The Right Counterpoints

Global Levels of Sea Ice Far from Alarming

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:47:00 +0000

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

Hyping concerns over the declining levels of sea ice in the Arctic seems to be a favorite theme among the global warming alarmists. Arctic sea ice is, in fact, at an historic minimum which must be proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming, correct? That is what the alarmists want you to believe, but be aware that they are trying to deceive you with selective data.

While the Northern Hemisphere is at an historic low for sea ice the Southern Hemisphere is near an historic high, so to a large extent the decreases in the Arctic are being offset by increases in the Antarctic. So how bad is the net change on a global level?

See for yourself here.

Things to note in the graph provided is that on a global scale the amount of sea ice has decreased by a little over 5% in the past 28 years. This is a far cry from the alarmist claims being made based on the Arctic alone. Other things of note include:

Global level of sea ice typically varies from about +2 Million Square Kilometers to about -2 Million Square Kilometers relative to the 1979 through 2000 mean. We are currently at -1 Million Square Kilometers which appears to be well within the normal range of sea ice variation.
We have absolutely no means of identifying whether the levels of sea ice being used as the reference (e.g. 1979-2000) are above normal, at normal, or below normal in relation to a larger historical context. If those years happen to be at a high point in the natural cycles of sea ice coverage then a downward trend for the past 28 years may not be anomalous at all. Without further historical data over a longer period of observation there is no way to say whether we should be alarmed by the observed decrease or not.

Despite the desperate attempts to convince you otherwise, the facts shown here indicate little, if any, cause for concern regarding global levels of sea ice.

Canadian Polar Bears doing Well?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:24:00 +0000

Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait

One of the most visible scare tactics of the global warming alarmists is to show pictures of polar bears on ice flows with captions claiming that global warming is melting the ice and hurting the bears. So what do the people who actually study and inventory the number of bears say about this? Well at least as far as Canada is concerned it seems that the bears are doing just fine, too fine in fact, and they may become a problem which will have to be dealt with.

Climate change is not hurting polar bear populations in the Davis Strait area of Nunavut, according to Dr. Mitch Taylor, manager of wildlife research and a polar bear biologist with the GN's Department of Environment.
In fact, polar bear populations along the Davis Strait are healthy and their numbers increasing, an ongoing study is indicating.
Reports in national and international press have projected that two-thirds of the world's polar bear populations will be lost within 50 years due to the loss of sea ice.
Canada has two thirds of the world's polar bears. Nunavut is home to 12 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations, totalling an estimated 14,780.

This is racism?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:57:00 +0000

Daily Kos: Bill O'Reilly in All His Racist Glory

MissLaura over at DailyKos has a hit piece on how racist Bill O'Reilly is.
Her complaint? Bill went to a restaurant in Harlem and had nice things to say
about it. Yea, giving the Harlem restaurant a good review is now considered
racist by the nut cases at DailyKos. O'Reilly's main points?

It was a nice restaurant just like other famous restaurants in New York.
The clientele are normal everyday people out to have a nice dinner.

That's it? That's the racism of Bill O'Reilly?

I remember when racism meant things like lynchings, and segregation, and Jim Crow laws in the south. Now it seems that we have come so far in this country that racism has been reduced to giving good reviews to restaurants in
black neighborhoods. Is it me, or does this kind of cheapen the meaning of
racism and belittle the things that those who really faced racism endured?

Meteor Blades Gets "It"!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:44:00 +0000

Daily Kos: OK, Then, YOU Tell US

Like last May 24 when you, in the word of a former Kossack, played crumplestiltskin in the first minute of the second round over supplemental funding for Iraq. Money that you knew would, in part, pay for a "surge" policy that many of you claimed you objected to. Last May you said yes to an unencumbered supplemental and no to a specific date for completing redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. In other words, you joined Republicans to smack a great big APPROVAL stamp on Stay the Course, although the policy isn’t actually called that any longer.

Yesterday, you did it again when you KOed Feingold-Reid. You could just as well have said to Mister Bush: "Sir, you’ve got us by the short hairs so we’re going to give you free rein on Iraq." And, of course, you also had to add insult to injury and prove your bona fides as a loyal and patriotic rule-player by joining in a hypocrisy-laden smack-down of those who dared challenge the president’s spokesman. Because you’ve bought the paralyzing lie that a general in uniform is the military and must never be disrespected.

Emphasis mine.

But what do we learn from this? The point being made here is absolutely correct. Rather than General Patraeus betraying us, it is the Democrats in Congress who are betraying the left wing nut cases at DailyKos by refusing to do their bidding. Obviously the Democrat leadership in congress understands that cutting funding for the troops is just plain the wrong way to go and yet these nut cases persist. Obviously the Democrat leadership understands that to be loyal and patriotic one must show some level of respect to the leaders of our fighting men and women in uniform, and to support those men and women wherever they are, even in Iraq.

What Meteor Blades is clearly demonstrating here is that anything that IS being loyal and patriotic IS an insult and an injury to what these nut cases stand for. What Meteor Blades is clearly demonstrating here is that even HE understands that he and those like him are the very antithesis of loyal and patriotic, which is a point I have made many times.

Why are Democrats Putting Morons in High Places?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:51:00 +0000

During the run-up to the 2000 election campaign season Andy Hiller, a political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston, ambushed George W. Bush with a now famous pop-quiz in which Bush was only able to name 1 out of 4 foreign leaders. Despite the fact that 9 out of 10 voters could not name even a single leader, the liberal media and prominent Democratic leaders used this as an occasion to draw Bush's intelligence into question. For example, Al Gore's campaign had this to say of Bush after the news broke:

"I guess we know that 'C' at Yale was a gentleman's 'C,"' said Gore spokesman Chris Lehane.

CQ National Security Editor, Jeff Stein, interviewed U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes, D-TX, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and turned up some surprising revelations on the competence of Reyes. He has been hand selected by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and has served on this committee since before the 9/11 attacks. So what conclusion did Stein reach after his interview?

Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda:

That’s because, like a number of his colleagues and top counter terrorism officials that I’ve interviewed over the past several months, Reyes can’t answer some fundamental questions about the powerful forces arrayed against us in the Middle East.

It begs the question, of course: How can the Intelligence Committee do effective oversight of U.S. spy agencies when its leaders don’t know basics about the battlefield?

[...]

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players[:]

[Al Qaeda]

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”

“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.

“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.

Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?

Civil War

And Hezbollah? I asked him. What are they?

“Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah...”

He laughed again, shifting in his seat.

“Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”

“Poquito,” I said—a little.

“Poquito?! “ He laughed again.

“Go ahead,” I said, talk to me about Sunnis and Shia in Spanish.

Reyes: “Well, I, uh....”

I apologized for putting him “on the spot a little.” But I reminded him that the people who have killed thousands of Americans on U.S. soil and in the Middle East have been front page news for a long time now.

It’s been 23 years since a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed over 200 U.S. military personnel in Beirut, mostly Marines.

Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, is close to taking over in Lebanon. Reports say they are helping train Iraqi Shiites to kill Sunnis in the spiralling civil war.

“Yeah,” Reyes said, rightly observing, “but . . . it’s not like the Hatfields and the McCoys. It’s a heck of a lot more complex.

“And I agree with you — we ought to expend some effort into understanding them. But speaking only for myself, it’s hard to keep things in perspective and in the categories.”

This exchange is illustrative and disturbing on multiple levels:

First, Reyes has been a member of the House Intelligence Committee since before 9/11 so it is hard to make excuses for him not knowing basic information about Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I mean all of this information must have been in front of him for over 5 years as part of the committee and there is little question that much of it has been headline news for that entire time as well. How long does he need to grasp some of it? Most people would have absorbed some of it through sheer repetition if nothing else. So what are we to think? He's a moron. A buffoon. A simpleton. He's somehow intellectually challenged. Pick your favorite epithet.

Second, how is it possible that someone in this position, with access to the level of information that must be available to him, could be utterly clueless as to who Hezbollah is? This is especially appalling given the recent Israel/Lebanon war that captivated the news cycle for weeks.

Third, what was that exchange about wanting to answer in Spanish about? Was that an attempt on Reye's part to change the subject and put Stein on the defensive? Or was it an indication that Reyes' has trouble answering difficult questions in English? Either way it is a cause for concern considering the importance of the position to which he will be appointed.

Finally, the Democrats want us to believe that this "Congressional Oversight" campaign of theirs is not about a vendetta against the Republicans, but as Stein points out "How can the Intelligence Committee do effective oversight of U.S. spy agencies when its leaders don’t know basics about the battlefield?"

The answer, of course, is obvious: "Oversight" is just the new liberal code word for "witch hunt". Experience, intelligence, basic knowledge of our enemies? These are not needed to conduct a witch hunt, so Reyes ought to be an ideal candidate to lead the effort since he won't be distracted by all those facts about al Qeada and Hezbollah. At least that's how the Democrats seem to view it.

Democratic Leadership is Already Floundering.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:36:00 +0000

Daily Kos: Steny Hoyer next House Majority Leader
Daily Kos: Leadership battles divide Dems, apparently unite Republicans

Less than 2 weeks after a major win at the polls on November 7, the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives is already floundering badly. This past week has been marked by a civil war within the party concerning who should become the Majority Whip within the House of Representatives beginning next year. This raises serious questions about whether the presumed speaker to be, Nancy Pelosi, really has what it takes to run the people's house. With this astounding display of her lack of control over her own party members, how does she ever expect to be able to control her Republican opposition?

This mark's the soon to be speaker's first major test of leadership where her hand picked choice was shot down by an unbelievably wide margin, 149 to 86. This does not bode well for her ability to deliver on the supposed mandate she has been given to try and rein in the Neocons and the War in Iraq. If this is any indication, the next two years should be quite an interesting display of bumbling incompetance.

Mike Stark finds trouble right where he was looking for it.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:23:00 +0000

Daily Kos: Mike Stark responds to Allen videotaped thuggery!

This is absolutely priceless. Mike Stark is a regular over at DailyKos and is definitely part of the echo chamber mindset prevalent over there. Today he decided to stalk George Allen at one of his campaign stops to put in a little in your face time with the Senator. He was obviously intent on trying to put Senator Allen on the spot with a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type question. A few of the other people who were there must have thought Mike looked a little threatening and decided to eject him from the proceedings.

On the video it looks like poor Mike bit off a little more than he could chew. The media is already claiming that he was "man handled." I would say that is a fair assessment because the poor bewildered Mike didn't have any fight in him at all.

Here is a little of what Mike has to say about the whole ordeal (emphasis is mine):

My name is Mike Stark. I am a law student at the University of Virginia, a marine, and a citizen journalist. Earlier today at a public event, I was attempting to ask Senator Allen a question about his sealed divorce record and his arrest in the 1970s, both of which are in the public domain. His people assaulted me, put me in a headlock, and wrestled me to the ground. Video footage is available here, from an NBC affiliate.
[...]
I will be pressing charges against George Allen and his surrogates later today. George Allen, at any time, could have stopped the fray. All he had to do was say, "This is not how my campaign is run. Take your hands off that man." He could have ignored my questions. Instead he and his thugs chose violence. I spent four years in the Marine Corps. I'll be damned if I'll let my country be taken from me by thugs that are afraid of taking responsibility for themselves.
It just isn't the America I know and love. Somebody needs to take a stand against those that would bully and intimidate their fellow citizens. That stand begins right here, right now.

Take a stand against those who would bully and intimidate their fellow citizens? That stand begins right here, right now? From the looks of the videotape the stand has already been taken Mr. Stark was on the receiving end of it.

He just wants to ask an innocent little question about sealed divorce records? Just a week before the election? Funny time to get curious given that the divorce was back in 1970. He says that they're part of the public record. Hello? They're sealed. If they were part of the public record you would be able to see them now, wouldn't you?

No, Mike went there on a mission to cause trouble and when he found it he was left with his puppy dog tail stuck firmly between his legs. He had not gone there for any civil questions, or honest debate. No, he went there just one week before the election looking to cause trouble, to sling mud and to defame a candidate. He got what he deserved. Physically harmed? Watch the video and decide for yourself, but as far as I can tell he was no worse for the wear. He was a marine after all, they're tough. But given his own personal defensive skills I can understand why he chose to put his military service behind him.

So, who were these people who defended the Senator? The media is assuming that they are staffers, but for all we know they might just as easily have been Secret Service agents assigned to protect the Senator from nut jobs like Mike Stark.

And to top it all off he wants to file charges against George Allen? That's kind of funny given they have video tape that shows that Senator Allen never even touched him. If anything the tape shows that Mike was moving in an aggressive and threatening manner towards the Senator at the time that the incident occurred. Given the heated political atmosphere ahead of this election cycle and the well documented alignment between the policies of the Democratic Party and the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, honorable men like Senator Allen can't be too careful with their security.

The left continues to call U.S. Troops failures...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:21:00 +0000

Four Al-Qaeda figures get past thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan! An outrage....!

Here is yet another example of how the left continues to hammer away at the intentions and credibility of the average U.S. soldier. They may be outraged that four prisoners evaded our men and women in uniform, but you should be even more outraged that they would accuse them of "allowing this to happen."

This is just an offshoot of the left's tactics after the Vietnam War where they spit on returning GIs, called them "baby killers", and the like.

I don't know why the left in this country hates freedom so much, but they sure seem to want to keep us from bringing our freedoms to the people of the middle east.

John F. Kerry Champions Terrorist Agenda and Civil War.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:35:00 +0000

Mr. John F. Kerry, the recent Democratic nominee for president and party leader, is now pushing for policy changes that would advance the interests of the insurgents in Iraq and potentially lead to all out civil war within that country by the end of 2006. Exactly why he would choose to align his policies with those of America's enemies remains unclear. During the 2004 Presidential campaign Mr. Kerry endlessly reminded everyone on the face of the planet that he once received recognition for his brief tour of duty in defense of the United States during the Vietnam War, and that he once had some medals before he didn't. So, this most recent flip-flop in his apparent allegiance remains as confusing as just about everything else he has ever said.

In Mr. Kerry's long, rambling, and at times almost incoherent address at Georgetown University, he actually proposed giving the insurgents everything that they have been fighting for: the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the region. It seems likely that this, in turn, could pave the way for the civil war which the Democrats have long been discussing, since all the insurgents would have to do is simply wait for the withdrawal so conveniently provided by Mr. Kerry.

Mr. Kerry's proposal comes amid the reality on the ground in Iraq as expressed by Masoud Barzani, president of Iraq's northern Kurdistan region:

"If the war does not end and if there's any withdrawal from this, this would give a big opportunity for the terrorists and it will bring calamities in the end," Barzani told Washington Post reporters and editors. "If the American troops decide to withdraw, the situation will deteriorate and we will have more of the external threats to the situation in Iraq. And any withdrawal right now might lead to a civil war in Iraq as well." (Emphasis Added)

Again, it is difficult to understand Mr. Kerry, as the de facto leader and spokesman for the Democratic Party, taking this position in the face of these common sense realities. It is being reported that some people believe one possible explanation is that Mr. Kerry is actually suffering from Mad Cow's Desease, which he likely contracted from his wife.

Senator Dick Durbin Must Go.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:48:00 +0000

ABC News: Sen. Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks

The Democrats have cast the mold by which hateful and mean spirited remarks are to be treated within the U.S. Senate: show no compassion, show no forgiveness.

When Senator Trent Lott made an ill-advised comment at a birthday party for his dear friend and colleague, a man who had served this country for most of his life, the Democrats were adamant in their pursuit of his ouster. No amount of atonement and certainly no apology of any kind would be deemed acceptable. As a result Senator Lott was driven from his leadership position.

So, after belittling and demeaning our brave men and women in the military by his vile comparison between them and those who ran the Nazi Death Camps, the Soviet Gulags, and those who committed Pol Pot's attrocities in Cambodia, Senator Durbin tries to make things right by making a few remarks after hours when no one was there to hear them. He cried a few crocadile tears and so now things should be all better?

Well I for one believe that he should be held to the very same standard as Senator Lott. No apology can ever repair the pain a suffering he has both caused and reminded us all of. Senator Durbin must be driven from his leadership position. No other course of action should be considered appropriate or sufficient. His reckless and callous demeanor is a disgrace to both his party and the Senate and it should not be tolerated.

Can You Criticize The Bush Administration on Gitmo Without Criticizing the Soldiers?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:48:00 +0000

At the end of WWII many of the Nazi's being tried in the Nuremberg Trials employed what became known as the Nuremberg Defense. Generally speaking, the Nuremberg Defense consists primarily of the accused seeking to absolve themselves of all responsibility for their crimes by claiming that "they were following orders from a superior authority."

It is generally recognized that this is not a valid defense as long as the accused knew the order to be unlawful, or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful (see Rule 916. Defenses in the MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES, page 111). In fact, this view has been held for so long that the members of the United States military know that they have a specific duty to not follow unlawful orders. This standard is right and proper, however it has the effect of saying that if the accused knows that a particular order is unlawful and they still choose to obey that order that they are as guilty of the crime as are their commanding officers. Hence, in a court of law they can and should be tried for their crimes.

Most people (but apparantly few Democrats) understand that the torture and murder of millions in the Nazi Death Camps was unlawful, that the murder of millions in the Soviet gulags was unlawful, and that the murder of millions by Pol Pot in Cambodia was unlawful. So when someone like Senator Durbin seeks to create a moral equivalence between our actions at Gitmo and the actions of the Nazis, the Soviets, and Pol Pot he is, in effect, saying that the men and women of the U.S. Military at Gitmo are committing war crimes against humanity.

The legal precedent described above does not leave much room for being selective in one's remarks. Even if the Democrats and Senator Durbin truly believe that the administration's policies at Gitmo are the moral equivalent of mass murder and genocide, then legally speaking the men and women stationed at Gitmo must also be guilty of the crimes that they presumably recognize that they are committing. If they can be held legally responsible for their actions then I do not believe that Senator Durbin can simply claim that he is only directing his allegations at the administration. He is making accusations which would, legally speaking, apply to anyone and everyone who is involved in those crimes.

Any other position on the part of Senator Durbin and the Democrats who seek to give him cover would, in effect, be minimizing the pain and suffering caused by the likes of the Nazis, the Soviets, and Pol Pot by effectively saying that those who had suffered should have no legal redress against those who actually carried out the abuses. In other words, this would be like saying to the Jews who survived the concentration camps that they could only hold Hitler himself responsible for their suffering and could not seek charges against those who actually inflicted that suffering such as "Ivan the Terrible," a particularly sadistic Nazi guard who ran the gas chambers at the Treblinka death camp in occupied Poland.

I, for one, believe in the rightousness of the average American Soldier. I believe that they stand for freedom and justice for all, and I believe that if they were ordered to do something that they truly felt amounted to the moral equivalent of mass murder and genocide that they would stand up and refuse to carry out that order.

Democrats disenfranchise over 290,810,000 people!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:49:00 +0000

I have been thinking lately about the current flap in the Senate over the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees. As you may know the Democrats are using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from having an up or down vote on several of Bush's nominees.

Now, during the 2004 election the Democratic mantra was "Count every vote!" They were rabidly declaring that everyone should have a chance to vote and that every vote should be counted. After the election conspiracy theories and controversies were continually rehashed by the Democrats for months. One of the biggest complaints was the accusation that the Republicans had engaged in a number of nefarious activities which effectively resulted in preventing people from being able to vote. The Democrats were outraged to think that anyone would seek to prevent anyone from being able to have their voice heard by casting their vote.

As a representative Republic, the United States operates on the fundamental principle that the people elect representatives whose job it is to represent their interests through the proper execution of their respective offices.

As of the 2003 census, the U.S. population stood at 290,810,000 people. As our duly elected representatives the President and all 100 Senators do the work of those 290,810,000 people just as if those people were doing the work themselves. That is the fundamental premise upon which our government stands.

One of the duties of the President is to nominate judicial appointments. One of the duties of Senators is to vote on the suitability of those nominees to hold the positions for which they have been nominated. By using the filibuster to prevent up or down votes on the President's nominees, the Democrats are, in effect, preventing all 290,810,000 people from being able to have their voices heard through the time honored tradition of the vote.

From Dictionary.com we find the following definition:

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
disenfranchise
v : deprive of voting rights [syn: disfranchise] [ant: enfranchise]

Given this definition and the Democrat's previously held position with respect to disenfranchising voters and the need to count all of the votes, it should be obvious to all how the Democratic party is engaging in yet another flip-flop solely based on their own interests (as opposed to the interests of the people) and their own personal gain.

This is scandalous, simply scandalous.

More Good News from Syria!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:34:00 +0000

While the left will undoubtedly try to focus on the negative aspects of the news coming out of Syria today, they will all be missing a very important piece of good news concerning the pro-oppression demonstrations which were driven and organized by Hezbollah (see International News Article | Reuters.com).

There is very little doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that they have actively killed innocent people when given the chance. We all know the traditional tactics of the terrorist groups: hi-jackings, homicide-bombings, and other forms of terror directed primarily at innocent civilians, women, and children.

Many on the left have argued that terrorists resort to these tactics because they have no choice, and that the only way for them to be heard is to strike out at whatever targets they can with the limited weapons they have at their disposal.

Inspired by the Voices of Democracy in Lebanon over the paste few weeks with their peaceful demonstrations against the Syrian occupation, Hezbollah finally seems to have found another way to be heard. In an obvious attempt to emulate the tactics of their opposition, Hezbollah has staged massive protests against the withdrawal of Syria, one of their primary bases of support, from Lebanon.

So instead of homocide bombers killing innocent civilians we have flag waving and marching in the streets. To me that's good news. To me that's what democracy is all about, having your voice be heard without actually killing anyone. I would hope that my liberal counterparts would agree, but somehow I expect that they may have a different take on all of this. We can only hope that this new found desire to fight for their cause with words instead of bombs will continue.

There is also little doubt that none of this would even be happening if it weren't for the United States' leadership in the War on Terror, and the Iraqi reforms it is in the process of bringing about. As President Bush has said many times, a democratic Iraq will lead to an expansion of democracy throughout the entire region, and democracy is the best weapon we have in the War on Terror. It must be true because, at least for today, it seems to have turned the homocide bombers into a bunch of peaceful flag wavers. One small step for peace and democracy in the world.

Are the libs finally starting to "get it"?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0000

Jonathan Freedland over at The Guardian wrote an opinion piece titled The war's silver lining in which he starts to come to the realization that the efforts of the United States, Great Britain, and the rest of the Coalition in Iraq just might have been right all along.

There seems to be a ground swell of such articles over the past month from the traditionally skeptical left-wing news sources. The recent events all over the middle east are clearly pointing in the direction of increased democracy for the region which should be good news for everyone.