A California Lawyer's Perspective on the Iraq War

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War:

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

** Correction to above paragraph ** US Historical Documents: US Declaration of War against Germany December 11 1941 The President's message: On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because NONE of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The European nations could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. The so-called "Coalition Forces" are, in most cases, little more than a "Token Force" to keep face with the US. And once attacked, like the train bombing in Madrid, they pull their forces and run for home. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons? And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . a 27 year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $180 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost over 2,300 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 1 hour TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain,and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be. If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options -

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean.

That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq in 3 years. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Communist Party sees Democrat Victory as It's own

U.S. Communist Party Sees Democrat Victory as Its Own

“The right-wing stranglehold on Congress has been broken,” declared Joelle Fishman, chair of the Communist Party USA’s (CPUSA) political action commission. “Electing the Democrats to control congress is a victory for communism.”

Fishman delivered her report to the committee as it discussed the results of the election. “With Democrats in charge the future of the Communist Party looks bright,” said CPUSA’s Executive Vice-chair Jarvis Tyner.

Fishman argued that the results of the election were a mandate to enact the near-term CPUSA agenda, which includes socialized medicine, tax increases, intensified regulations, and nationalization of selected businesses. Fishman thanked the women’s equality movement and the African American and Latino communities, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, environmentalists, and other public advocacy groups for helping bring America a step closer to the communist ideal. “The CPUSA emerges from this election in a key position to lead,” Fishman said. “The Democratic leadership in the House is in agreement with key elements of our near-term agenda. The long struggle to bring communism to America is nearer success than it’s ever been.”

Erica Smiley, National Coordinator of the Young Communist League, was bouyant, “The results of the 2006 election indicate a major turning point in our struggle to communize America.”

Newt's 21st Century Contract with America

21st Century Contract with America
Gingrich Communications
Newt Gingrich
We are committed to a safe, healthy, prosperous, and free America. We believe our children and grandchildren deserve the opportunities our parents and grandparents gave us.

In a rapidly changing world with new threats and new competitors, we must implement policies that will ensure America’s leadership, safety, and prosperity. And we must reinvigorate the core values that have made an exceptional civilization.

We do not believe the traditional instruments of government will reform themselves fast enough and thoroughly enough for the twenty-first century.

The entrenched lobbyists and entrenched bureaucracies will do all they can to minimize the changes no matter how vital those changes are to America’s future. Self interest will dominate national interest if the normal political system operates with business as usual. The pressure of daily events will keep both the news media and most politicians focused on the immediate and the trivial rather than the long-term and the profoundly important.

Only a grassroots citizens’ movement can insist on the level of change that is needed for our children and grandchildren to have a successful future.

Such a citizens’ movement would have to be focused on goals rather than on interest groups. The goals define the America we want our children and grandchildren to have.

To achieve this future we will:

I.

Defend America and our allies from those who would destroy us. To achieve security, we will develop the intelligence, diplomatic, information, defense, and homeland security systems and resources for success.

II.

Transform the Social Security system into personal savings accounts that will enable every worker to have higher retirement incomes from their own work and avoid the need for financial support from their children.

III.

Recenter on the Creator from Whom all our liberties come. We will insist on a judiciary that understands the centrality of God in American history and reasserts the legitimacy of recognizing the Creator in public life.

IV.

Establish patriotic education for our children and patriotic immigration for new Americans. To achieve this, we will renew our commitment to education about American citizenship based on American history and an understanding of the Founding Fathers and the core values of American civilization. We will insist that both our children and immigrants learn the key values and key facts of American history as the foundation of their growth as citizens.

V.

Meet the triple economic challenges of an explosion in scientific and technological knowledge, an increasingly competitive world market, and the rise of China and India by implementing:

1. A new system of civil justice to reduce the burden of lawsuits and to incentivize young people to go into professions other than the law.

2. A dramatically simplified tax code that favors savings, entrepreneurship, investment, and constant modernization of equipment and technology.

3. Math and science learning equal to any in the world and educating enough young Americans to both discover the science of the future and to compete successfully in national security and the economy with other well-educated societies.

4. Investing in the scientific revolutions that are going to transform our world—particularly in energy, space, and the environment.

5. Transforming health care into a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that improves our health while lowering costs dramatically. In the process, American health care will become our highest value export and foreign exchange earning sector.

VI.

Work to include every American in a system of patriotic stewardship so every person has a real opportunity to pursue happiness as their Creator endowed. Prepare for the aging of the baby boomers and their children so we can have active healthy aging with the best quality of life, the longest period of independent living, and the greatest prosperity. We will:

1. Develop a system in which those who wish to stay economically active are encouraged and incentivized to do so because active people live longer and healthier, have a greater opportunity to pursue happiness, and are less of a burden on their fellow citizens;

2. Develop a system of independent living and assisted living that increases the years in which people can be on their own and in most cases enables people to live their entire lives with freedom and dignity;

3. Develop a new model of quality long-term care in which both the care and the quality of life are compatible with a twenty-first century American expectation of progress and innovation;

4. Use the new technologies and new scientific knowledge to turn disabilities into capabilities and change government regulations and programs to help every American achieve the fullest possible ability to pursue happiness.

VII.

Change the mindset of big government in Washington by replacing bureaucratic public administration with Entrepreneurial Public Management so government can operate with the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of the information age.

VIII.

Balance the federal budget and insist on a lean government, low tax, low interest rate economy to maximize growth in a competitive world.

IX.

Insist on congressional reform to make the legislative branch responsive to the needs of the 21st century.

X.

Ensure an election process that is honest, accountable, accurate, and free from the threat of illegal votes or subsequent litigation.

If we insist on these goals and insist on electing leaders at all levels dedicated to these goals, we will be able to leave our children and grandchildren an America of safety, health, prosperity, and freedom that would make our parents and grandparents proud. We too will have done our duty to our country and our achievements as citizens will be worthy of the America we inherited.

Five Common Types of Democrats

Five Common Types of Democrats: An identification guide

Justin Hartfield

http://www.prometheusinstitute.net/opinion/jh111306.htm

1. The College Student

In college, previously disinterested students are inundated with leftist rhetoric from college professors who seem to have all the world perspective the students themselves lack.

College students are further blessed with lots of free time, time which they can now use to save Nelson Mandela via a cardboard protest on a busy campus intersection. (Or did they save him already? Oh well, we can just change the signs to read "IMPEACH BUSH." Great idea, Tad!)

It makes sense that such idealistic young people would gravitate toward the Dems. They see the Republican Party as about holding onto past ideals and conserving, and the Democrats as the forward-thinking alternative.

To many young adults, new always trumps old. Since they have little or no previous convictions to hold on to, these students often are swayed toward new ideas which seem to them novel or even brilliant at first glance. That's why it is with no bit of irony that Kucinich once said, "I hold in my heart that rebellious spirit of youth that demands change."

2. The social liberal but economic moderate

The classic liberal, as it was originally defined and is currently found all throughout Europe, is extremely different from the breed of liberal found in the US.

Classic liberals support the free market. Usually these people would vote Republican (due to their pro-market positions), but many are so revolted by the Christian Right's domination of the party that they feel compelled to support the Dems.

This is often the case when the voter regards social issues as more significant than economic because he or she is already wealthy. For example, Steve Jobs is regarded as a liberal, yet he is a passionate defender of the free market. It is his social positions that resemble those of the Democrats.

3. The socialist

This voter believes in the corrupting power of Capitalism and supports the Democrats on social issues. However, his economic policies often stray left of the traditional party line.

Dennis Kucinich and his cohorts are examples of Democratic Socialists. They generally believe in immediate withdrawal from NAFTA, preventing any privatization of social security, and creating single-payer universal health insurance. They are also extremely liberal on social issues and support same-sex marriages.

They are so far left that even Hillary Clinton would blush at their latent, unrepentant communism.

4. The minority

Minorities are essentially born into the Democratic Party. Many are raised to believe that programs like Affirmative Action give them the boost they need to be competitive in America.

Their leaders (e.g. Rev. Jesse Jackson) have hoodwinked them into believing that they need handouts in order to contend with their white counterparts.

The tendency for minorities to be affiliated with the Democrats is so widespread that those not registered as Democrats are often scorned and ridiculed by their peers.

Larry Elder, the black champion of libertarianism, is often called an "Uncle Tom" or "anti-black" by his detractors. Instead of asking Mr. Elder how he got to where he is today, they criticize him for not toeing the party line.

5. The victicrat

A victicrat is someone who views his government as a form of protection against the evils the rest of us call life.

They look for handouts before helping themselves.

To be clear, victocrats are not necessarily found in the welfare line. They are often affluent heirs who blame illegal immigration for taking their jobs, or minorities "accepting" their lot in the US because of their skin color.

Not only do they refuse to market their differences, they use it (them) as an excuse for their lack of effort. Like Dr. Dre has said, breaking out of the "slave mentality" is crucial to succeeding in business.

post election thoughts

Governor Bredesen endorsed, raised funds and/or cut ads for six Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, Shree Pettigrew, Mary Parker, Bob Rochelle, Vince Springer, Mary Esther Bell and Fred Phillips.

All lost, most by large margins.

The mighty Ford Machine failed to function outside of Shelby county.

On the National front, most of the defeated Republicans were left of center and a few were more liberal than most Democrats. Most of the defeats were by thin margins.

Most victorious Democrats ran as conservatives or moderates. A good example is the unsuccessful race by Harold Ford, Jr. With the help of the media, Ford ran as very moderate to conservative, despite his true voting record.

In fact ALL Democrats benefited from massive and continuous help and support from ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC et.al.

By winning Congress, Democrats are grabbing a hot potato at a time when the Dow is at historic highs, unemployment is at historic lows, our military is the world’s unchallenged super power (despite John Kerry’s noxious mouth), and we have not been attacked at home for five years while thwarting at least two other pending major attacks (a claim the rest of the world cannot make).

The Democrats now grab the potato despite their admission that they have no idea how to juggle it, but rather, feel that “the public wants a change.”

The new Democratic Congress can best be described as an angry gaggle with no idea how to catch the potato, let alone juggle it successfully.

Without a 2/3 majority in either house, the Democrats cannot pass any law that Bush and the Republicans dislike.

A 51-seat majority in the Senate is meaningless against the Senate’s cloture rules (esp. as regards judicial appointments).

The Democrats’ pencil-thin majority in Congress will serve only to let them cause trouble unless they have real ideas on how to handle problems.

If during training, a military crew drops a hot potato, the price is an embarrassed crew and an unhappy commanding officer. This ain't training. Today, if the Democrats drop their potato, the price is likely to be a catastrophe.

We eagerly await news of the Democrats’ plan for success. If they fail -- if they spend the next two years beating-up the Administration with childish temper tantrums instead of securing continued national security and economic growth -- they will have earned whatever they get in 2008.