The Best "Best of 2007"

It never fails that we get to this time of year and people everywhere, including, yes, yours truly, start getting pensive. While it is natural to get reflective as the calendar draws to a close, I'm always disappointed by the utterly stupid "best of" lists and "news" pieces that come out at the end of the year. Remember when Britney shaved her head?? Wasn't that weird?? Ugh, it's stuff like that which leaves me thinking longingly about moving to Montana and becoming a recluse.

Except of course, when there's a really good "best of", like you can read here by the incomparable Michelle Malkin.

Funny, isn't it, how Iraq was going to be THE story this election season. The Dhimmicrats pinned their hopes on it. Now... not looking like there's any news to report, is there? All of which stands as a stinging indictment of the American Left and their ideological brethren in the MSM (did we need any more evidence?). The calculus is pretty simple for these traitors. Bad things happen to America = news. Good things happen to America = keep that quiet.

When Israelis Attack

Check out today's posting entitled "Israelis 'blew apart Syrian nuclear cache'" from the Jihad Watch.

Great blog, and a valuable resource on the conflict. 50 miles from the Iraq border is awfully close. Didn't see this story anywhere else, for that matter. Maybe US outlets are just slow to pick it up...?

Gen. David Petraeus

I'm a little late to the party on this, but earlier this week Hugh Hewitt had the General on his show for an interview that was very candid on the state of things in Iraq. You can read Hugh's comments on the moronic backlash against the General, and the transcript to the actual interview here.

Will the surge work? Signs point to some early successes already. The General will present his report in September, but as Hugh already notes the left is out to discredit the General as a partisan mouth piece for the Bush Administration. As if we needed any further evidence of the media's role as a fifth column for the anti-America left. But hey, they "support" the troops, just not the General. Funny how they say things like this, but what they really mean is that the American fighting man or woman isn't really an adult; they are a child (or, stupid, like John Kerry thinks) and need to be protected (read: brought home) - thus, Democrats "support" the troops.

It'll be interesting to watch the news in September, when the General makes his report. Who wants to bet me a cool grand that the media will pick and pluck the sober news from the report and give the American people the "doom and gloom" version?

All the news that fits, prints.

Another Victory for the Good Guys

So much news to blog about, so little time. This was good news that came out yesterday and, shame on me, I'm just getting around to it now. So it's going to be sometimes, folks, when blogging doesn't pay the bills.

I'm always on the lookout for positive stories like this; they seem hard to come by in the MSM and so contrary to what Democrats and their Fifth Column in the media would have you hear.

If you're a jihadist in Iraq, you've got to be wondering about promotions. Getting kicked upstairs into management might not be the best career move. I know it's only a matter of time before we close the noose around guys like al-Masri and bin Laden, and that catching them doesn't mean the fight is over. But things like this story give us a hint that things might be going in our direction.

God Bless the American fighting man and woman.

Hey Look! *Sigh* Man, This is Getting Old

**Yawn**

Ho-hum, more drivel from the cowards with the religion of peace.

Hey, Adam? Adam Pearlman? God, I hope you're googling your name regularly and somehow this pops up. Listen up: no matter how long that beard gets, no matter how much filth you peddle, you're always going to be that dorky Jewish kid who grew up on a goat farm. You might want to do the self-respecting thing and just kill yourself now.

You know the funny thing about this loser? When he gets caught - because he will, eventually - he's going to be treated with a hell of a lot more decency by the "baby killers" and "war criminals" that capture him than him and his people would treat one of ours.

How is this a religion again?

National Security

Here's one area where the goofy idolizing of Reagan actually makes some sense. For the record, I loved the guy. I grew up with him as my President. First thing I think of when someone says the word "President?" I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. But all anyone ever talks about on talk radio is how conservatives are looking for the next Reagan. Please stop. He's not coming back, and while he was perfect for his time, time has marched on. Love the guy, cherish his memory, but let's not start walking around with the WWRD bracelets.

Since when did men stop being men? Here's a simple formula for success, courtesy of the Gipper: we win, they lose. But it has been said better than that...

"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute."

This from the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison.

A good conservative would never bow to threats and sabre rattling from some third-world loser. America is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are to be respected and, to a degree, feared.

All of which just makes me disappointed in two aspects of the Iraq War. First, the President is the Commander in Chief. Congress is not. Nor should the President have a "War Czar." The prosecution of the war is the domain of the Executive, and while a President cannot micro-manage a conflict, he can lay out the vision, delegate to his Generals, and speak directly to the American people to garner support (since little seems to be found in the Congress).

I've heard discussions about how bad the rules of engagement are in our conflict in Iraq, which is the other disappointment. If anyone has some first hand experience or stories of what our troops are going through, please share. It doesn't sound good, if half of what I've heard is true.

House Passes Iraq Surrender Bill

At least that's how the headline should read. Instead, it's "Dems Challenge Bush."

I don't have a (working) crystal ball, so I can't tell you if my hunch - a defined timetable for pullout equals unmitigated disaster - is right. But I can comment on human nature.

Is this a pretty good day, or a pretty bad day, if you're a blood-thirsty terrorist who wants to see the United States humiliated and beaten? And what's your favorite American political party if you're the same terrorist?

It seems hard to imagine it being possible, but this vote will surely add more shame to the Democrat legacy of cowardice and defeatism.

The Savagery of Our Enemy

Our enemies in Iraq have sunk to a new low. I heard this first yesterday on the radio, and here's the link to the story.

I'm horrified, and only hope that people remember how the enemy fights when having any conversation about the war. Simply put, these people want to kill civilians. We underestimate the seriousness of our action in Iraq and the ruthlessness of our enemy at our peril.

Am I alone in wondering if Allah told them to do this?

Anyone else surprised that this story was broken on conservative talk radio and the non-story about the 8 U.S. Attorneys is all over the MSM?

The Iraq Surrender Group

I first heard a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show call the ISG just this, and I liked it so much I had to adopt it.

So here's what I got to thinking with respect to the ISG. Bush knows Baker really well, and the results of the report are a surprise to no one (if you actually meet someone who is surprised you really ought to have them checked into a hospital). So, why? Why go through all of this? What's the point? I've got my theories, and the one I've been batting back and forth like some sort of really awesome cat playing with a ball of string is this: Bush and Rove are outflanking the surrender monkeys. Sort of like how the House Republicans demanded a withdrawal vote on Iraq a while back that was defeated something like 10,000 to 2 (hyperbole, people).

All Bush hears is how we're losing, victory isn't an option, we need to withdraw, I mean, re-deploy the troops (which Jean-Francois Kerry actually said; so in addition to botching jokes he also botches party talking-points - and they wanted this guy to be President?), and he says: OK, I warned you not to mess with Texas, so tell me what you've got.

We can all see the ISG's recommendations for what they are: more foolish ideas that result in America losing.

Here's a thought, and you can play along at home. Bush gathered all of those big brains to come up with ideas on how to handle Iraq from here on out. I figure the readership here is easily... three times as smart as those dullards. So, I'm commissioning you, dear Reader, to tell me what our strategy should be in Iraq to win (which wasn't the scope of the ISG, by the way).

Dust off your thinking caps and fire away. I'll compile the recommendations and send them to Bush and then we'll see some results.

Kick the Chair

Justice is served.

Any thinking person will acknowledge that there is increasing sectarian violence in Iraq and the country may be on the verge of civil war. Yet, good news is there if you look for it.

Especially the part about... one of Saddam's lawyers. Just goes to show that despite our many cultural differences, intelligent Iraqis and Americans can unite in a common refrain: Ramsey Clark, get out.