Earlier this evening, President Bush gave an excellent speech outlining his plan for Iraq and basically dispelling the frail Democratic arguments. Here is the text of the speech. Please read it all, especially if you disagree with President Bush.

President’s Address to the Nation
The Library

	President’s Remarks view

9:01 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we’ll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We’re also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and our grandchildren.

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States, and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad — or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American — and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can, and we will, prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

END 9:21 P.M. EST

One week ago, the Pope came under scrutiny for a speech about God and reason (the full text can be found here). He begins the body of the speech by describing a dialogue during the late 14th century between “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.” The excerpt in contention was this:

“[The emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

But the most unreasonable thing was the reaction to the Pope’s speech. Many Muslims were apparently offended for being linked with violence by an emperor from the 14th century. That is understandable; I wouldn’t like it either. But I don’t firebomb churches while insisting I am non-violent.

The point that Islam is linked with violence, whether or not the Pope intended to mean that, has been proven time and time again by the very people who most vehemently contest it.

Last Friday, I attended an Operation Completion rally at the Sacramento capitol with my sister and dad. Operation Completion’s mission is “to provide constructive support for our troops and reinforce the mentality that we need to defend America and to support the War on Terror to Victory.” All of the rallies were planned by teens and youth.

At the rally, my family listened to songs performed by the Right Brothers, who have been promoted by Hugh Hewitt, and who play what they describe as “political, issue-based country music.” The speakers included a man who spoke about his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Californian politician, among others. Also, fellow Western Alliance member Craig DeLuz acted as the MC.

But anyways, Operation Completion will hold a series of rallies all over the country, so please click here to see if there is one near you to support our armed forces and conservative youth.

Over the past two months, there has been a frenzy of media attention over the takeover of P&O (a London-based company) by Dubai Ports World (a United Arab Emirates company). This was suddenly ended when the company agreed to sell their American operations to an American shipping company.

Both Republican and Democratic politicians have been outspoken in opposition to allowing Dubai Ports World to operate the former P&O terminals. In a poll of 1000 American adults, only 17% agreed with the Dubai Port deal. These 17% are the smart ones.

But let’s compare the opposing arguments with the facts. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating.” However, Dubai Ports (DP) World is what is called a terminal operator. This means that DP World would only operate a few terminals in each port. In no way does any company “own” a port. The port operator is responsible for “the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). Furthermore, foreign companies already run nearly all the port terminals on the West Coast and about half of those on the East Coast. For example, Los Angeles alone has port operators from China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Denmark.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked, “Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers?” Never mind that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security. Or that U.S. Customs and Border Protection screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S. Or that “the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen’s unions” (Washington Post, 2/22), meaning that the workers will remain the same no matter who the port operator is.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine began, “When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country…” Governor Corzine should recognize that “Dubai Ports’ top executives include two Indians, a Dutchman and several Americans, including a guy who went to the University of Maryland.” (Baltimore Sun, 2/26). These people are hardly terrorist-friendly Arab government executives.

“Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”, asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Again, no company is “controlling ports”. Yes, two of UAE’s 1 million citizens became hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the terrorists did store money in UAE banks. However, it is also true that the hijackers were allowed to take piloting lessons in our own country. If we rule out every country that at one time unknowingly contained terrorists, we would rule out ourselves.

Another argument is that the UAE recognized the Taliban after they seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. Yet, the UAE completely severed all ties with Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Now, UAE ports host more U.S. Navy ships than any port outside the United States. According to a government fact sheet, “[A] team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai’s ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States.” and “cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations.” Also, “The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.”

So how can our politicians be so illogical, and how can so many people be wrong? The answer is that politicians are taking advantage of our own ignorance in an election year. I mean, somehow, our politicians failed to “protect” us from dangers of the Chinese, Japanese, Danish, British port operators. That they are only against Dubai Port World, now, is absolute proof that this is not a real issue. As I have shown above, having DP World as a port operator would not lessen security in any way. Instead, it would enhance it by strengthening our alliance with the UAE, who in turn are giving us needed resources and information. Our politicians are exploiting our concerns about security, while alienating one of our best allies just because they are Arab. If you don’t believe me, then look it up for yourself. But whatever you do, don’t buy the lies.

Here’s an interesting article in the National Review. I think it sums things up quite accurately. Here’s an excerpt:

After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. They passed the Patriot Act, approved the war in Afghanistan, voted to authorize the removal of Saddam Hussein, and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wiretap intercepts of suspect phone calls to and from the Middle East.

After the anthrax scare, the arrests of dozens of terrorist cells, and a flurry of al Qaeda fatwas, most Americans thought another attack was imminent — and wanted their politicians to think the same. Today’s sourpuss, Senator Harry Reid, once was smiling at a photo-op at the signing of the Patriot Act to record to his constituents that he was darn serious about terrorism. So we have forgotten that most of us after 9/11 would never have imagined that the United States would remain untouched for over four years after that awful cloud of ash settled over the crater at the World Trade Center.

Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

From the Boston Globe-

Student’s tall tale revealed
Confesses fabricating US surveillance story
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | December 24, 2005

It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung’s ”Little Red Book” for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.

The story, first reported in last Saturday’s New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.

But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.

The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student’s house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.

”I made it up,” the professor recalled him saying. ”I’m sorry. . . . I’m so relieved that it’s over.”

The student was not identified in any reports. The Globe interviewed him Thursday but decided not to write a story about his assertion, because of doubts about its veracity. The student could not be reached yesterday.

Williams said the student gave no explanation. But Williams, who praised the student as hard-working and likeable, said he was shaken by the deception.

”I feel as if I was lied to, and I have no idea why,” said Williams, an associate professor of Islamic history. He said the possibility the government was scrutinizing books borrowed by his students ”disturbed me tremendously.”

The story stems from an incident in the fall in a history seminar on totalitarianism and fascism taught by a colleague of Williams, Robert Pontbriand. The student, who was in the seminar, told Pontbriand he had requested an unabridged copy of ”Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung” through the UMass interlibrary loan system for a research paper.

Days later, he told Pontbriand, he was stunned to get a visit by Homeland Security agents who told him the book was on a ”watch list” and asked why he wanted it. Pontbriand was appalled. ”A university is a place for the open inquiry for the truth,” he said.

The story quickly made its way around the history department, and it might have stayed on campus if The New York Times had not broken a story about President Bush’s approval of a controversial domestic spying program.

After that story, a Standard-Times reporter called Williams, who has traveled to Afghanistan for research, to ask whether he was concerned about government surveillance, Williams said.

As an afterthought, Williams said, he told the reporter about the alleged visit by the Homeland Security agents, and that became the lead of the Dec. 17 Standard-Times story.

John Hoey, spokesman for UMass-Dartmouth, said the university did not expect to take any action against the student. ”This was a conversation that took place between a student and his faculty members,” Hoey said.

Dan Rosenfeld, managing editor of the newspaper, declined to comment yesterday, saying that the paper considered it a ”competitive newspaper story.”

The university issued a statement Monday defending academic freedom, but said it had had no visits from Homeland Security agents and no record of any student seeking the Mao book through an interlibrary loan.

The student later told the professors he had requested the book at UMass-Amherst. But officials there said UMass-Dartmouth students cannot use their ID cards at the Amherst library and that all interlibrary requests are made by the libraries, not students.

A Homeland Security spokeswoman in Washington said she had no record of any interview of a UMass-Dartmouth student and pointed out that the department does not have its own agents. An FBI spokeswoman in Boston also expressed doubt.

That didn’t stop it from buzzing around the Internet and even being picked up by Kennedy, who cited it as the latest example of the Bush administration’s intrusion on civil liberties.

”Incredibly, we are now in an era where reading a controversial book may be evidence of a link to terrorist,” he wrote in an op-ed piece in Thursday’s Globe.

Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ”public reports” in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.”

First, there is no right to privacy specifically stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If the right to privacy was to be protected by the government, or in this case, seemingly protected from the government, you would think that they would have stated it, as it would be important. Now, some of you have mentioned the 4th and 5th amendments. For my reference, I will paste them below.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, I am wondering which exact part some people think contains a right to privacy, and exactly how the unspoken right to privacy has been violated.

Secondly, there is the issue of the FISA of 1978. Now, I must admit that it seems to me as though by this, the President should have gotten warrants. However, in an executive order of 1979, by Jimmy Carter, it states-

“By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at the end of that section: ”Any electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.”.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at the end of that section: ”Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.”.

Jimmy Carter.”

I must also admit that I am puzzled by how both can be conducted at once, as they seem contradicting to my inexperienced eye. But, it would seem that Bush was most definitely acting in accordance with the law, if he has attained the certifications listed above. Now, has he?

It would seem so- “The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President.”

Now, some of you are probably saying that it doesn’t matter whether it was legal or not, and that you are concerned the government is making such a “sea change.”

Well, not really. The National Review says that in “1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches “— including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens”— for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.”

Now, Clinton is probably not the best person to be an example of what to do, but I think we can agree that it is suspicious that when Clinton goes even further to have physical searches, it only makes page A-19, but Bush’s electronic eavesdropping is on the front page.

So, in summary, it would seem that Bush has acted in accordance with the law, not in violation with the Constitution, in a manner less intrusive than Clinton had in 1994, yet the front page story is “Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say.”

No, the MSM isn’t biased at all…

President Bush gave a radio address yesterday confronting the accusations of “illegal spying”. I thought I should share it in its entirety, since these allegations still continue.

THE PRESIDENT: “Good morning.

As President, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life. On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We’re fighting these enemies across the world. Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front. And since September the 11th, we’ve been on the offensive against the terrorists plotting within our borders.

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.

Since then, America’s law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.

Yet key provisions of this law are set to expire in two weeks. The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks. The terrorists want to attack America again, and inflict even greater damage than they did on September the 11th. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence officials have the tools they need to protect the American people.

The House of Representatives passed reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Yet a minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday. That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.

To fight the war on terror, I am using authority vested in me by Congress, including the Joint Authorization for Use of Military Force, which passed overwhelmingly in the first week after September the 11th. I’m also using constitutional authority vested in me as Commander-in-Chief.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.

Thank you.”

Also, Hugh Hewitt explains the legality of the surveillance-

“Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority.” Read more here.

So I might be a few days late, but I still want to comment on Iraq’s election.

Before the United States invaded, Iraq was still under the dictatorship of Saddamn Hussein. Now, however, Iraqis are able to proudly vote and elect their own government. They have gone from oppression to democracy in only close to three years. In the history of developing nations, that is amazing.

To better experience this, you can visit CNN and click on the photo galleries, and also visit Iraq the Model.

I really don’t want to just reiterate what other people have already said, so if you haven’t heard this story before, click here before you read further.

OK, my school’s political club is having this as the main topic in our meeting tomorrow, which was not my decision. I really don’t think that we will have much to discuss. The people that took the pictures and wrote the comments are obviously sick individuals, did wrong, and will be punished when found. I do, however, have some things to say about this.

1. People are already blaming Bush for it (surprise!). But did Bush take the pictures? Did Bush tell people to take the pictures? Is Bush in anyway related with the porn site?

2. Just because some soldiers have done this does not mean that all or even the majority of them are like that.

3. One of the bad things about this is that if we don’t feel like viewing the porn site ourselves, we have to rely on other people who have viewed it for our information. I myself like to be able to research and see what I am talking about, but in this case, I can’t.

4. I think that it is important to know how the Iraqis were killed and who they were killed by. Although the news organizations don’t come out and say it, their articles make it seem like the soldiers were the ones that killed them. But, for all we know, it might have been a roadside bomb.

Most of the blogs writing about this so far have been liberal, and mostly writing to Bush-bash.
Any other (conservative or liberal) comments? Please let me know if I have stated anything incorrectly.

(This post is linked to World Opinion Roundup and Majikthise.)

Eric Hogue has a blog entry about Move America Forward. In it he states, “Cindy Sheehan has no expert position. She has used the death of her own son as a soapbox to stand upon and shout her leftist ideologies at the President and our military.” I totally agree with this. Just because Cindy Sheehan’s son was in the military and was killed in Iraq DOES NOT give her indesputable insight on world politics.

The entry goes on: “Then, out of nowhere, ‘Move America Forward’ arrives to carry the water for the Cindy Sheehan story while she is licking her self inflicted wounds in Los Angles with Mommy.

MAF creates the caravan and the media ‘camera candy’, the story finds new life and Cindy Sheehan returns to her tents in Crawford with newly found emotions and victim hood.

We allowed her saga to return to life, and now she is planning a million dollar protest and rally in Washington DC for September 24th.

I disagree. I believe that the average person can see through Cindy’s false crusade. The more people hear her, the more they will dislike Cindy and her message. The only people that believe that Cindy is a heroine are ones that don’t look at the facts anyway, and won’t anytime in the future.

But what if Cindy Sheehan went unchallenged and today was remembered as a time when everyone was against the war and Bush? Move America Forward showed that this was not the case, and that many military families did support the war effort. Move America Forward let other countries know that all of the US did not have the same opinion as Cindy Sheehan. I should think that would count for something.

And, wouldn’t talking about Cindy Sheehan on a well-read blog also contribute to Cindy’s moments of fame?

I found this presentation on all of the al-Qaeda Attacks since 1998, when “the International Islamic Front declared war on us.” It’s a little eerie, but very, very interesting. It really puts things in perspective.

I know this isn’t new news, but an article in USA Today says, “Soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army’s targets, even as overall recruiting is suffering after two years of the Iraq war.” This leads me to believe that the would-be Army recruits are being discouraged by the news here at home, but the soldiers that have been to Iraq or Afghanistan and have seen the actual situation, believe in what they are doing and want to be there to finish the job.

Anyone with any other opinions on this? (Please leave a comment.)

Today I joined the “You Don’t Speak For Me, Cindy!” caravan at their stop in Sacramento. Soon afterward, I left this audio post:

As any readers (”readers” is probably wishful thinking) that listen to the news probably know, Cindy Sheehan has been using her son’s death in Iraq as a reason for the withdrawal of troops and has been demanding that President Bush talk to her. I am sympathetic to her loss, but find it very hard to stay that way for these reasons:

1. Casey, her son, voluntarily enlisted in the army, reenlisted, and “By all accounts, he was aware that his unit would be going to Iraq when he re-upped.” (from recoveringliberal.com), which means that he had a chance to “get out” and didn’t. This leads me to believe that he was not as against the war as Cindy says.
2. Soon after meeting the President after Casey’s death, Cindy said
   Quote(from article in The Reporter, Vacaville’s newspaper):”I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” I suppose that this might be very deep sarcasm, but since the rest of the article said that the Sheehans “felt whole again” and since Pat, Cindy’s husband said “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us.” , I think it was truly her thoughts. However later she changed her mind: Quote:(from CNN) “He wouldn’t look at the pictures of Casey. He didn’t even know Casey’s name,” she told CNN Sunday. “Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject.” Sheehan said she was so distraught at the time that she failed to ask the questions she now wants answered. So she was “distraught” but “felt whole again” AT THE SAME TIME. Right…
   See how the Democrats try to explain this here.
3. Cindy says quote: (from World Net Daily) “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004,” Sheehan told an audience of Veterans for Peace. “You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny. … You give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me [for back taxes] and we’ll put this war on trial.”
   You would think that Cindy would realize that part of taxes go to buy supplies for our troops. Also, Cindy was not paying her taxes in 1996 (see proof here in the Solano County records.) This leads me to believe that this was not in fact a way to protest the war, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE WAR HADN’T EVEN BEGUN THEN.
4. Casey’s family does not agree with Cindy. Cindy’s husband is divorcing her. And Casey’s aunt and godmother sent this to the Drudge Report:Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy we are breaking our silence and we have collectively written a statement for release. Feel free to distribute it as you wish.

   Thanks, Cherie

   In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan/Crawford Texas issue: Sheehan Family Statement:

   The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

   Sincerely,

   Casey Sheehan’s grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
   

5. Lastly, Cindy Sheehan is just plain whiny. In her blogs at sacramentofordemocracy.org she describes herself as “the sacrificial lamb of the peace movement” and complains about not having enough shade. But read for yourself and tell Cindy how you feel. I have left Cindy comments under the screenname “kt”. Unfortunately, she has not answered back.