Medary.com

This should drive my mother-in-law nuts:

Landmark Legal Foundation Nominates Rush Limbaugh for 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

"Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today," explained Levin. "Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law -- and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations."

I will say that Limbaugh is probably more deserving of the award than, say Jimmy Carter.

Taliban leader now says it'll be a summer offensive:

"The Taliban will intensify their guerrilla and suicide strikes this summer," Mulla Hayat Khan told Reuters from a secret location. "This will be a bloodiest year for foreign troops."

He said 2,000 suicide bombers were ready -- about 40 percent of the total suicide force -- adding numbers were so high it was sometimes hard to find enough explosives and targets.

Unless the good guys kill you first, of course.

A brief story in the Kansas City Star:

The University of Missouri-Kansas City has banned the sale of a T-shirt students designed to promote a benefit performance of “The Vagina Monologues.”

The T-shirt, which depicted abstract images of vaginas, was to benefit V-Day 2007, a national movement to stop violence against women. Students called the ban censorship.

The shirt was to be sold at the university’s Women’s Center. The center’s director stopped the sale, saying the shirt did not reflect the image of the center and did not conform to V-Day guidelines, which specify that T-shirts include the V-Day logo and tagline.

We're opposed to violence, generally, against women or men. But we're also generally opposed to t-shirts depicting genitalia. It just goes to show how dreadfully out of touch with common sense some people are.

Oh, the shame!

Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters has the sorry tale:

Der Spiegel excerpts passages from Henryk Broder's new book on the Western response to radical Islamism, pungently titled, Hurray, We're Capitulating! The book has not yet been published in English, but DS gives us a translation on their English-language site. It cogently and somewhat angrily notes the low points in Western dhimmitude:

Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup. But subjectively it was a show of strength and, in the context of the "clash of civilizations," a dress rehearsal for the real thing. The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive -- nothing but fear, cowardice and an overriding concern about the balance of trade. Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording.

As different as the West's reactions to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence. The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane. Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, nailed doors and windows shut and hoped that the storm would soon pass. Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages fundamentalists. It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent and completely unwilling to defend itself.

Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for "cultural dialogue" don't deserve any better.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey.  Do you?  Even if you're a Democrat?

In what may be an appropriate metaphor for our time, Kansas City's Liberty Memorial is falling apart:

Another section of concrete at the Liberty Memorial collapsed Thursday, leading officials to close the observation deck and tower until a thorough investigation can be done.

The action does not affect public access to the new World War I Museum below the deck or to the two buildings above, although they can only be reached for now by using elevators from below. The tower has no structural problems but access to it is closed until further notice.

Executive Director Steve Berkheiser said a concrete paver in front of the tower elevator door was discovered Thursday afternoon to have collapsed of its own weight. It was the third such collapse recently. There have been no injuries.

Certainly support for liberty is crumbling here in the U.S., as the "last best hope of earth" ponders withdrawing from the perpetual and timeless battle for liberty.

Perhaps if George W. Bush had the rhetorical skill of Abraham Lincoln, things might be different:

I do not forget the gravity which should characterize a paper addressed to the Congress of the nation by the Chief Magistrate of the nation. Nor do I forget that some of you are my seniors, nor that many of you have more experience than I, in the conduct of public affairs. Yet I trust that in view of the great responsibility resting upon me, you will perceive no want of respect yourselves, in any undue earnestness I may seem to display.

Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity, and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here--Congress and Executive--can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.

Here come the demonstrations:

When thousands of Iraq war protesters gather in Washington Saturday, their chants and amplified speeches are likely to be heard inside the secure grounds of the White House where the commander in chief has made his case for sending more troops into combat.
. . .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the main political target. War protesters want something tougher than nonbinding resolutions opposing the "surge" in additional US forces. Some want hearings on the controversial basis for the war itself, perhaps leading to the impeachment of President Bush.

It's not just the nation's capital, where busloads of people from at least 30 states are headed to make their voices heard.

Oddly enough, organizers are going out of their way to remain anonymous (as stated later in the Christian Science Monitor story linked above).  Why would that be?  Perhaps an agenda being hidden?

Word of the day:  Astroturfing.
(from Wikipedia):

In politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations (PR) campaigns which seek to create the impression of being a spontaneous, grassroots behavior. Hence the reference to the "AstroTurf" (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate "fake grassroots" support.

The goal of such campaign is to disguise the agenda of a client as an independent public reaction to some political entity —a politician, political group, product, service, event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach," "awareness," etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing their own personal agenda through to highly organised professional groups with financial backing from large corporations.

Do I have evidence that the anti-war demonstrations are astroturfed?  No.  Is it the standard mode of operation of leftist activists?  Yes.

I've taken the pledge:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Now, I don't usually donate to political campagns of any kind, but I don't rule out doing so in the future.  I can guarantee that I will never support a candidate who, by malice or ignorance, wishes to reprise this country's Vietnam experience by leaving Iraq before it is stable.

We have started inevitable, irreversable changes in the Middle East.  Those changes can either be for the better or for the worse.  If we leave or pull back, the world will be a much more dangerous one than if we persevere.  It is a difficult road we have found ourselves on.  But turning around is not an option.

More Americans will die if we leave than if we stay. 

Several items in the news indicate that our new strategy in Iraq is already working:

Item 1:  Sadr tells his Mahdi Army to stand down and for his followers to return to the Iraqi political process.

Last Friday, in a bid to fend off an all-out American military offensive, al-Sadr ordered 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers under his control to end their nearly two-month boycott of the government. They were back at their jobs Sunday.

Al-Sadr had already ordered his militia fighters not to display their weapons. They have not, however, ceded control of the formerly mixed neighborhoods they have captured, killing Sunnis or forcing them to abandon their homes and businesses.

Item 2:  In the same article, Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki tells Sadr his militia is no longer off-limits to American forces.

Iraq's prime minister has dropped his protection of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia after being convinced by U.S. intelligence that the group was infiltrated by death squads, two Iraqi government officials said Sunday.

By the way, did you know that all of the troops who make up the "surge" were scheduled to go to Iraq anyway?  The "surge" is simply speeding up the schedule to send new units in, along with delaying the return of some units which are already there.  That's it.

Meanwhile, the Small Wars Journal reminds:  Don't confuse the "surge" with the strategy.

What matters here is not the size of forces (though the strategy will not work without a certain minimum force size), but rather their tasks. The key element of the plan, as outlined in the President’s speech, is to concentrate security forces within Baghdad, to secure the local people where they live. Troops will operate in small, local groups closely partnered with Iraqi military and police units, with each unit permanently assigned to an area and working its “beat”.

This is different from early strategies which were enemy-centric (focusing on killing insurgents), or more recent approaches that relied on training and supporting Iraqi forces and expected them to secure the population.

The new strategy reflects counterinsurgency best practice as demonstrated over dozens of campaigns in the last several decades: enemy-centric approaches that focus on the enemy, assuming that killing insurgents is the key task, rarely succeed. Population-centric approaches, that center on protecting local people and gaining their support, succeed more often.

Here's how I look at it.  I can listen to and believe a bunch of politicians crying Withdraw!  Withdraw!, many of whom have never seen the business end of an AK-47, or I can listen to and believe a large group of professonal soldiers, including the guy who wrote the book updating U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine.  Now, I never served in the military--I guess I'm one of those "chickenhawks" that the left delights in attempting to shout down.  But I can either listen to the actual chickens, or I can listen to the actual hawks, to try to determine what the best path forward might be.

No matter which way we go, I think we owe ourselves an honest answer to a seemingly-simple question:  If we do XYZ, what happens next?

Since Snookums graduated from the University of Tennessee (Peyton Manning) and I graduated from South Dakota State University (Adam Vinatieri), I guess I'm pretty solidly in the Colts camp.

Please, President Bush, for the love of God, please, please, please don't have a line in the speech saying anything like "My Fellow Americans . . . The State Of The Union Is STRONG."

It's true that in about every segment of life except for national politics and government, yes, America is as strong as ever.  But the cesspool on the Potomac seems determined to attack that strength on nearly every front.

So no, we are not as strong as we should be.  And it's your fault, Official Washington.  Your fault.