKinney lost her job the first time saying this and was shunned by the Pelosi’s and the Bidens, yet now, it’s Ok for the Speaker to say it? Bad Hair Gal back in Georgia has a gripe with her Democrat Plantation keepers.

Go to HughHewitt.com and browse for more (much, much more unpatriotic dem behavior) from the Dems over the past week, not to mention our own Paul Cella's Crippling disloyalty masterpiece earlier this week, as I am exhausted thinking of how these craven POS's would have been strung up faster than Saddam in US wars past.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
Original Contributing writer for Race 4 2008
Also Blogs at The Minority Report