President George W Bush's Speech

Highlights from Pres. Bush's speech to the American people underlining the reasons for continuing to support this War against Radical Islam.

"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"

- This is truly global and and is a threat to Western Democratic values.

"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."

- Refreshing for a leader to accept responsibility.

"there is no magic formula for success in Iraq."

- just a long and hard grind.

"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."

- Have to stop the nutters in Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

"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."

- Change the rules of engagement and get rid of the media and videos, cameras, etc, so that the troops are free to fight without their hands tied behind their backs.

"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 get rid of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

"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."

- not only the enemies in Iraq but also the Western liberal press!

"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. "

- They have been warned.

"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."

- It is time they stood up and were counted; Europe as well!

"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."

- you are so right Georgie.

"to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region."

"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."

- This will make the lily-livered Democrats and MSM whinge more.

"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."

"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."

Contrary to the image the Western media, the Democrats and all the dim-witted, outspoken "celebrities" would like us to believe, I think George has a clear understanding of what is going on and what needs to be done. He needs to be bold now and see it through.

Victory is imperative, loss to scary to contemplate.

Quite untenable for a Labour minister

Clause Four of Labour’s constitution: “It (the Labour Party) believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.”

Ruth Kelly, a Labour Education Secretary seems to have secretly turned her back on the local state school and jumped through the hoops of selection for a highly elitist school. It is horrible to pass judgment on a parent’s private decision about the education of a child, and one with special needs at that. Horrible, but important. Had Ruth Kelly not been prepared to accept public discussion of her decision to send her son to a private school, she could have chosen to pursue an alternative career. She could have resigned from the Government at least, if not from her seat and the Labour Party.

All parents who move their children from state schools to private education breach the above principle in the most fundamental way. Each time an articulate, ambitious parent removes his or her child — and therefore the parent as well — from the state system Labour holds that it damages the chances of every child that remains in the local school and therefore nowhere would “our common endeavour” be more important than in joining forces to improve outcomes in individual schools. And that is what should be central to all that a democratic socialist stands for, because a good educational start offers the key to everything else; it is opportunity. Nothing else comes close.

When influential people in public life send their children to private schools, and feel guilty about it, they stop campaigning to improve education, not because they do not care about the life chances of the rest of the country, but because they fear they have no answer to the accusation: well, why don’t you send your kids there, then? If you believe in “the strength of our common endeavour”, there is no defence.

The true answer is "I put my child’s interests before my political convictions". Which is tricky if you are a Labour supporter or member but even worse if you are the Labour Education Secretary who, while still in post, seems to have secretly turned her back on the local state school. If breaching the most fundamental principle Labour holds is not enough Ms Kelly should resign because this Labour Government removed from other children of poorer families the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of private education by withdrawing the Assisted Places Scheme. It even withdrew assisted places funding for children already receiving it, when they moved from primary to secondary level, despite initially promising not to.

Nor did she campaign to improve special needs provision in the state sector.

This is the hypocrisy of Labour.

Britons held in Somali clash

TimesOnLine reports that at least seven Britons are said to have been picked up as they fled with fighters from the Islamic movement when they were forced out of the capital, Mogadishu. The men, all carrying British passports and including one said to have been badly wounded, are reportedly being held by Ethiopian troops.

Last week, the voice of al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was posted on a website used by Islamic militants encouraging sympathisers from the West to join a campaign of suicide bombings and guerrilla warfare in Somalia.

The role of the British fighters was disclosed yesterday by Meles Zenawi, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, whose troops led the attacks that routed the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC). The UIC denies that it has links with al-Qaeda.
Mr Meles said that the Britons were found among units of the Islamic militia as well as Canadians and other Westerners in what he described as an “international brigade”. He went on to say that photographs had been taken and passports from different countries had been collected and that they had injured people coming from Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan and the United Kingdom.”

In an interview Mr Hussein, the deputy Prime Minister, identified Britain as a “major source of funding for the Islamic militants”. He said that his Government “wants to open negotiations with Somali refugees — particularly in London”, who, he claims, are the main channel of funding for the UIC.

A recent report by a United Nations monitoring group said in November that “in recent months fund raising by the Somali diaspora in the UK has resulted in donations through the hawala [banking] system of an estimated $1.1 million”. The report added that another $300,000 (£150,000) came from Somali families in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. To Britain, however, the movement of militants is of far greater concern than the flow of cash.

British security authorities have been trying to keep a watch on the handful of British jihadists of Somali and East African backgrounds who have been smuggled into terror training camps in the jungles and swamps along the border with Kenya. Western agents have been unable to infiltrate these networks.

10-knot speed limit for inner Waitemata Harbour

The Harbourmaster has announced a proposed 10 knot speed limit for all vessels, except for ferries, emergency and police vessels and racing yachts, in Auckland's Waitemata Harbour.

There is a regular harbour 5 knots speed rule for when within 200m of the shore or within 50m of another boat already in existence which is not policed and creating another law is going to do nothing to prevent accidents happening on the harbour. Uneducated or uncaring boaties are the problem. The owners of large displacement launches must be made aware of the dangers that their wake causes to small craft, speeding vessels their danger to hard-to-see kayakers and all users must be aware of and bound by the "rules of the road" (the colregs) at sea.

Stop wasting your time making new regulations - just police those in existence.

The Consequences of Failure in Iraq

A thought provoking dissertation on the consequences of America withdrawing from Iraq written by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Read the full article at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/147ltxge.asp?pg=1

“Don’t quit the day job, Nancy”

Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans have a favorable opinion concerning the nation's new Speaker of the House. The first woman to serve in that role, Nancy Pelosi (D) earns favorable reviews from 45% of women and 41% of men. ...

President Bush's approval rating from the same poll ....... 45%

EYEING IRAN

New York Post January 6, 2007 -- Word that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command - responsible for the Middle East - while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media.
Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?
There's a one-word answer: Iran.
Assigning a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
Only the U.S. Navy - hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us - could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

And--While Congress obsesses on Iraq and Iraq alone, the administration's thinking about the future. And it looks as if the White House is preparing options to mitigate a failure in Iraq and contain Iran. Bush continues to have a much-underrated strategic vision - the administration's consistent problems have been in the abysmal execution of its policies, not in the over-arching purpose.

At last some sense in the MSM in the USA, now we just need the Dimocrats to buy into the evil of Iran.

With the Israelis 'leaking' their plans to 'nuke' Iran's uranium enrichment, and now with the 'Allies' moving their big toys into position, there might just be some backtracking by those infantile wogs. This time America must complete the job - not like in Gulf War 1 and have to return.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/eyeing_iran_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

From Times On Line.

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”

I should hope that Israel has always had these plans to use their "non-existent" nukes on Iran to prevent madman Ahmadinejad loose with his fissile toys, and that they can stand upto America and their Democrat majority. Maybe if Iran saw that Israel was serious about their use if necessary, they would take a step back and stop production. Unfortunately they know that America is not going to let Israel use tactical nukes, and they are going to continue thumbing their collective nose at the West and the UN.
I'm glad that I don't live there.