This morning the main headline in my local newspaper, The Press-Enterprise (Inland Southern California), read: Worse seen for unstable Iraq. Then the article's title/caption read: REPORT: U.S. Intelligence officials say the country's leaders "remain unable to govern effectively."

The New York Times posted a similar story with the headline: Report Raises Strong Doubt About Iraqi Government, describing Iraq's government as being paralyzed and unable to take advantage of the security gains achieved by the thousands of extra American troops dispatched to the country this year.

[about now I would expect the sound of an abruptly scratched record/LP - that's one of those round black discs that plays music on record players/turntables for you young'ns]

Did the New York Times in this article admit the surge is working?

Ah, but that's one of the points of this post. Since the military surge led by General Patraeus is obviously succeeding in lessening the violence level in Iraq, the liberal media and their cronies for defeat are in a mad scramble for a new strategy to convince America that Iraq is a disastrous defeat. But how, they asked themselves, can we still portray Iraq as a doom and gloom scenario when the surge is working?

The Liberal mainstream media has decided that since the military successes in Iraq keep piling up faster than they can handle they must begin chopping at the political end of the deal. In other words, do what they can to destroy the integrity of the government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as well as hammer on the weaknesses of the fledgling democracy.

Has the Liberal media lost their minds? Or forgotten the lessons of history for that matter?

Unfortunately, the answer to the first question is "Yes" and "They lost their marbles a long time ago." From a historical point of view they seem to forget that the United States of America took a long time to become a democracy, and we are still tweaking the system. The American Revolution on its own took eight years to reach its completion, and even then, our battle for democracy was far from over. The U.S. Constitution wasn't officially adopted until 1789, six long years after the end of the Revolutionary War.

In other words, the wheels of democracy grind slowly, and it takes time to establish such a government. We can't expect Iraq to stabilize overnight. Impatience is not the answer. Abandoning the nation after freeing them from Saddam Hussein's iron fist is not the right thing to do, nor the wise thing to do from any direction you look at it. The stakes are high in that region, and our National Security has a vested interest in the success of a democratic Iraq.

Iran neighbors Iraq to the north, and Iraq is currently (of course the mainstream media won't tell you this) being shelled by Iran along Iraq's northern border. Iran has massed thousands of troops along that border in preparation for a ground assault against Kurdish fighters (who have long acted as allies with the American Forces). This is not only a violation of Iraq's sovereignty which has been guaranteed up to this point by American presence in that country, but it is a message that Iran is willing to come against the 16,000 American Troops in Iraq.

First, nuclear aspirations, and now Iran pulls this stunt? The writing is on the wall, folks. Cut and run would be disastrous.

As the mainstream media is crying for us to pull out, the enemy is positioning itself so that it may destroy the fledgling democracy in Iraq. And if we continue to listen to the Left and if we decide not to protect Iraq's New Democracy, continue to spew propaganda against her via our wonderful liberal (Marxist?) press, and do nothing about the threats being offered by Iraq's neighbors, we will be sending a terrible message. The enemy will see us and our presence in the region as weak, and unwilling to protect the freedom in Iraq we have inspired. Instead, after all that we have accomplished, Iran will launch a massive massacre against Iraq that will eventually spill over into Israel, and then into The West.

History has shown that weakness and the unwillingness to take these radicals serious in the Mid-East is always answered with death. In 1990 it became increasingly clear that Saddam Hussein was planning to invade Kuwait, attack Israel, and draw the world into a new Middle East war. Saddam Hussein said so in his speeches, claiming that it was his goal to destroy half of Israel with chemical weapons.

How did the American media respond to these threats?

Time magazine on June 11, 1990 chalked Saddam up as a loud, dangerous leader that really poses nothing to seriously worry about, saying specifically "Saddam is not likely to do anything that would jeopardize his standing either in Iraq or in the Middle East." On July 2nd of 1990 The Washington Post declared "New Middle East War Seen Unlikely." And just days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait the London Times headlined that "Experts Believe Iraq Will Stop Short of Invasion." (Page 45 EPICENTER by Joel Rosenberg). And if anyone challenged the notion by saying something like "Doesn't all the evidence add up to an invasion?", in Joel Rosenberg's words the sophisticated, intellectual, enlightened response was, "Of course not, you uneducated moron."

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces began moving across the Kuwaiti border. In 1991 Iraq launched 39 SCUD missiles at civilian targets in Israel.

And what was the media's response? Accusations. The press accused the Defense Department of being blindsided by the Iraqi invasion - just as they did regarding 9/11.

Lesson from history?

When tyrants say they plan to do their bidding "by force if necessary," as Hitler proclaimed, or consider a million deaths to be no more than a statistic as Stalin quipped, or indicate that Israel's destruction is near as Ahmadinejad from Iran proclaimed recently, we best take them seriously.

On my radio show last Wednesday I asked my callers on the air if they truly believed that Islam could make good on their threat to dominate the world. The answer was a resounding "Yes."

Go to my Political Pistachio Radio Blog to see what's coming up on future programs.

Those of you that are longtime listeners of my radio show will recognize Gary as the author of the book, Playing With The Enemy. The following is an e-mail he sent me yesterday that touched my heart, and I expect it will touch yours as well.

- - - I didn’t know Andy Lancaster but I now know of him. He is evidenced all over and around the small community of Stockton, Illinois. As Arlene and I approached the tiny community of 2000, nestled in the rolling hills of the northwestern part of our state, we began seeing flags posted along the road. As we passed the high school, the flags had yellow ribbons attached to them, which made me believe for a moment they were anticipating the return of their favorite son from the military. It occurred to me that he must have done something heroic to warrant such a reception. Then we came across the sobering sign at Stockton High School which read, "Memorial Services for Sergeant Andrew W. Lancaster Friday August 17 at 7:00 PM."

Andy Lancaster was returning to his home of Stockton, Illinois, but the glow of his smiling face will not be seen other than in the photographs he left behind. Sergeant Andrew W. Lancaster was killed in Iraq by an improvised exploding device (IED) along with three of his fellow Americans.

There will be many things said of the passing of this young man. Some will say he died in vain for a country of strangers who did not want or appreciate his help. Others will say he gave his life in the name of freedom as our nation reaches out in support of another. Regardless of your belief, it is important to note that this boy died in the uniform of our country and did so in the line of his duty. He gave his life while in the volunteer service of our country. He is not a political football that should be passed in an effort to score points for one belief or another. He was someone’s son and brother. His sacrifice should never be forgotten and always appreciated.

I did not know Andy but I mourn his loss. After spending twenty-four hours in his hometown, the sadness has permeated my soul and I am strangely taking his loss personally. Before driving to Stockton for a family reunion, I had never heard of Andy, but now I will never forget him. Arlene and I pray that his family and friends will someday be able to understand and reconcile the loss of someone they loved with how and why he died.

Andy, you are a hero to us all. I am so very sorry I will not have the chance to meet you. I have met the people of your town and I hope you pass knowing how much they truly love you.

To all who read this, please take a moment to pray for those who wear the uniform of our country. Pray for their safety and security … and also pray for Andy, his family and the people of Stockton, IL who loved him.

Why am I writing this? I don’t know. I feel so compelled to introduce Andy to as many people as I can who may otherwise never know him. I want to share his name with as many people possible. Although I never met him in person, the people of his town have introduced me to Andy and I am grateful.

Will you also share his name with someone today? Tell someone that you want to introduce them to a true American hero and his name is Andy Lancaster.

Gary W. Moore
www.playingwiththeenemy.com

However, today the text of the e-mail I received from this unknown sender: "Are you aware that your opinion about Muslims is THE EXACT SAME that Hitler had towards the Jews? And don't give me that "Muslims are the Nazis of our time" sh** that you Freepers come up with - it's not like your kind likes the Jews anyway," caught my attention.

It did not catch my attention because it was something new. I get this kind of stuff a lot from The Left. And believe me, I realize this is dangerous responding to such an e-mail, and I realize that I am essentially feeding this kind of idiocy by even giving it the dignity of a response that it hardly deserves. However, because of how common this kind of liberal attack is, I decided to address one of them.

Funny thing is, the Muslims even disagree with that statement regarding who is more like Nazis, as indicated by the photo above and below. They are more than happy to equate themselves with Nazis.

Now, let's get something straight. Not all residents of these Muslim countries are members of the enemy group. In fact, I heard on the documentary, Epicenter (based on the book by Joel Rosenberg) that conversion to Christianity in Iran is at an all-time high! But, my opinion about Muslims that wish to wage Jihad, and destroy Israel, and bring about the demise of The West is hardly Hitleric. In fact, my opinion towards this enemy is akin to that of Roosevelt and Churchill towards Nazi Germany. Let me help you understand. My attitude toward these people is not hate. It is the realization that if we don't defend ourselves, they will kill us. Simple as that.

Understand, the ultimate goal of this war against terror is the protection of the United States of America. Iraq is merely a battle in this war. Since the surge has been put into place progress has been made in numerous ways. As progress is being made against the insurgents, tribal leaders are realizing we are the ones that can be trusted, and less American lives are being lost as stability in a number of provinces is being attained.

Is this battle in Iraq related to our war against terror? Al Qaeda seems to think so.

But why invade Iraq? What did they have to do with 9/11?

Iraq had more to do with 9/11 than the media will tell you. Much of their involvement was indirect; training, and financial support. But realize, we did not invade the people of Iraq, we invaded Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Could you imagine a world today with Saddam still in power?

In addition to all of the known reasons for not abandoning Iraq (bloodbath, regional instability should we leave, etc.) is the location of Iraq. The nation is at the heart of where terrorism breeds and from where terror strikes from. And, due to the location of Iraq, our presence there serves as a buffer between the nations bent on a new Holocaust, and our allies in Israel.

I do not like war. I do not like the fact that our troops must fight on foreign shores. But as a military veteran I understand that such wishes of peace do not jive with the reality we find ourselves in. Peace, due to the fact that the world contains a lot of evil in it, can only be secured through strength - and action if necessary. Reality dictates that remain in the region, and even if you are against our presence in the region, you know as well as I do that a sudden withdrawal would create nothing less than an all-out blood bath orchestrated by al Qaeda (who has a great interest in the region). Remember, Iran, whose leader (Ahmadinejad) is convinced that he must create an Armageddon type scenario in order to free Islam's 12th Imam, and Syria (who has a history of links to terror in the region) wish us to pull out as well. Since when should we bow down to the wishes of the enemy?

Oh, yeah, Hollyweird does (i.e. visits with Castro and Hugo Chavez).

So which is it? Are we proud Americans striving for victory? Or are we doom and gloomers ashamed of the fact that we have it so good in this country?

Personally, I prefer victory.

Added note: The blogger at http://www.rightontheright.com/ is raising money to try to get to the Gathering of Eagles event coming up next month in Washington D.C. - Pay him a visit and donate a few bucks. He promises to give us a good report about his trip on Political Pistachio Radio after he returns, by the way, so we gotta get him there. :)

Former Vice President Al Gore, the guru of the Global Warming Lies, has decided that big corporations are paying for research that creates propaganda to dispute the "scientific consensus."

What consensus? Junk science agreed upon by a bunch of liberals and Hollyweird celebrities does not make it a consensus.

Let's take Roy Spencer, for example. Roy Spencer is the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. He was also the recipient of NASA's medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite based temperature monitoring work. And he has come to the conclusion that Global Warming being manmade is an irresponsible position to be taking - as well as assuming that something like Katrina may have been caused by man's "carbon footprint." Listen to an interview of him at Nathan's Blog.

Okay, so apparently all scientists do not agree with Mr. Gore - Roy Spencer is one such example out of many.

"But, gosh," the liberal may say, "the horrendous weather patterns are proof enough!"

Mr. Gore has stated that Global Warming is the cause of an increase in hurricanes.

Hurricane season began June 1 of this year, and, well, where's the hurricanes? How many have we had in this horribly desperate season of hurricanes caused by Global Warming?

Exactly: NONE.

Now the global warming crowd is so confused over the inconsistency of their data that they don't know what to do!

Besides, the environment is the least of our concerns, anyway, and most folks know it. Why? Because despite what the Left is preaching, people realize that there will be no extreme impact of Global Warming in the next 50 years because man-made Global Warming does not exist. Climate temperature changes are a natural occurrence. It is now cooler than it was during Jesus' days, and cooler than when the Vikings visited Greenland back hundreds of years ago (long before SUV's, and check this out - Greenland was "Green"!).

Don't get me wrong, however. If I thought that for one minute the EPA and Gore was genuinely correct, and doing what they claim to be doing, I'd support them with everything. I do believe we should be good stewards of the planet. But what it comes down to is money and political agenda. The EPA, for example, is an agency seeking to expand its environmental extremism and broad regulatory powers while selectively ignoring science fact, and is working with left-wing groups more bent on the destruction of capitalism than on the protection of the environment.

For example, based on the rantings and ravings of Rachel Carlson claiming that DDT, an insecticide, needed to be banned because of this harmful effect and that harmful effect (primarily, she said it was carcinogenic), DDT was banned in the United States in 1972. In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences stated that "To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria."

In 2006 the United Nations World Health Organization gave DDT a "clean bill of health." Due to Carson's lack of research, millions have died from malaria. Her hysteria about the evils of DDT has killed people, just as the hysteria about Global Warming is lining the pockets of the new reverends of the Global Warming Church with plenty of cash.

The EPA has a history of wiping out whole industries and banning products on the basis of bad science and we haven't learned our lesson yet.

Al Gore is attempting to create a regulatory juggernaut fueled by his flawed science and socialistic agenda. There is no scientific consensus. The environmentalists, with their untruthful strategies, have convinced the Left of lies, and they have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Hundreds of thousands have died in the past because of the EPA's stupidity, and now more may die, and billions of dollars lost, because of the Global Warming crowd's stupidity.

And none of their dire predictions are coming true - though anytime something does happen, they sure are quick to blame it on Global Warming.

Also see my post at MyPoint on American Troops hitting Sadr City in Baghdad; and the story of a business man fighting illegal immigration at American Pundit.