The call for Jihad by prominent Muslim leaders such as Osama bin Laden has echoed throughout the international Islamic community, and continues to resonate in the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere on earth – including those who live here in the United States. As much as it is a call to the future, Jihad is also a call to return to the past. As this global conflict continues in the years ahead, the time will come that every Muslim (specifically, those in the US) will be forced to make a choice. The choice they will be confronted with will be between their loyalty to the country they live in, verses their loyalty to the Islamic Ummah (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah ).

Stage One: In modern terms, we could call Stage One Jihad the period of establishment and growth under generally peaceful conditions. The new (largely immigrant) Islamic community is too small to exert very much direct influence on the majority government and/or the majority culture. Public relations and propaganda are the two main tools used in this form of Jihad.

Stage Two: In modern terms, we could call Stage Two Jihad the period of civil unrest. Though still in the minority, the Islamic community is now well established (somewhere between 15-20 percent of the population), and it begins to exert a great deal of pressure on the majority government and/or civilian culture. Usually, one of the first things to happen during this period of civil unrest is the demand for the government to recognize at least some parts of Sha’ria law (as in France, for example). Crime rates also tend to increase rapidly as disenfranchised and alienated young Muslims begin acting out their frustration and anger within the surrounding non-Muslim community.

Stage Three: In modern terms, we could call Stage Three Jihad the period of civil war. At this point, the Islamic community is no longer in the [political] minority, and it begins to overtly attack the established government, as well as any “unbelievers” who do not accept Islam. The Islamic community (or, in some cases, the local Islamic government) unilaterally imposes Sha’ria law, often with violent consequences leading to the killing of civilians (usually Christians and/or Jews) and civil war (as in Nigeria, for example). In turn, Sha’ria law justifies Jihad, which leads to a rapidly escalating cycle of violence.

Stage Four: In modern terms, we could call Stage Four Jihad the period of full-scale war & genocide. At this point, Sha’ria law has been fully imposed, and Islam is the only religion permitted in the land. Non-Muslim influence (either by people of other faiths, or by people of other ethnic groups) is held in great contempt and is not tolerated by the ruling authorities – even Muslims who do not appear to fully accept every portion of Sha’ria law are severely punished. The Taliban government in Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the situation in Darfur (Sudan) are three current examples of Stage Four Jihad. The history of Islam – from the time of Muhammad until the present day – offers innumerable other examples.

Article provided by Dr. Terri K. Wonder. Dr. Wonder has a Masters Degree and Ph. D. from the University of South Florida. Terri has studied at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. She is an intelligence analyst for a private security agency’s anti-terrorism unit charged with protection of critical infrastructure (e.g., power plants), including special investigations of suspicious activity tied to extremist networks in Tampa Bay and other regions. She does strategic intelligence estimates for a private defense contractor on potential reaction by jihadist adversaries to changes in armed forces doctrine.

I am outraged by the editorial in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "American justice confirmed".

As Justice Antonin Scalia states, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Five unelected members of the Supreme Court of the United States overnight gave legal status to radical Islamists that have and are trying to kill us. Abraham Lincoln said that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Five members of the Supreme Court made it just that.

According to Justice Scalia,"Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspen­sion [of habeas corpus] Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation­-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable 'func­tional' test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misde­scribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragi­cally, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

What does this mean in plain language? Ronald Kessler of NewsMax.com explains, "By this reasoning, illegal aliens should be given access to the federal civilian courts to contest their expulsion from the country. Nazi soldiers taken prisoner during World War II and held on American soil should have been allowed to argue their cases in federal court. Instead of shooting terrorists on the battlefield, American soldiers should read them their rights and ship them off to American jails."

"The level of due process they [the federal courts] require," said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration, "will be impossible to meet and therefore will result in the release of a substantial number of enemy combatants." Kessler points out, "In fact, under the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, suspected terrorists are given more rights than our own soldiers are afforded when charged with crimes. Their cases are restricted to the military courts."

So where do our two Presidential candidates stand on this critical issue?

According to Boston.com, Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said in a statement that the ruling validating detainees' rights "ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values."

The Boston Globe points out, "Obama has long advocated ending the justice system specially created for Guantanamo Bay. He said the detainees should be brought to trial in US courts or in military courts-martial, a proposal the Supreme Court ruling does not affect."

"The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," said Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, at a town hall meeting near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey.

As PowerLine Blog points out, "[what] the Court's majority overturned was not a decree by the Bush administration, it was a statute that was passed by large majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2006. The Military Commissions Act passed the Senate on a 65-34 vote, with Democratic Senators Carper, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Neb.), Nelson (Fla.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow voting with the Republicans. Likewise, in the House 34 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans to pass the statute."

As former Senator Fred Thomson said in his article "A Supreme Error", "Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

They could have saved us all a lot of time if they’d told us what was clearly on their minds.

They don’t trust military tribunals to deal with those accused of being enemy combatants, even if the tribunals are following guidelines established by Congress.

That the government has probably detained some prisoners at Guantanamo for longer than they should have.

And that Guantanamo should just be closed.

Though they are willing to give it lip service, they don’t really believe we are at war … at least not a “real” war.

Therefore, they should create a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration."

What may be the reality of this decision? If you are a soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or any of the over 100 countries we have our troops and you capture an enemy combatant what do you do? Do you have the evidence needed to convict this radical Islamist killer in a U.S. Court? Are you as a soldier prepared to be called as a witness in a public trial, like our police officers, and testify that yes this enemy combatant tried to or did kill your fellow soldiers? Can you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? What do you do?

Putting our troops in this situation is both repulsive and outrageous. More importantly it is deadly. For you see our enemy understands what the Supreme Court just did and they will take full advantage of it.

"Detainees will be able to call witnesses and demand to see classified information, putting a tremendous strain on the court system and the Justice Department. They will shop for liberal jurisdictions to bring their cases. When capturing terrorists, our own soldiers will be burdened with accumulating the amount of evidence required by law enforcement." according to Kessler.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Quds Forces, the Mahdi Army, and the 20 other radical Islamist terror organizations world wide now have a friend in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Senator Obama.

They have an enemy in Senator McCain. You decide who is right and who is wrong. While you are our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be paying the price in blood as they decide "What to do".

This article consists of excerpts from a recently declassified intelligence assessment from Canada's Integrated Threat Assessment Center written on June 29, 2007.

A "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct attacks, but acts independently, without established ties or accountability. Lone wolves do not associate with fellow-conspirators.

The Internet has become an important catalyst for inspiring homegrown extremists, including "lone wolves", by providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, target information, and instruction on techniques, all in an anonymous environment. Lone wolves motivated by Islamist extremism are a new concern. Several incidents carried out or planned by these extremist-inspired individual attackers have occurred in the US.

For the purpose of this assessment, a "lone wolf" is an individual who is inspired by a terrorist ideology or organization to conduct independent attacks. They may receive support from friends, but plan and conduct the attack alone. Lone wolves in North America have traditionally taken their inspiration from right-wing groups, single-issue causes, or national liberation movements. Lone wolves motivated by Islamic extremism are a recent development. Islamist terrorist strategists are now advocating that Muslims take action at a grassroots level, without waiting for instructions. Non-ideological factors, such as personal revenge, greed or coercion, do not appear to be motivators.

Lone-wolf attacks stem from the strategy of Leaderless Resistance (LR). LR emphasizes having no organizational structure and no formalized leadership. Small cells, or individuals, are self-sustaining, driven by ideology and capable of independent judgement and action. Fictionalized scenarios of LR, written by right-wing theorist William Pierce in his books, The Turner Diaries and Hunter, inspired lone wolves. Scenarios described in Hunter were later acted out by individuals such as:

Timothy McVeigh (1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City - 168 killed, hundreds injured)

Eric Robert Rudolph (1996 Atlanta Olympic bomber, also targeted abortion providers and gay bars, killing two and injuring over 100)

James Kopp (targeted abortion providers, killing one doctor in Amherst, New York)

Bufford Furrow (targeted a Jewish community centre in Los Angeles, killing one and injuring five)

Right-wing "lone wolves" have also attempted to obtain and use chemical and biological agents in their attacks. In April 2006, white supremacist Demetrius "Van" Crocker was convicted of trying to obtain Sarin nerve gas and C-4 explosives, which he intended to use against black residents in Jackson, Tennessee.

Extremists motivated by single issues such as the environment or the animal rights movement have also adopted the lone-wolf strategy. Radicals within these two movements have claimed responsibility for more than $100 million in damage in North America during the past two decades. Activists can become part of the eco-terror movement simply by carrying out an illegal action on its behalf. David Barbarash, a supporter of the Canadian Animal Liberation Front (ALF), claimed that the ALF "is not a group or a club that you can join, but a concept which is only realized when an action takes place under that name". Modeled after ALF, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) consists of people described on its website as "anonymous not only to the public but also to one another".

Growing Regard for Lone-wolf Tactics among Islamist Extremists

Similar to the shift that occurred in right-wing groups to lone wolves and small cells, the success of counterterrorism security forces against AQ and its affiliates may be bringing about another evolution in Islamist extremist strategy. Islamist extremists now promote a model that encourages independent, grassroots extremists to conduct their own attacks.

One of the most important advocates of acts of terrorism carried out by small, autonomous cells or individuals is Abu Musab al-Suni (Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmariam Nasar), a prominent terrorist lecturer, trainer and military instructor. In his book The Call for an International Islamic Resistance, al-Suni outlined a strategy for a global conflict on as many fronts as possible and taking the form of resistance by small cells or individuals, rather than traditional guerrilla warfare. To avoid penetration and defeat by security forces, he advised that organizational links be kept to an absolute minimum.

Other more anonymous calls for spontaneous Islamist extremist action (which may include lone-wolf attacks) appear on the Internet. For instance, in a 2003 article on a extremist Internet forum, Sada al Jihad (Echoes of Jihad), Usama bin Laden sympathizers were encouraged to take action without waiting for instructions.

As a subset of homegrown Islamist terrorism in North America, lone-wolf attacks or planned attacks seem to be on the increase. Several such cases have been recorded since 9/11:

Extremists and terrorists worldwide use the Internet for a variety of purposes. For the lone wolf, it provides instruction and provides inspiration and motivation, all within an anonymous environment.

Islamist extremist web sites offer not only theoretical and religious instruction but also practical on-line training courses that urge visitors to take action on their own. For example, the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Preparation for Jihad is available online. Professional, video-formatted instructional materials detailing various explosive manufacturing recipes have also begun to circulate widely on the web in the past two years, along with at least 22 other separate audio-visual terrorist manuals.

Lone-wolf Attacks in Canada

So far there have been no Islamist-inspired lone-wolf attacks in Canada. However, a number of lone-wolf and small-cell attacks motivated by other causes have occurred since the 1970s. Ideologies motivating attacks in Canada are primarily: race-based hate; eco-terrorism; animal rights; and the anti-abortion movement. Political and religiously motivated issues in the Sikh, Armenian and Sri Lankan communities, stemming from their countries of origin, have also inspired lone-wolf attacks. The religiously motivated "Sons of Freedom" Doukhobors have inspired uniquely Canadian lone wolves. Canada has been named on at least four occasions, by AQ or its affiliates, as a legitimate target. Further, in June 2006, Canadian police and security forces disrupted an AQ-inspired homegrown cell (the Toronto 17).

ITAC Assessment

Lone wolves act without established ties or accountability to leadership. As they are self initiating and carry out their attacks individually,

The Internet is helpful to an individual who may be preparing to conduct a lone-wolf attack, providing ideological motivation, encouragement, justification, all within an anonymous environment.

Today the Sarasota Herald-Tribune again uses the war against Radical Islam to bash President Bush and his administration.

In their editorial, "Connecting the dots", they tell the same old story that, "Before the war in Iraq, President Bush and his chief associates claimed they knew about a solid link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, the international terrorist organization that attacked New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001." This statement is meaningless, irrelevant and myopic.

What the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, liberals, anti-war proponents and the Democratic Party are missing is that Radical Islam is at war with the West. Radical Islamists want to kill you and me. The question is will we fight back or capitulate.

Tom Trento, Director of the Florida Security Council put it best when he said, "When 'obsessed' people supported by historic precedent and philosophic foundation proclaim war against you and plot your death and destruction you better damn well take them seriously. Sadly, Americans are divided, some for political reasons, some out of ignorance, as to whether radical Islamism is indeed America’s number one problem."

"This division hastens our demise." says Tom.

Tom points out, "In order to be victorious in this global war on terror - which has two primary targets, the 'Great Satan,' America and the 'Little Satan,' Israel - we need a unified and united effort by a majority of Americans over a protracted period of time."

Tom goes on to say, "Currently, there are a significant number of Americans who understand this ideological battle and fully comprehend the deadly desires of our Islamist enemies and the catastrophic consequences of not properly responding at all required levels. Conversely, there are a significant number of Americans who do not understand this ideological battle, have no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

"As with most controversial issues, a considerable number of Americans are in the middle trying to figure out if we should conform ourselves to a cultural mindset that attempts to appease and befriend our enemies, or if we should adapt a resilient transformational posture preparing for an ideological war underscored by military battle," according to Tom.

Those who oppose the war do so at the risk of America and Israel. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board, either out of ignorance or ideology, have "no real comprehension of the related cataclysmic consequences and do not believe our Islamist enemies either desire or are capable of our complete destruction."

Radical Islam looks at Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Europe, Israel and the United States as simply fronts in their global war against western ideals and ideas. When we stop focusing on minor past details and come to grips with the global nature of this "clear and present danger" can America and our allies win. Otherwise we are doomed.

The war has already come to our shores. If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan the next battle will be in our homeland. Radical Islamists have said so. We must listen to them.

Today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board brings up the issue of radical Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay in their column, "Injustice at Guantanamo".

We were thinking to ourselves why would the United States not quickly bring to trial and if appropriate execute these terrorists. We decided to look at how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handled a similar situation in WWII. Here is what history tells us according to Wikipedia.

When the United States entered World War II, Adolf Hitler ordered German saboteurs [terrorists] to wreak havoc on the country. The responsibility for carrying this out was given to German Intelligence (Abwehr). In June 1942, eight agents were recruited and divided into two teams: the first, commanded by George John Dasch, with Ernest Burger, Heinrich Heinck and Richard Quirin. The second, under the command of Edward Kerling, with Hermann Neubauer, Werner Thiel and Herbert Haupt.

On June 12, 1942, U-Boat U-202 landed Dasch's team with explosives and plans at East Hampton, Long Island, New York. Their mission was to destroy power plants at Niagara Falls and three Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) factories in Illinois, Tennessee and New York. However, the team was observed following landing by a Coast Guardsman who immediately raised the alarm. After being captured, Dasch and Burger gave a full confession to the FBI and obtained more lenient treatment.

Kerling's team landed from U-584 at Ponte Vedra Beach (25 miles [40 km] south-east of Jacksonville, Florida), on June 17. They were tasked with laying mines in four areas: the Pennsylvania Railroad in Newark NJ., canal sluices in both St. Louis and Cincinnati, and New York City's water supply pipes. The team made their way to Cincinnati, Ohio and split up, with two going to Chicago, Illinois and the others to New York. However, the Dasch confession led to the arrest of all of the men by July 10.

All eight were tried and convicted by Military Commission. President Roosevelt approved the sentences. The constitutionality of the military commissions was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin and six of the eight men were executed by electrocution on August 8. Dasch and Burger were given thirty-year prison sentences. Both were released in 1948 and deported to Germany. Dasch (aka George Davis), who had been a longtime American resident prior to the war, suffered a difficult life in Germany after his return from U.S. custody due to his cooperation with U.S. authorities. As a condition of his deportation, he was not permitted to return to the United States, even though he spent many years writing letters to prominent American authorities (J. Edgar Hoover, President Eisenhower, etc.) requesting permission to return. He eventually fled to Switzerland and wrote a book, titled Eight Spies Against America.

There you have it. FDR captured all eight German terrorists by July 10, 1942. He created Military Commissions, had the U.S. Supreme Court bless the Commissions, held the trials, and executed 6 of the 8 terrorists by August 8, 1942.

Thirty days from capture to execution. Now that's what I call swift justice.

By the way, the current Military Commissions are based upon those created by FDR in 1942.

Why haven't we moved this quickly to deal with the very deadly and dangerous terrorists being held in Guantanamo, Cuba? Because we are in fact a nation of laws. Even though we are at war we are providing these terrorists with all the legal, moral and responsible opportunities to defend themselves under international laws.

As Colonel Morris D. "Mo" Davis, USAF (Ret.) the former head prosecutor said, ""Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”

"Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees."

Keeping enemy combatants in prison makes perfect sense to you and me. Letting them out means they will just go back to doing the only thing they know - killing Americans. Even the Herald-Tribune editorial board recognizes this when they point out, "A former detainee, transferred to Kuwait for trial and later acquitted, was involved [in] a deadly suicide bombing in Iraq last month, the U.S. military confirmed Wednesday [May 7, 2008]."

As for using Club GITMO as a propaganda tool, so what. What do you expect those who plot each and every day to kill our soldiers, innocent Muslim men, women and children, and anyone else who get in their way to do?

Guantanamo is a shining example of the slow, sometimes tedious and lengthy, process of bringing terrorists to justice. Defense lawyers, including those from the ACLU, are tying up the process with appeals. The Supreme Court is involved, again. Colonel "Mo" Davis called, "the Supreme Court's intention to review the Military Commissions Act "meddling": "This constant uncertainty and meddling certainly takes a toll on people, It would be nice to have some certainty for a change."

GITMO mirrors our own criminal justice system, which takes years to convict and decades to finally put to death the most horrible murders.

Our take is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is using this issue as a political hammer to bash Bush. All three Presidential candidates have said they will close GITMO down. That is nice but does not do anything to speed up the clear need for swift justice in the case of these radical Islamic terrorists.

Where is FDR when you need him?

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has an excellent piece titled, "Recruits with a record - Don't jump to conclusions about the military's felony waivers".

The editorial rightly points out that, "Last year, the Army granted 511 felony waivers, more than double the 249 granted in 2006. The Marine Corps' waivers increased from 208 to 350.While these are large [percentage] increases, the waivers represent a tiny fraction of the more than 180,000 active-duty recruits who joined the military in 2007."

They also state, "The military says it is extremely judicious in granting waivers. Applicants for waivers must submit character references, are personally interviewed by commanders, and must be approved for enlistment by a brigadier general or a higher ranking general."

Let's put this in perspective.

At the February 2008 meeting of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission, Florida Senator Mike Bennett talked about his run ins with the law when he was a young man. He told about how a judge gave him the option of jail or joining the U.S. military within 24 hours. Senator Bennett went downstairs from the court room and joined the Navy. Senator Bennett voluntarily served four tours in Vietnam, distinguishing himself in combat operations. He went on to start a successful business and of course run for the Florida Senate.

At the same meeting Eugene (Top) Harrison, USMC (Ret.) came to the podium and said he joined the Marines under similar circumstances. Top Harrison is a highly decorated veteran of the Korean War and Vietnam. He taught in and retired from the Sarasota County School District. Top Harrison taught at risk kids in the dropout prevention program at Venice High School. Top Harrison's son is an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel currently serving in the Middle East.

We miss the time when judges had the option of sending troubled youth to the greatest institution on this earth, the U.S. Armed Forces, rather than the worst institutions, our prisons.

The U.S. Military has the ability to transform bad behavior into good behavior. It has done this for centuries. Military training and service provides structure and discipline to those without it. Military service instills duty, honor and personal responsibility in our youth.

Now for the liberal hypocrisy.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Democrats in Congress question, "whether the number of waivers is being increased for the right reasons, and whether that change is affecting the military's performance."

What does this mean. Right reason? Isn't putting criminals to work in an honorable profession the right reason?

We know of a company in St. Louis, Missouri that employs thousands of criminals, including felons (murders, etc.). This company provides one third of the pay to the prisoner to purchase personal items, puts one third of the pay into an interest bearing account for the prisoner so they have a nest egg to draw on when they finish serving their sentence, and the final third is paid to the State of Missouri. The annual payout to the State of Missouri for this program is approximately $15 million.

Doesn't it makes sense to put properly screened felons to work. If they are not working then they will fall back on the only skill they know, crime. That costs all of us. Would it not be better that they be given the chance to redeem themselves by serving our nation?

You would think that the liberal Democrats in Congress would be looking for ways to turn more criminals into loyal soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune wants questions answered about these 861 Army and Marine recruits. Having the military follow these soldiers and marines around to collect data on them just makes matters worse. Putting more pressure on them needlessly can do more harm than good.

Don't worry, if they fail the military will take care of that. I trust our military leaders to make the right decisions on who enlists and who does not. I personally believe that giving someone on the road to disaster a better road to travel is both moral and good public policy.

What do you think?

In yet another one of the most amazing articles in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune titled, "Showdown in Sadr City", the editorial board is finally worried about the people of Iraq.

That is the good news. We as Americans must help our Iraqi friends bring peace and prosperity to all neighborhoods in Iraq. We fully agree. What ever it takes we must win against the evil that has infected Iraq. This evil is Radical Islamists like Al Qaeda, Al Sadr and militias backed by the Iranian theocracy.

The bad news is the Sarasota Herald-Tribune blames the Iraqi government when it says, "While U.S. and Iraqi troops continue to fight for control of Sadr City, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far failed to fulfill a promise of a multimillion-dollar program to restore the battle-scarred sector."

Let's see now, Iraqi troops are battling for control of Sadr City and the Iraqi equivalent of Waste Management has not gone in to pick up the garbage. Gee, I wonder why not?

That is like blaming the Mayors of some of our largest cities because their Waste Management trucks will not go into certain areas of Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles or Detroit because the gangs control the neighborhoods and shoot at them. I don't think our garbage collectors make enough to face Radical Islamist militias armed with rocket propelled grenades provided by Iran.

What is ever so elitist is the quote by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon that, "some parts of sprawling Sadr City have been under U.S. and Iraqi military control for weeks..." implying that the Iraqi government should turn on a dime to fix the sewers, provide electricity, pick up the garbage and open the schools. A high standard by anyone's count. Maybe we should hold the Mayor of New Orleans to the same standard.

Let's get real. The evil doer is Mookie Al Sadr and the Iranian Quds Force backed militias. They are keeping the battle going in Sadr City. They are the ones keeping the money from flowing into Sadr City. They are the ones who have not reconciled with the Iraqi government to allow money to flow into Sadr City to fix the sewers, provide electricity, open the schools and pick up the garbage.

Why, because they want to keep power and control by keeping the people of Sadr City poor, angry and suffering. Mookie and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard do not want money to flow into Sadr City. If it did Mookie and Iranian Quds forces would no longer be in control. With them out of control peace would follow. Money would flow and services would be restored.

The people of Sadr City need an "awakening" like the one that occurred in Anbar province and Baquba, Iraq. Only when the people of Sadr City realize that peace and prosperity mean more than killing innocent men, women and children to implement Sharia law, will things change in Sadr City.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board gets it totally wrong blaming Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Does it ever occur to you that liberals always side with the enemies of America, freedom, liberty and peace? Sadly, again, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is pushing its political agenda by not attacking our real enemies but rather attacking our friends and allies.

The Iraqi people and those that live in Sadr City deserve better. What do you think?

UPDATE from the Multi-National Corps, Iraq:

Iraqi Army provides first aid supplies to Sadr City residents.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi Army soldiers conducted a combined medical assessment in the southern portion of the Sadr City district of Baghdad. The operation was supported by the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National-Division - Baghdad, and provided citizens with essential medicines and personal hygiene supplies at Joint Security Station Tharwa 1. For the assessment, Iraqi Security Forces provided military and civilian doctors to ensure visitors received medical supplies and were not in need of immediate or critical medical care. Citizens ranging from the very young to the elderly received medical attention at the station. Dealing directly with the ISF, the Iraqi people living in Sadr City witnessed the ability of Iraqi Forces to care for them. More than 400 citizens received medical care in less than two hours, making the event a successful one. "It really turned out good. It was successful and turned out better than I thought," said Capt. Ryan Mendenhall who serves as the fire support officer. Mendenhall said he was surprised by how quickly the people reacted and came to the project.

Well it must be Presidential election time. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board in its column, "Rational for abuse, Congress should examine legal opinion's impact on interrogations" goes after our soldiers, the Department of the Army and of course the Bush administration.

What a great way to change the subject from Senator Barack Obama's pastor saying Sunday our founding fathers (that's Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, et. al.) “planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.” Senator Obama saying of small town Americans, "they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Or Senator Hillary Clinton saying she dogged bullets when visiting Bosnia - a lie.

The anti-war left wingers love it when the liberal media brings up a new conspiracy theory.

First of all it is always good to point out the falsehoods in the liberal media's editorial. Let's start with, "Congress should explore whether Yoo's reasoning was extended to the military interrogation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib."

There is no reason to explore whether or if Yoo's memorandum was involved in the Abu Ghraib incident because an investigation of influence by the then Chain-of-Command was done by the Army. Allegations of "improperly communicating interrogation policies" was a clear part of that investigation.

By the way. I do not think any member of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board has any experience in the Inspector General Corps and investigating General Officers. Well I have. I was the Deputy Inspector General of the U.S. Army Western Command (now U.S. Army Pacific Command) from 1985 till 1990 when I retired. I have investigated General Officers, assisted DAIG investigations, and know the procedures. They are thorough and exacting. If any criminal activity is found it is immediately turned over to the local office of the Army Criminal Investigation Division and Judge Advocate General for action and prosecution.

Let's look at the findings of the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib available on the Army website. Here are excerpts from a May 5, 2005 Army press release on the investigation:

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then commander Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was investigated by the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) for the following allegations:

1. Dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogation operations

2. Improperly communicating interrogation policies

The DAIG found each of the allegations unsubstantiated. Lt. Gen. Sanchez is currently serving as the Commander of V Corps, headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany.

Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, then Deputy Commander Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7) was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegation:

1. Dereliction in the performance of duties pertaining to detention and interrogations operations.

The DAIG found the allegation unsubstantiated. Maj. Gen. Wojdakowski currently is serving as a Special Assistant to the Commanding General U.S. Army Europe headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany.

Maj. Gen. Barbara G. Fast, then C2 intelligence officer Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegation:

1. Dereliction in the performance of her duties

The DAIG found the allegation unsubstantiated. Maj. Gen. Fast currently is serving as the commander of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, then Commander 800th Military Police Brigade, was investigated by the DAIG for the following allegations:

1. Dereliction of duty

2. Making a material misrepresentation to an investigating team

3. Failure to obey a lawful order

4. Shoplifting.

The DAIG found two of the allegations unsubstantiated, while the allegations of dereliction of duty and shoplifting were found to be substantiated.

Based upon the DAIG investigation, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Dick A. Cody issued Brig. Gen. Karpinski a memorandum of reprimand and directed that it be filed in her Official Military Personnel File. The Commander of the U.S. Army Reserve Command, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, formally relieved Brig. Gen. Karpinski from command of the 800th Military Police Brigade on April 8.

Today, the President approved a recommendation to vacate the promotion of Brig. Gen. Karpinski from her rank of brigadier general. This action was in response to a recommendation by the U.S. Army Reserve Command commander, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and the President. This decision reduces her rank to colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Though Brig. Gen. Karpinski’s performance of duty was found to be seriously lacking, the investigation determined that no action or lack of action on her part contributed specifically to the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Col. Marc Warren, then Staff Judge Advocate for Combined Joint Task Force 7 (CJTF7), was the subject of a preliminary screening inquiry (PSI) conducted by the Department of the Army’s Office of the Judge Advocate General for allegations of:

1. Professional impropriety under lawyers ethics rules

2. Dereliction in the performance of his duties.

The Office of the Judge Advocate General found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Col. Warren currently is serving at Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

To date, the Army and the Department of Defense have conducted 10 separate comprehensive investigations examining all aspects of detention operations. The major inquiries are based on more than 1,700 interviews and more than 16,000 pages of documents. Additionally, over 360 criminal investigations examined allegations of detainee mistreatment. Thus far, allegations against more than 130 military members have been addressed in courts-martial, non-judicial punishments, and other adverse administrative actions.

Regarding officer accountability, roughly 25 percent of the adverse punishments to date have been applied against officers, who make up about 16 percent of the total Army force. While there are still officer cases that remain open, to date, the Army has taken the following actions against officers in the ranks of brigadier general to warrant officer:

Brigadier General - Promotion vacated, relief from command, one letter of reprimand

Colonel - One non-judicial punishment

Lieutenant Colonel (four officers) - Two letters of reprimand, two non-judicial punishments

Major (three officers) - Three letters of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

Captain (10 officers) – Three courts-martial, one other than honorable discharge, five letters of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

1st Lieutenant (four officers) – Two courts-martial, one letter of reprimand, one non-judicial punishment

2nd Lieutenant (two officers) - One other than honorable discharge, one letter of reprimand

Chief Warrant Officer 3 - One court-martial

Chief Warrant Officer 2 - One court-martial.

Investigations into detainee abuse allegations are rank immaterial and will continue until all cases are completed. Investigators are persons of integrity, are under no undue command influence, and are charged to proceed wherever the truth leads in assessing accountability. Detainee abuse is not tolerated. The Army is committed to ensuring all Soldiers live up to the Army Values and the Law of War regardless of the environment or circumstances.

I for one have had enough of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune making political hay by attacking our Army simply to distract the public from the real and present danger of Radical Islam.

Their call for an investigation of our Army is both politically motivated and unnecessary. If they want to know what happened then read the full Army report.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has a excellent editorial titled, "NATO at a crossroads".

We fully agree with the editorial board when is says that, "NATO should not compromise its commitment to accomplishing the crucial mission in Afghanistan."

Historically, there have been many issues facing the West and by definition NATO, which as pointed out by the editorial board, "has outlasted the Soviet Union, helped quell genocide in southern Europe and successfully expanded beyond the imagination of its creators."

NATO has morphed from an initially regional self-defense alliance into a proactive Western military force involved in a global war against radical Islamists.

As we have said many times, the West is not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is a military tactic. Nations do not fight wars against military tactics. Nations fight wars over ideologies.

What we are fighting is a global War against radical Islamists. Radical Islam includes nations such as Iran and Syria. Radical Islam includes groups like the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Diverse entities tied together by a single ideology.

The Global War against Radical Islamists is like all other wars. There are hot fronts and cold fronts in the war. The hot fronts are currently in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The cold fronts are in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Australia, and North America.

The hot fronts are characterized primarly by the engagement of military forces in direct contact with the radical Islamists, supplemented by economic, political, and diplomatic initiatives.

The cold fronts are characterized by aggressive intelligence/counter intelligence operations, economic, diplomatic, political and law enforcement actions to prevent the infiltration of radical Islamists who would do harm to the national security or launch attacks against sovereign nations and their people.

We disagree with the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States. The West and NATO can only lose the Afghanistan front if the United States and Europe lose the will to win.

None of the major radical Islamist military and para-military organizations, taken together, can defeat the West and NATO. We can only defeat ourselves by either pulling back from the fight or abandoning the battlefield altogether.

There are many working toward just such a scenario including radical Islamists, anti-war activists and some in both liberal and conservative parties in Europe and North America.

We must maintain our resolve and win on all fronts and thereby win the global War Against Radical Islamists.

We hope our Presidential candidates and the West in general enter into an open discussion of this threat and work together with Muslims around the world to help them solve their problem of radicals who have taken over Islam and preach violence and death.

This is a blog report on a press conference at the National Press Club reporting dangerous terrorist acts by anti-war leftist groups like Code Pink and A.N.S.W.E.R (part of the World Workers Party, a communist organization) perpetrated against military recruiters. These people are getting dangerous.

Anti-war protests are scheduled for March 19th, the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, in Tampa, Florida by the following anti-war/Socialist/Communist/radical Islamic groups.

Some of these groups have terrorist connections such as the Muslim American Society, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood:

A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida
Florida Peace Action Network
St. Pete for Peace
Progressive Democrats of America-FL
Tampa Bay Veterans for Peace
Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice
The Refuge Ministries
Code Pink Tampa Bay
Peace Now Citrus County
Military Families Speak Out - Florida
Muslim American Society - Tampa Chapter
Friends of Human Rights
Green Bridge Patriots
Code Pink Sarasota
Tampa 9/11 Truth
Code Pink Florida
Socialist Party of Tampa Bay
Immigrants United for Freedom
First United Church of Tampa Social Action Committee
Green Party of Florida
The Buddhist Peace Fellowship of Tampa Bay
Islamic Community of Tampa (ICT)
Pinellas County Democratic Party
Project Vote Count

You guys won’t believe the scene at the National Press Club today.

We at Move America Forward were releasing our investigative report on the nationwide plague of attacks against military recruiting centers. (The Sedition Report)

Congressman John Carter (co-sponsor of the Semper Fi Act) was there speaking. So too was Debbie Lee, mother of the 1st Navy Seal killed in Iraq.

Then, midway through the news conference, members of Code Pink, International ANSWER and Global Exchange start heckling, screaming, yelling.

They said our claims of improper actions by anti-war radicals were all lies, that the anti-military activists have been nothing but peaceful.

They tried to shout down our speakers, and when we asked for security to remove them they refused to go, resulting in the forced eviction by security - despite their efforts to physically resist being removed.

Congressman Carter was whisked out for his safety and then the anti-war radicals chased down Congressman Carter’s staff. Soon thereafter as I was walking to another appointment I found myself stalked by the radicals who pulled up in a car yelling obscenities at me for daring to report on their disgusting conduct.

These people proved our point today! They did exactly what we’ve accused them of doing at military recruiting centers when they storm in, occupy the office, halt the work of recruiters and refuse to leave.

What angers me most is that these people don’t stop there. They’ve planted bombs at recruiting centers (not just Times Square but St. Louis too!). They pumped eight rounds of gunfire into the Denver military recruiting center. They’ve set fire to recruiting centers in San Jose, CA and Asheville, NC.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The complete report - including citations where their supporters cheer on the acts of violence - and our new national ad campaign focusing on this issue are at the Move America Forward website.

I’m attaching a photo of one of the anti-war radicals who stood up, stripped off his clothes to reveal a pink jacket, and began screaming down our speakers at the news conference.

Folks - we struck a nerve. These people DO NOT want their seditious behavior exposed. Well, that makes me even MORE determined to do just that, and I know it will have the same effect on you as well!

For more on the Winter Soldier II conference go to Michele Malkin's blog.

The liberal media keeps pounding on our involvement in the war against radical Islam. There are four major fronts in this war: Africa, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan. America is directly involved in three of these fronts, NATO in one, and our ally Israel is fighting for its life in the fourth.

Liberals are so risk adverse and so afraid of doing something that can cause us to use our military power, treasure and blood that they want to prohibit the U.S. from getting involved in anything. This is called isolationism. Isolationism cut our military by one third during the 1990s and got us 9/11. So much for isolationism.

Liberals have used a series of arguments since the war against radical Islam began to get us to disengage from the war against radical Islam specifically and the world stage in general.

However, after 9/11 the liberals did a turn around. It was a huge bi-partisan majority in Congress that approved going first into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

When the war in Iraq began going badly we saw the liberals do another turn around, some say for political gain.

We saw a series of liberal arguments over time to disengage from the war on radical Islam: the death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq (even though the toll was the lowest of any previous war), the civil war in Iraq (it ended with the surge), the government in Iraq not reconciling (they now have passed a series of laws that reconcile the parties), and the cost of the war (even though Congress continues to fund the war on a bi-partisan basis).

Now we have a new liberal argument to disengage from the war against radical Islam - the health and welfare of our soldiers and their families. Finally, we get to something we can all agree to. Taking care of our troops.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune uses this argument in its editorial, "Shorter combat tours are a start" to get us to disengage from the war against radical Islam. This is the first time that we can remember that the editorial board has been interested in the health and welfare of our soldiers and their families. Someone correct us if we are wrong.

It would be nice if they really meant it, history tells us they don't. We have not seen the Herald-Tribune cover any of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission meetings. We have never had them ask what legislative initiatives veterans support to take care of our troops and their families. We have not seen them give front page, above the fold coverage to veterans issues, unless it is something a soldier did bad. We have not seen them care enough to send reporters to the annual Veterans Day and Memorial Day parades and give large scale front page coverage to these events. We have not seen the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board take up the cause of any veterans issue until today.

My concern is they are using this as simply another ploy to convince American's we should take care of our troops by losing the war.

We fully support shorter combat tours for our soldiers. Certainly combat tours are stressful and lead to various psychological issues including PTSD. Every war has had the same issues. WWII saw millions of our citizens serve 3 or more years in combat in the Pacific and European theaters. They turned out to be the "Greatest Generation". If you want to know about multiple combat tours ask Florida Senator Mike Bennett. He volunteered for and served four combat tours in Vietnam. If you want to know about combat tours ask County Commissioner Paul Mercier, Colonel USMC (Ret.) John Saputo, Master Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Eugene (Top) Harrison, or any of the over 53,000 veterans living in Sarasota County.

According to Lee F. Kichen, VFW Veteran Service officer at the VA Medical Center, Bay Pines, FL, "Length of tours have little impact on severity of PTSD. Severity may or may not be predicated on the intensity of the combat stressor. WWII vets had in some cases 34-36 months of sustained combat showing the the same symptomology as someone who experienced one isolated mortar attack of two rounds. Apparently, the Herald-Tribune is falling prey to a lot of urban mythology without looking at what is still emerging science. Quite frankly we can't make any generalizations, like those in the editorial."

The real problem is the size of our forces. We currently have approximately 760,000 soldiers in the Army, which was the end strength of the Army after operation Desert Storm in 1992.

If the Herald-Tribune and its editorial board really want to help our soldiers, help fight the war against radical Islam and protect America they would campaign for a major increase in troop strength in our Army and a larger Marine Corps. They would also fight for an increase in the national defense budget to recruit, train, deploy and sustain a 1,000,000+ man Army.

You cannot have pre-9/11 troop levels and expect us to meet the global threats facing the United States.

We await tomorrow's editorial supporting our soldiers, veterans, their families and orphaned children.

We attended a series of National Security panel discussions and briefings, culminating in a showing of the award winning documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West in Naples, Florida this weekend.

We met many men and women representing a cross section of America who came together to learn about the threat posed by radical Islam to the world. Around three hundred concerned citizens came to the presentations, showing of the documentary Obsession and the panel discussion.

The event was conducted by the Florida Security Council's founders Tom Trento, Mike Tranchina and Elaine Roy. The Florida Security Council has put on similar briefings for the Florida legislature, hosted by House majority leader Representative Adam Hasner, civic groups, law enforcement, business leaders, religious groups, and concerned citizens.

The Naples expert presenters were noted Naples community leader and event host Jack Tymann, former President of Westinghouse International, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, physician, former U.S. Navy Commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and Sam Kharoba, noted law enforcement trainer, software consultant and founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center.

What I learned at the National Security Briefing was the following:

1. We are not fighting a War on Terror. Terror is simply a tactic used by our enemies.

2. We are in fact fighting a global war against Radical Islam or Islamism. The fundamental difference between Islamism and democracy is the relationship between government and religion. The Koran for Islamists is not a guide for laws but rather the guide for laws.

3. We need to know and understand the enemy. We need to recognize that they are fighting a total war against the West. The unconditional surrender of the West is their goal. They look at Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other hot beds of radical Islamic activity as battles in the great war against the West.

4. We need to understand ourselves. We must be prepared to fight a long total war against radical Islam. We must commit to bringing to bear all our social, economic, political and military power against this enemy. We must win regardless of the cost.

5. We must unite as Americans and stand strong together. We must understand that we are fighting for our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren. How we fight Isalmism today will determine the political, religious and social world our grand children inherit.

6. We are in a critical clash between American ideas and Islamist ideas. However, we have not engaged in a real discussion of these ideas. Our media, universities, businesses leaders, religious leaders and politicians have all abdicated their responsibility to confront radical Islam because of political correctness and a fear of offending Muslims.

7. Only a grass roots effort by concerned citizens will turn the tide.

After the briefings many asked what can we do. The answer is clear.

First we must all be personally engaged in learning about radical Islam. Next, and this is critical, we must each do whatever we can to get the word out. The most important asset we bring to the table is what we used to call our "Rolodex" file, now we call it our e-mail list. This is the list of all contacts we have made over the years. People who know us and we know them. Most importantly we listen to and trust one another. Finally, we want our friends to join with us and take action to confront radical Islam.

Last, what do we want as an outcome. Here are some thoughts on that. Perhaps you can add to this list.

1. Our Presidential candidates must discuss the War against radical Islam in detail. We all need to know what is their action plan for defeating radical Islam. No plan is not an answer.

2. Our media, universities, businesses, churches, synagogues, and mosques must engage in a meaningful public debate on radical Islamic ideas versus democratic ideas.

3. We want a "surge" of action that will lead to an "awakening" in America as it has in Iraq's Anbar province.

4. Just as in Iraq we need groups like the Sons of Iraq, the alliance of Sheiks and neighborhood groups like Concerned Local Citizens in the global Muslim community to denounce and if needed to fight terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

5. We need a anti-jihad jihad. We need Imams to declare publicly a jihad against radical Islam.

6. We need Muslims to embrace the idea of the separation of church and state. That there is a difference between one nation under God and a nation ruled by Allah.

7. We need to embrace the ideals, values and religious beliefs passed down to us by our fore fathers. We must not forget that we are Americans first and foremost. All other ethnic, religious and race differences are secondary to being an American.

8. Finally, we cannot become complacent. We cannot say it is somebody else's problem. It is too far away to worry about.

We have taken the first step and joined the Florida Security Council. We encourage you to get involved. If you want to know how just e-mail me at rswier@comcast.net.

Well Fidel Castro has stepped down but, unfortunately, not out. Communist Cuba is now under the iron hand of brother Raul.

The biggest policy mistake made by any President was John F. Kennedy's decision to abandon the Cuban freedom fighters at the Bay of Pigs. His mistake brought us to the brink of WW III with the Cuban Missile Crisis and has kept the people of Cuba under communist rule ever since. Over the decades they have suffered under a failed Communist system. Castro has not embraced capitalism at the expense of his people.

What is interesting is the liberal media's love of Castro and hate of the United States. You can already see it via their "concern for the people of Cuba". In an article by a local liberal paper, "Castro out but not down" they call for us to "Lift the embargo".

Their rationale is, "In light of the financial success experienced by many Cubans who emigrated to the United States, economic engagement, rather than punishment and isolation, seemed the more humane course and the most likely strategy to have toppled Fidel. And, perhaps, the U.S. could have filled a vacuum that has recently led Venezuela and China to invest in Cuba....But for decades, America let dogma get in the way of good sense, just as the former president of Cuba did."

Let's look briefly at recent history when we have economically engaged with dictators.

Let's start with Adolf Hitler, we tried to appease him with the Sudetenland and that led to WW II. We tried to appease Japan by looking the other way when they invaded Korea and China and it led to Pearl Harbor. We tried to appease Joseph Stalin with detente and it got us the Cold War.

Now let's look at more recent attempts at economically engaging dictators.

President Clinton signed an agreement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. We gave them economic aid and oil to keep the North Korean people from starving. The outcome, Kim kept the money for his cronies and millions of his people starved to death or died in concentration camps. He developed a nuclear weapon and sold the technology to Iran and other nations.

How about the West and UN dealings with Saddam Hussein? The UN Oil for Food Program was exactly what liberals call "economically engaging". With the "economic engagement" money Saddam built palaces, murdered and tortured his people. The program became corrupt and Iraqis suffered. There was no food for the oil!

Today we have another form of economic engagement going on with Venezuela and Iran. The Western nations buy oil from these countries on the open market. Billions flow into these countries. Do their dictators use those monies to raise the economic standards of their people? Both countries use their revenues to shore up their regimes and spread communism and radial Islamic terrorism around the world.

We engage economically every day with China and Russia. Both those countries have used our "economic engagement" to become less democratic, more confrontational, more militaristic and their people suffer more and more.

The only thing dictators understand is power and the use of power to get what they want. What the West must do, led by the United States is, to confront this evil, not subsidize it.

Liberals never learn from history. They constantly want to "economically engage" with evil in hopes of appeasement. Consistently we get the same result - our dollars are used against us, like they were on 9/11.

  The following is a recent conversation overheard between two journalists named Daryl and Tom who work for the New York Times Company.

"Have you noticed that profits are down 20-30% at the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe this year? Did you know that the San Diego Union-Tribune eliminated more than 100 jobs, one-tenth of its work force. The Chicago Sun-Times began a major round of newsroom layoffs, then put itself up for sale, and publishers in Minneapolis and Philadelphia warned that tough economics could force cuts there? "

"Shush, don't say anything or we could get fired. I heard that the big wigs in the New York Times company, who owns the LA Times and Boston Globe, are getting big salaries and bonuses while us peons get laid off."

"Why do you think our profits are down so much?"

"I don't know. Maybe it is because we make our money off of the pain and suffering of others and people are tired of reading about it."

"No, that can't be it. People love to read about rapes, murders, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes and suicide bombers. People love watching train wrecks, we are just giving them what they want. Remember our motto, 'if it bleeds it leads'."

"Well if it isn't the bad news maybe people don't like it when we coerce people in government to sell us national security secrets about wire tapping and prisons in Europe that undermines our ability to fight terrorists and harms our government."

"No that can't be it. I get great e-mails from my friends from Berkeley, the Daily Kos, Code Pink, MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama, and the Democratic National Committee. They say keep them coming. They really love us in Congress because they use our stories as an excuse to hold hearings. If they didn't hold hearings what would they do? Win the war on terror, fix Social Security, cut taxes and reign in government spending? Don't be silly."

"Well maybe we need to print more bad news about the War in Iraq?"

"That would be great and sure would get our readership up but unfortunately we are winning in Iraq. There isn't any blood and gore that we can put on the front page. It is so bad in Iraq that even the grave diggers are facing a recession because of the drop in body count. It is so sad. It seems our fortunes go as does the grave diggers in Iraq. Strange isn't it?"

"How about we bash Bush?"

"No, Nancy, Harry, Hillary and Barack are doing that for us. Old news!"

"Well maybe we need to go to the files and pull out the "this economy is the worst since the great depression" stories we published during the 2004 Presidential elections and reprint them?"

"No, that won't work. We have already milked the "we are in a recession" story line already. We need to be much more creative."

"I got it. Let's talk about the obscene profits made by other companies to hide the fact that we are going under?"

"That's a great idea. Let's see now, who can we pick on? I know, our favorite - big oil."

"That's a great idea. Big oil is always worth a headline or two. They make lots of money because they provide us with always available, cheap fuel to heat our homes, run our cars, our factories, our hospitals, our schools, our power plants, and keep just about everything else in the economy chugging along."

"I'll call one of our editors right now and tell him we are doing a story on big oil profits."

"Great we need the work."

The liberal media is touting the vote yesterday in the Congress to declare waterboarding as "torture", denying our President and future presidents the ability to use this technique in special circumstances.

In a local article, "Torture is torture" you hear the argument if the military doesn't allow it by their field manuals then the CIA should follow the same rules. This argument is false on its face as the two agencies have completely different missions. Consistency is not a compelling reason to take the option off the table. National security is a critical reason to leave it on the table.

The second argument used by the liberal media, the ACLU, anti-torture proponents and Senator John McCain is the "reputation of the United States is hurt" or we lose the moral high ground. Both of these arguments assume that our terrorist enemies follow some code, some form of rule of law, the Geneva Convention or international law when it comes to torture. They do not. Terrorists do not care about the moral high ground or the rule of law. Both are anti-thematic to their goal, which is the destruction of the West.

Islamic militants are fighting a total war and demand the unconditional surrender of the West. We are fighting a limited war and Congress is trying to take a key technique in fighting the war on terror off the table. We are losing the war on terror by default.

President Bush, understanding the enemy and the threat, has said he will veto the bill passed by the Congress. We hope that the Senate sustains his veto. They must, for their primary role is to protect our citizens, not to be politically correct.

The article we referenced above asks, "Why veto a bill making that conclusion clear to American agencies and the world?"

Our answer to this rhetorical question: waterboarding is the nuclear option to prevent the killing of innocent American men, women and children. Remember 9/11.

You never take the nuclear option off the table, ever. That is good national security policy, sends a signal to our enemies that they may be subjected to this technique and allows our intelligence services the option to use it in those unique situations when you have captured someone with critical times sensitive information, like knowledge of the imminent detonation of a nuclear weapon.

For more discussion of waterboarding please visit our columns, "Lets be nice to terrorists who want to kill us", "Democrats knew about waterboarding in 2002 and didn't object", and The CIA Interrogation Tapes and the "Judicializing" of Warfare.

Update: There is a great article titled, "A Few Minutes Well Spent" by the National Review Online about waterboarding. We recommend you read it. It points out that, " Less than five minutes. That's the total amount of time the United States has waterboarded terrorist detainees. How many detainees? Three."