1or2thoughts

Newt's on The O'Reilly Factor Tonight!
Fox News Network
December 28th, 2006
8-9 PM Eastern Time

I am impressed with Newt's new-media efforts. It appears that he gets it.

Newt Gingrich - Winning the Future

No that is not a VW Bug. That is what happens when 26" or more of snow falls on your grill.

It finally stopped snowing. The drifts are waist deep in the open and of course much higher in areas. There is no going anywhere today. Hopefully a plow will come by overnight and we can start digging out tomorrow.

I have been surprised at the lack of concern over the use of WMD in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. Peter Zimmerman writing in the New York Times is also concerned that what has traced from London to Germany and points to Russian complicity should be a wake up call to the dangers we face.

For more readThe Smoky Bomb Threat, courtesy of Real Clear Politics.

“China is indeed a new player on the African continent, a player that is today Africa’s second largest trade partner, after France,”

The French are apparently concerned about the expanding influence of China in Africa. As you read this one cannot help get the impression that the concern is more about the loss of revenue to France than any concern for the oppressed in Africa.

Thanks to The Center for Security Policy for linking this from DefenseNews.com.

If he runs he gets my support and vote. Newt is the only potential Conservative that has a strong, consistent message and knows how to convey it.

Newt Gingrich

At what point is the line from assassination to an attack with WMD crossed? Once this line is crossed what is the proper response and does the United States have a treaty and moral obligation to respond?

So many questions and now it appears Germany has also been attacked which I found at the Drudge Report.

See also my earlier post and The Corner on National Review Online.

It was so encouraging to see evidence at Hugh Hewitt this morning that there are at least a few serious people left. After the delusional remarks by Mr. Gates who appears poised to be our Defense Secretary, and the "if not for the Jews, those who are pledged to kill us could clear all this up" fantasy of the ISO report I was fearful that pacifism at any cost had become epidemic.

A glimmer of hope returned this morning when I read the letter from James Woolsey and Senator Jon Kyl which includes:

"In particular, members of our Council on both sides of the aisle strongly disagree with what is, arguably, the Baker-Hamilton commission's most strategically portentous recommendation:

"The United States should immediately launch a New Diplomatic Offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region...Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own. Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively."

As the ISG's own report documents, far from being proponents of stability, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its de facto colony, Syria, have gone to great lengths to destabilize the Middle East and, in particular, to prevent Iraq from becoming a free, democratic and peaceful nation."

Thank you Senator Kyl and former Director Woolsey for taking issue with the ISG and standing up for the security of our nation.

Thanks go out to The Center for Security Policy and Frank Gaffney for thinking critically about the security and defense of our country.

Who will be the great biographer to rise to the standards set by the writers below and give a great figure his historical legacy? Not the "hard-hitting" or "inside story" best seller today and gone tomorrow tripe so frequent in today's market, but instead a studied biography that captures the greatness and historical context of Mr. Rumsfeld. I think of definitive work such as the following and wonder if there is a writer out there who can provide similar brilliance for another great historical figure?

I heard nothing of this ruling, so am pleased that the way is clear to prosecute the NYT and it's reporters for treason, espionage, obstruction of justice and interfering with a law enforcement officer in the execution of their duty. Unforunately they will probably not be prosecuted at all, but they certainly should be.

In fact this case is much worse than had been understood before. Not only did Philip Shenon and Judith Miller and the NYT commit treason in publishing secret information, they went further and "on the eve of each of the government's actions, called each foundation for comment on the upcoming government freeze and/or searches." It is criminal to publish secret information, while inexcusably rarely prosecuted, but this is clearly an example of providing information to our enemies directly.

Now that SCOTUS has affirmed the governments right to prosecute it is time for Attorney General Gonzales to act.

Thanks to Okie on the LAM for linking this from BeldarBlog.

Robert Gates when asked by Senator KKK Byrd if the President of the United States has the authority to attack Syria or Iran said "no." It is critical that President Bush immediately "counsels" Mr. Gates on the President's constitutional authority and responsibility and then they make a joint statement clearing up this misunderstanding or President Bush will have to rescind the Gates nomination.

The President clearly, both Constitutionally and under Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq which includes the following authorization:

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,"

If Mr. Gates cannot understand these facts he has no business holding any position in government employment let alone a cabinet position.

Hugh Hewitt I am sure will have more soon.

UPDATE:

Hugh has posted about this abomination as has The Hedgehog Blog.

The blogosphere needs to pressure the White House like they did on the Miers nomination and we need this nomination pulled.

Kathryn Jean Lopez suggest, in jest, that we let Harry Reid choose an ambassador to the UN. I prefer to see President Bush tell the Senate:
"My choice has been and is John Bolton and until he is given the vote he deserves the work at the UN cannot go forward. I am not going to nominate or appoint another UN ambassador because my last nominee has still not been acted on by the Senate. Until Mr. Bolton has been confirmed or rejected by the Senate I will not, indeed cannot, nominate another."

The Corner on National Review Online has the inside information.

Failing an up or down vote in the Senate it seems appropriate for the recess appointment of John Bolton to continue. The President should simply tell the Senate that his recess appointment is valid until Senators live meet their obligation to confirm or deny his nominee.

Bolton to leave as U.S. ambassador to U.N. was linked from DrudgeReport.com.

"How much should we then blame Gen. Casey for the Battle of Baghdad when his civilian leadership has no stomach for dealing with the enemy behind the Battle of Baghdad?"

Andy McCarthy nails it.

One wonders how often our professional military leaders, the ones trained and experienced in fighting wars, are asked "without limitations what would you do to win the war in Iraq?" How about the bigger question of "how would you win the war on terror?"


Thanks Dean Barnett for the post at Hugh Hewitt.