Joe Biden Had it Right

On the war, Joe Biden had a far more progressive approach than his new running mate, Barack Obama.  We would do well to remember the words of Sen. Biden from just little over a year ago in an interview with the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press.  Pay special attention to his reasons for going to war, and for not pulling out suddenly.  He's dead on.  He totally exonerates Bush from any wrong doing in parts of this interview, and explains the president's reasons almost better than the president himself. 

It's quite clear from reading this that the Democrats changed their position on the war from support to opposition, for political reasons only.  Biden supported this war up until he began campaigning in Iowa in 2007.  As Tim Russert accurately points out, that's when he suddenly decided the whole thing had been a big mistake.  

He and most other Democrats rightly supported the war at the time, because it's what any rational, non-suicidal American would have supported.  And most Americans did support it.  They turned against the war when the war started going poorly because they realized it had become a political issue they could use against George Bush. 

MR. RUSSERT:  So you will not vote to cut off funding for the war, period.

SEN. BIDEN:  As of today, I would not vote to cut off all funding if the funding cutoff said there can be absolutely not a single solitary American force left anywhere within Iraq within a time certain.

MR. RUSSERT:  I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. 

Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: 

• “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”
• “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat.  This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”
• “He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN:  That’s right, and I was correct about that.  He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about.  What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have [the material].  When the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloging at the United Nations saying he had X tons of X and they listed the

Barack Obama has lost 4 points in nightly polling since the Democratic Convention began two nights ago.  It's not my purpose here to follow every up and down of this campaign, or of the news in general, but rather to provide stories that support larger Conservative ideas. But this stunning poll from Rasmussen Reports shows Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama actually losing ground during the Democratic convention. This is unprecedented in recent history that a major party candidate would lose public approval points during his convention. If this trend continues it could support my view that John McCain may just win in a landslide. 

Rasmussen Reports

As the polls tell us that Americans continue to disapprove of George Bush's job skills, and as historians oddly try to predict the future by saying he will go down as the worst president in history, Americans are now showing the highest confidence in the War on Terror and the War in Iraq since the war began!  Much of Bush's disapproval ratings have been attributed to his handling of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. He has gotten no credit for the fact we haven't suffered another attack on American soil since 9/11.  Surely he would have been blamed if we had.  So, it seems only fair to give him credit for the fact we haven't.  The War in Iraq continues to go far better than expected just a year ago.  (So much for historians' abilities to predict the future)!  

I have long said history will look back on George Bush as a great hero who withstood tremendous political opposition to do what is right, and if these numbers continue to hold up, it may not be that long into the future before my prediction comes true.  

This also bodes ill for the Democrats as they have pinned all their hopes for this year's election on their opposition to the War in Iraq.  This may partially explain why Obama has slipped a point in the polls after the second night of the Democratic Convention.

Rasmussen Reports - August 27, 2008

Voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded since Rasmussen Reports began regular tracking in January 2004. Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. The previous high-water mark for optimism--52%--was reached a handful of times in September and October 2004.

Optimism about the situation in Iraq is also at an all-time high. Forty-eight percent (48%) now expect the situation in that troubled country to get better over the next six months. Only 17% expect things to get worse. In addition to being the most optimistic assessment ever recorded, these numbers reflect a remarkable turnaround over the past year. Last August, just 27% thought things were going to get better while 47% were pessimistic.

The Left is fond of saying that the U.S. is hated by the rest of the world because of George Bush.  Those on the American and European Left believe that Bush's actions against Islamic terrorists have made us extremely unpopular in the Islamic world. 

However, it turns out that the current American leadership is far more popular in the Muslim world than it is in the West.  It's ironic that a large part of the reason the Left "hates" George Bush is their belief that he has offended vast portions of the Muslim world.

But, according to this Gallup poll he has upwards of an 80% approval rating among Islamic populations in African nations.  It's interesting that in Sierra Leone 78% of Muslims approve of the Bush administration.  But in Europe it's only 20%.  In America, it's just above 30%.  But the people (Muslims) who the Left believes we are "attacking" strongly approve of our actions.  Since the Left is so fond of deferring to the views of those in less-developed nations, maybe they would be wise to check their views towards the Bush administration and bring them into a closer alignment with how Muslims around the world are thinking.  

Gallup Poll

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Approval of U.S. leadership among Muslims living in sub-Saharan Africa is higher than approval among residents in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region.

Ted Kennedy, just a few moments ago from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, said that when his brother John "thought of going to the moon, he didn't say it's too far, we shouldn't even try.  Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon."

Ironic isn't it?  Can you imagine if a modern-day Democrat was confronted with the idea of going to the moon.  Their response would be something more like:

-We can't fly our way to the moon
-No amount of effort is going to put a man on the moon THIS year!
-Going to the moon won't put food on the tables of starving babies
-Going to the moon would be a catastrophic waste of fuel
-Going to the moon will leave a huge carbon footprint that would be damaging to the environment

It's ironic that today it's Republicans who want to meet the challenges of tomorrow.  It's Republicans who want to drill for oil and become energy indepedent.  It's Republicans who want to make America a great nation again  It's Democrats who say "no way... it won't do anything to help for at least 10 years, it won't lower the price of oil anytime soon, it would harm the environemnt - we need to get off of oil anyway."

We have the Obama-supporting Teddy Kennedy asking today's Democrats to be more like his brother.  His brother who worked to make America great.  His brother who relished in taking on a new challenge.  His brother who loved America and wanted her to lead the world in every realm.  His brother who wasn't ashamed to lead an America that was powerful and great.  

In essence, we have Ted Kennedy asking his fellow Democrats to be more like Republicans!  Never thought I'd see the day! 

By George F. Will
Washington Post
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; Page A13

Richardson, auditioning to be Barack Obama's running mate, disqualified himself. Clinging to the Obama campaign's talking points like a drunk to a lamppost, Richardson said that this crisis proves the wisdom of Obama's zest for diplomacy and that America should get the U.N. Security Council "to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint." Apparently Richardson was ambassador to the United Nations for 19 months without noticing that Russia has a Security Council veto.

Asked in 1957 what would determine his government's course, Harold Macmillan, Britain's new prime minister, replied, "Events, dear boy, events." Now, into America's trivializing presidential campaign, a pesky event has intruded -- a European war. Russian tanks, heavy artillery, strategic bombers, ballistic missiles and a naval blockade batter a European nation. We are not past such things after all. The end of history will be postponed, again.

The Obama campaign informed its supporters that it would break revolutionary new ground by emailing them first when Obama made his veep selection.  So I signed up on the list, under a pseudonym of course.  I was quite disappointed to receive the email some 9 hours after everyone else knew!  But the email was very interesting.  Here is what it said:

Bobbie --

I have some important news that I want to make official.

I've chosen Joe Biden to be my running mate.

Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago.

I'm excited about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of us can't do this alone. We need your help to keep building this movement for change.

Please let Joe know that you're glad he's part of our team. Share your personal welcome note and we'll make sure he gets it.

It sounds a little terse doesn't it?  "I have some important news.... I've chosen Joe Biden."  It seemed odd that there was not a single word of praise for Joe in Obama's announcement email.  Very strange indeed.

I mentioned this to a friend who is an ardent Obama supporter.  My friend wrote back and said, "His terse announcement, what did you expect?  A lengthy discourse full of gushy language?"

Well, yes... I did!  I set out to write my friend what I thought Obama could have said, and that's when it hit me.  He couldn't say anymore than he had.  Anything else would have only served to highlight Obama's own weaknesses. 

What is going on with the liberal media?  Are things going so swimmingly in Iraq that they're actually forced under weight of the truth to finally admit it?

This article is from the ASSOCIATED PRESS. Not exactly a Bush-supporting organization. Can you say "Helen Thomas"?  I'm sure you will join me in welcoming this most excellent news.

AP:  By Robert Burns and Robert H. Reid  – 17 hours ago
BAGHDAD (AP) — The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the "North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer". Others predicted that the entire "polar ice cap would disappear this summer".

The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year's record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here's a smaller version of the graph:

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)'s troublesome ice graph

The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)

Dennis Prager
August 19, 2008

We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion -- intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of "heretics," holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion.

What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism -- the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies.