This is short piece from the New York Post. I love it. It's short enought that I am just going to quote it all here.

(BTW, the author is Arnold Ahlert. I claim no credit for this article, other than copying and pasting it into my "Blog This" window.)

January 24, 2006 -- FOUR questions regarding the War on Terror that most Democrats can't — or won't — answer.

* If Iraq is the "wrong war, etc." where — exactly — should America be prosecuting the war on terror? Hint: If we capture or kill Osama bin Laden, is the War on Terror "over"?

* If all diplomatic measures fail to deter Iran's quest for nuclear capability, should the nations of the West use military force?

* If those other nations are either militarily incapable or simply unwilling to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, should the United States act unilaterally?

* If "war is not the answer" — and, as many Democrats have made clear, neither is the attempt to "democratize" the Middle East — how do you propose stop the spread of Islamo-facism?

There are serious questions — far too serious to be ignored or demagogued. The American people have a right to know what, if any, serious alternatives Democrats have for dealing with the War on Terror — before the 2006 election.

The following is a quote from the CNN article, and their TV news story. Notice something about it. There are no quotation marks around what the Attorney General said. The writer is saying what he understood the Attorney General to be saying.

"Gonzales said warrantless wiretaps had been authorized by presidents in wartime since the Civil War."

The Civil War ended in 1865.

The first recorded bi-directional telephone transmission (where both sides could hear and talk) was in 1875.

The linked article for this post is a New York Times Op-Ed piece written by Paul Bremer.

Paul Bremer was the senior civilian US official in Iraq when I arrived there. He was the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. This was the group that ran Iraq until the provisional government took over.

The article is a brief overview of his book. In the article, he owns up to his mistakes, and takes, in my opinion, well justified credit for what he did right.

I met Mr. Bremer, in passing, a couple of times during my stay in Iraq. He seemed like a nice guy, very concerned about doing the right thing; whether that was dealing with local Iraqi officials, representatives of Iraqi Non-Governmental Organizations (charities, and the like), or dealing with soldiers.

After seeing first-hand what he was trying to do, meeting him in person, and reading this article, the only thing I can fault him on is ...

Well, while he was the head of the CPA, he insisted on wearing the old Schwarzkopf desert combat boots all of the time. I have to tell you that seeing a man in a three-peice, blue pinstripe, suit with those boots, especially given the fact that the pants were a bit too short for boots, was a little strange.

On a side note, the reason I refer to the original desert combat boots that the Army issued as "Schwarzkopf" boots is that oral history has it that at the start of Desert Shield/Storm the Army had no desert combat boot, and it found that it's other issue boots weren't up to soldier's needs. The Army developed new boots, and one of the people that volunteered to test the boots to see if they met the needs of his troops was GEN Schwarzkopf. The legend has it that the General felt that if they weren't good enough for him, then they certainly weren't good enough for his troops.

I don't know how true that is. But, I do know that, as a young lieutenant, he was a part of the relief force that rescued LTG Hal Moore in Ia Drang Valley (the story of the movie, "We Were Soldiers"). His picture, leading troops in the field, is part of the book.

Great article on the cycle of American political life.

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of this web magazine, floats the idea that Amercian political life goes in two different seasons: Attention, and Inattention.

The middle of this article gives the best explanation for Ronald Reagan's success at the polls that I have ever read.

If you remember, Reagan completely blindsided the Democrats. They could not begin to fathom how he had the success that he had.

He did it by out "Democrat-ing" the Democrats.

Then, he pulls the discussion to the present, and into the terms of the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito.

Keep in mind, this is important stuff. Alito, if confirmed, Justice Roberts, both, have the potential to radically affect American life for close to the next 30 years. Supreme Court Justices serve from the time they are appointed until they resign or die.

Think back 30 or so years. That would be about the time of Roe v. Wade (the legalization of abortion), and the abolition of organized prayer in public schools. Issues we are still debating and fighting about today.

Further back, it was the courts, not the President or Congress that did away with segregation.

The Supreme Court only has 9 members, and we are seeing 2 seats change in just a few months. If the 2 new guys can get 3 of the others, any 3 of the others, to agree with them on a given issue, they can dominate the court ... for 20-30 more years.

This is important stuff that deserves our attention. We need to pay attention not only to what Alito tells the Senate, but what the Senate asks him, and what they allow him to answer.

Remember the hearings are supposed to be about what Alito will do on the bench, not what a Senator thinks, or wants to pontificate about.

This is a great article.

The author has a great understanding of what he is talking about. He defected from Communist Czechoslovaka at the age of 19.

He reminds us of our not too distant past to help us understand our present situation, in regards to the hate that the Muslim fundamentalists display towards us.

We would do well to remember, however, that this is not the first time America is the object of such hatred. Not even fifteen years ago, we were maligned in much the same way by the Soviets and their allies who treated us daily to hefty doses of seemingly boundless malevolence.

Give it a good read.

First of all, let me thank Teresa for my "Adopt-A-Soldier" membership to Rush Limbaugh's website. I am loving getting to read Rush's daily source material, among other things.

The link for this post is from an editorial that appeared in the New York Post. It's great.

The lead sentence is:
In yet another nod to what Democrats blithely assert is "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover," the Dow Jones Industrial Average yesterday closed above 11,000 for the first time since before 9/11.

Near the end, the writer notes that:
Total U.S. household wealth now stands at an eyepopping $51 trillion. For perspective, 10 years ago it was roughly half that.

Let's re-frame the question that the first President Bush used to get elected.

Are you better off than you were 10 years ago?

I am an enlisted man in the US Army. Supposedly, I qualify as "poor".

I'm much better off than I was 10 years ago. I have significantly less debt, and I have much more disposable income now than ever in my adult life.

How about you?

It's interesting.

First, let me say that most of my life I have identified myself as a conservative Democrat. I did vote for Clinton in '92. Thanks to various an sundry reasons owing to inconvenience with my military service, I have not voted in a Presidential election since. (BTW, my first vote ever cast was to re-elect President Reagan.)

Since the campaign to elect Bush the first time, I have found myself more and more identifying with the Republicans.

To give you an idea where all of this is coming from, over the last few weeks, Amy and I have been watching the first few seasons of West Wing on DVD. In watching this, I find myself in an interesting situation: Remembering why I was a Democrat for the Clinton years.

The political strategy that the Republican party was primarily using through the 90's is the answer. With the nomination of President Bush, the party changed, at least, their rhetoric, and many of their tactics.

The Democrats have taken them over.

Mr. Jack Kelly, the author of the article that I have linked in this title, outlines rather well how the current Democratic party is shooting itself in the foot. Give it a read. It's worth the 5-10 minutes it will take.