In years past, a potential Presidential candidate had plenty of time to introduce him or herself to the public between election seasons. But with many states moving their primaries up to bolster their importance in the 2008 Presidential race, nominees will be determined nearly a year before the election takes place. The "common wisdom" says that a candidate who's not already well-known by the primaries can't win a general election. That may have been true when the primaries were held only a few months ahead of the general election, but ignoring good, solid candidates in favor of those whose main qualification is media-driven popularity would be a mistake.

Do we really want to throw serious Conservative candidates under the bus in favor of "star power?" Since the Republicans dumped Conservative Tom McClintock because moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger was a "sure win" in the 2003 recall election, California's Governator has moved so far Left that Grey Davis might as well have been left in charge. Sure, the man's got an "R" after his name, but letters don't make policies -- people do. Now weak-willed Republicans propose to make the same mistake on a larger scale.

The election of our President should not be reduced to the level of a popularity contest. We're not electing homecoming king of the local high school, but the leader of the free world. A serious party should put forth a serious candidate -- one who represents the best that party has to offer. Yet I fear that the Republican party is being driven towards candidates whose only recommendation is name recognition, regardless of their qualifications or policies.

Very few of the candidates whose names have been tossed about are real Conservatives. The recent straw poll taken at the big GOP conference in South Carolina mostly returned a list of people who should be considered too weak on important issues to run for President. Ron Paul, for instance, voted for a non-binding resolution that would proclaim to our troops and our enemies that Congress does not support (but will not stop) General Petraeus' plan to quell the sectarian violence in Baghdad. Sam Brownback voted to give amnesty-by-another-name to illegal aliens, and allow them to collect Social Security benefits while working illegally. Mitt Romney was staunchly in favor of allowing abortion as recently as 2002, but changed his position when he began to consider a Presidential run. Wrong on Iraq, wrong on illegal immigration, wrong on abortion... and the "popular candidates" who took the top two slots are no more worthy of sitting in the Oval Office.

Arizona Senator John McCain is not the man for the job. Not only is he is soft on the treatment of captured terrorists (possibly projecting his own experiences as a POW in Vietnam), but he actually authored a bill that would grant captured enemy fighters the same Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed to American citizens and protected by the same American soldiers they're trying to kill. McCain headed the infamous "Gang of 14" that usurped the power of the majority in the Senate, allowing Democrats to prevent President Bush from appointing originalist judges. The McCain-Kennedy bill that would effectively grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens (and was only temporarily thwarted by House Republicans, now in the minority)  should all by itself prevent him from considering a Presidential run. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law violated the First Amendment by removing our right to open political speech just before an election -- when such speech is most needed -- and unleashed the madness of 527 groups. McCain even tried to slip a light version of the industry-destroying Kyoto Protocols into a bill he co-authored with Joe Lieberman. Like Mitt Romney, McCain has both supported and opposed abortion in the past. Flip-flopping is nothing new to him, however, as he did the same on the Bush tax cuts.

Nor is former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani any better. Although he seems tough on terrorism and crime -- both of which should be a matter of course for any Republican, not cause for surprise -- he is as Liberal as it gets on almost every other issue. Giuliani is pro-abortion -- a deal-breaker for most Conservatives -- and anti-gun, citing gun control instead of aggressive prosecution of criminals as the reason for the drop in crime during his tenure. His stance on gay "marriage" is ambiguous at best, and he once sued the federal government when he was blocked from prosecuting city employees who helped the INS catch illegal immigrants. Giuliani claims to favor originalist judges like Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas, but the record shows that he appointed Liberal Democrats to judicial positions by a factor of eight to one.

The only potential Republican candidate who can be called a real Conservative is California Representative Duncan Hunter. His voting record shows him to be on the right side of all the issues: he's pro-life, pro-gun, strong on border control and national defense, tough on America's enemies and someone who stands solidly behind our military. NARAL and the ACLU hate him, while FAIR and the NRA like him. He favors a balanced budget, and is the only potential candidate who seems to have noticed China's military buildup at our expense. Hunter came in third in the South Carolina straw poll, in a statistical tie with McCain and Giuliani, indicating that he does have the potential to win the nomination. He recently won a similar straw poll in Arizona -- McCain's home state. Hunter's recent duty as chairman of the Armed Services Committee would prove invaluable to a wartime President. His own experience as an Army Ranger in Vietnam (during which he was awarded a Bronze Star), and the fact that his son did two tours in Iraq, would also serve him well. Duncan Hunter looks like the answer to the Leftward slide that cost the Republicans their majority in both Houses of Congress in 2006.

If the Republicans put forth a moderate media darling like McCain or Giuliani instead of a sincerely Conservative candidate like Duncan Hunter, they will have proven that they no longer espouse Conservative values and ideals. Should the party that once propelled Ronald Reagan to two electoral landslides fear to promote a man who espouses Reagan's policies because he lacks a benediction from the fourth estate? That's the question upon which hangs the future of the Republican party.

So President Bush puts the Army's top expert on counter-insurgency in charge of our forces in Iraq, and begins sending him additional troops to help pacify Baghdad. The politically-correct "rules of engagement" that have prevented the troops from doing their jobs effectively are lightened. Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader is reportedly wounded, and his deputy killed. Moqtada al-Sadr suddenly remembers a pressing engagement in Iran, hikes up his robes and runs for the border.

In the meantime, Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes special television appearances to predict that America will soon run away from his friends in Iraq, stating that we "will be the principal loser in the region." Al-Qaeda releases tapes gleefully predicting America's imminent withdrawal. How do Democrats respond -- by showing solidarity with the Commander-in-Chief and backing an American victory in Iraq? Of course not. Instead, Democrats respond to the new push not by working to help America prevail, but by doing everything humanly possible to make our enemies' wishes come true.

Most Democrats in Congress and even some Republicans have decided to lose the fight in Iraq against insurgents, Iran-backed thugs, Ba'ath party loyalists and al-Qaeda agents -- there's no other way to put it. However, they lack the guts to simply halt funding for the war, which would be their duty if they truly thought the battle was lost. Some 40 years ago, a Democrat-controlled Congress pulled funding in order to throw the Vietnam War even as we were winning -- as was their right under the Constitution -- and they paid a well-deserved political price for it. This time, they will attempt to kneecap the President and force defeat on our troops while avoiding responsibility and the ensuing political fallout.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a "non-binding resolution," one that carries no force of law. The pointless resolution demanded that the President not send additional troops to Iraq, although that is our best chance to prevent the entire country from being taken over by thugs and killers from Iran and al-Qaeda. Instead, the President is urged to "have the Iraqi political leaders make ... political compromises" with Iran, Syria and (I suppose) al-Qaeda. What good can that possibly do anyone except the enemy?

The troops Congress doesn't want sent are already on their way. General David Petraeus, whose plan to send additional troops to stamp out the Iran-fomented unrest in Baghdad was the main reason for his appointment, was overwhelmingly approved as overall commander in Iraq by the very same politicians who now plan to undercut him. Luckily, there were enough Republicans left in the Senate desirous of victory to prevent the Democrats and the turncoat Republicans from approving a similar measure. But that was not the end of the "rush to defeat," not by a long shot.

Instead of defunding the war outright, Democrats in the House will likely try to implement John Murtha's (D-PA) "slow bleed" strategy. They will try to limit the equipment, funding and reinforcements that can be sent to our troops in combat, even as the troops need those things to continue the fight. Personnel who are wounded or rotated out will not be easily replaced, nor will used or damaged weapons, ammunition, vehicles, medical supplies or clothing. We'll be lucky if the last American troops to leave Iraq don't do so hungry and ragged, throwing rocks at the enemy as they go. What Murtha and his cronies don't want you to consider is the fact that it's American troops, the troops they piously claim to support, who will be doing the bleeding and dying if his "slow bleed" plan is implemented.

The Senate is not likely to defund the military, either directly or by slowly leaching away their support. Instead, Senators who wish to lose may try to control the military by introducing bills to limit the number of troops that can be sent to Iraq, or to restrict the troops to defensive actions only. It's even possible the Democrats may try to amend the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that was voted into law in October 2002. In other words, the troops will remain fully funded, but unable to take any direct action, even armed patrols, without explicit approval from Congress. That would be in direct opposition to the Constitution, which gives the President authority to conduct war, and Congress the authority to pull funding if they feel it necessary.

Of course, the fact that we are no longer fighting Iraq, but various groups funded and supplied by outside agencies attempting to re-enslave the Iraqi people, means little to the anti-war crowd -- one fight is just like another, and all "enemies" are morally equivalent to our own troops anyway. If those politicians who still want to defeat our enemies don't filibuster any bills designed to force a compromise with them, President Bush would likely veto them -- even if the Senate ties them to appropriations in an attempt to make Bush "responsible" for defunding the troops. It's all about avoiding responsibility, while working against our own military forces in the midst of combat to make points with the Democrats' far-Left base.

Playing political games while our troops slowly run out of equipment and are unable to rotate fresh troops into Iraq as need dictates is the worst betrayal of this country ever perpetrated, including defunding the war in Vietnam. At least those politicians didn't have the consequences of previous withdrawal -- millions of deaths in southeast Asia and forty years of national pain -- to consider. It's unthinkable... and yet, if we don't think about it, that's exactly what will happen again. We may be beaten in Iraq not by our enemies, but by our own self-serving, short-sighted politicians.

UPDATE: The following list contains the names of Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted in favor of telling our troops and our enemies that Congress does not support General Petraeus' effort to stop the violence in Baghdad:

Mike Castle (DE)
Howard Coble (NC)
Tom Davis (VA)
John Duncan (TN)
Phil English (PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Bob Inglis (SC)
Timothy Johnson (IL)
Walter Jones (NC)
Ric Keller (FL)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Steven LaTourette (OH)
Ron Paul (TX)
Tom Petri (WI)
Jim Ramstad (MN)
Fred Upton (MI)
Jim Walsh (NY)

Once a potential Presidential candidate has passed muster on National security, Iraq, the War on Terror, judges and the border -- issues which are most directly under the President's control -- we can examine his or her positions on issues of the second tier. These issues are certainly no less important than those of the first tier, but part of the responsibility for dealing with them devolves upon Congress. A Conservative candidate will need to work with Congress to advance his positions on second tier issues.

Tier 2 Issues: Taxes, entitlements, spending, health care and moral issues

By now, no one can fail to have noticed that the Bush tax cuts have energised the economy. Investments are up, inflation is down, unemployment is as low as it can reasonably be and the deficit was cut in half three years earlier than predicted. But the tax cuts will all have expired by 2010, effectively raising taxes and having the opposite effects on the economy. The candidate must understand that reducing taxes and decreasing government interference and control will spur the growth of small businesses, increase available jobs, allow people to spend more of their own money as they see fit, and actually increase government revenues. A potential President must be committed to making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and even lowering taxes further. (Anyone who mentions the Laffer Curve probably has the right idea.)

The flip side of taxes is spending. It's not cutting taxes that causes deficits and government debt; it's overspending. Big government entitlement programs make more people dependent on the government to take care of them, instead of encouraging them to provide for themselves. A Conservative candidate needs to take a hard look at reforming programs like Medicare and Social Security, which will eventually force taxes higher and ruin the economy. The old Chinese adage says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." A Conservative candidate would rather see programs teaching people to fish than handing out "free" fish at taxpayer expense -- if the federal government must be involved at all. A helping hand is one thing, but a cradle-to-grave nanny state quite another. He must also be committed to cutting down on earmarks and other forms of "pork," which have been abused to the point of perversion.

One of the worst forms of entitlement touted by the Left is "free" government health care. A Conservative candidate has to realise that nearly any service run by the federal government will be unresponsive to the needs of the people, mired in bureaucratic rules, slow to perform, rife with corruption and waste, and staffed by petty time-servers whose main concern is covering their own rears. Washington bureaucrats should not make anyone else's health decisions. Only the free market can provide responsive, swift service to its customers. The main health care issue a prospective President needs to address is cost -- and that won't be solved by transferring it to the taxpayers.

Moral issues cover a wide range of fronts on which Conservatives see traditional values under attack. Abortion on demand, gay "marriage," federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, soft sentences for child predators, gun control, the removal of Christianity from public life... the list goes on and on. Most Conservatives see more than one of these issues as "deal breakers" for a Presidential candidate. All other things being more or less equal, this is what a vote comes down to for many Conservatives. The "values voters" came out in droves for President Bush in 2004, but abandoned the wayward Republican Congress in 2006. A Conservative candidate for President must be solidly on the side of the traditionalists, or he might as well not bother trying for the nomination. Any who have recently altered their views need to explain just what happened to cause the shift, and convince voters that they won't reverse themselves again. That will be a hard sell to jaded, wary Conservatives. With Congress currently controlled by the Left, the danger of electing a "Trojan horse" is just too great.

Tier 3 Issues: Personalities and personal problems

There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. That being said, any candidate whose moral values are seriously questionable would not make a good President, nor would one so wrapped up in his personal issues that it affects his attention to the job. Although such issues are of less concern than those of the first or second tier, they are not easily dismissed. Likability and a sense of humor are also essential to the Presidency, and those qualities will be rigorously tested during the coming long campaign. Veteran campaigners who have previously run for national office may have an edge. 

Finally, leadership qualities are always important to a President who wants to move his agenda through Congress, and especially so in a time of war. A candidate for President must exhibit confidence in and hope for the future, and dedication to the preservation of the values and qualities that have made this nation great.

See also: A Conservative Candidate, part 1

With 2007 barely begun, the 2008 Presidential race is already heating up. Every time I turn on the news, awash in stories of Presidential candidates, I get the urge to check my calendar to make sure we didn't skip a year. Not all of those who will run have announced their candidacy, and not all of those who have announced will still be under consideration a year from now. Perhaps this is the time, before things really get going, to consider what we should look for in a Conservative candidate. Personalities aside, what's really important is a candidate's stance on the issues we will continue to face during his or her tenure.

It's difficult to decide, since some people consider some issues more important than others. If a candidate is for X but against Y, is he equally acceptable as one who is for X and Y, but against Z? What's needed is some way for us each to "rank" issues in order of importance, so we can attempt to divine the acceptability of each candidate. Of course, that assumes every candidate is being honest about his or her position on each issue... and trusting the honesty of a politician is like trusting the dog not to eat your steak dinner while you're out. (Then again, dogs can be trained. I'm not so sure about politicians.) Perhaps the "conventional wisdom" that Senators and Representatives don't get elected to the highest office is due to the fact that so many change their positions in order to run. A voting record, such as one can find at Project VoteSmart or OnTheIssues, would actually be an asset for a candidate who is not misrepresenting his or her positions.

Tier 1 Issues: National security, Iraq/the War on Terror, judges and the border

The most important issues with which we will continue to deal for the foreseeable future are the War on Terror, the battle in Iraq, and border control (an essential part of national security). Anyone who aspires to be President of the United States must be aggressive on offense and tough on defense. The candidate should be perfectly willing to listen to phone calls made by (or to) known terrorists without asking permission, as an essential part of intelligence gathering. He must be ready to interrogate captured enemies aggressively, even if the New York Times says bad things about him. He has to face the fact that we are a nation at war.

President Bush seems to have finally gotten the message that our military must be allowed to take the fight to the enemy in Iraq, instead of trying to win hearts and minds while terrorist bombs are exploding in marketplaces on a daily basis. His successor should be inclined to continue that policy. Running away -- abandoning our allies and our responsibilities -- is not an option. If we allow Iraq's fledgling democracy to fail by our own spinelessness, the entire Middle East and most of the world will convulse in a spasm of anti-Western violence, and we will be unable to do anything about it.

In the larger war, the conflict with Iran is heating up. If it does not erupt before Bush leaves office, it will surely do so over the next few years. Iran must not be allowed to dominate the Middle East with the threat of nuclear weapons -- which they are likely to use, or give to terror groups. Our next President should have the will to do whatever is necessary to prevent them from gaining that ability, while confronting growing threats from countries like North Korea and China.

Closer to home, we need to know who is entering our country and why. Not all those who cross our wide-open borders are well-meaning folk who just want to work hard and raise a family, whatever illegal alien apologists may say. Whoever follows President Bush must not continue his lax border policies, but should build a fence on our southern border, deploy UAVs to track illegals both north and south and crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants.

The candidate must understand that the Supreme Court's main job is to ensure that the rulings of lower courts do not violate the Constitution. The judiciary was not created to write the laws, create rights or mandate policy, and certainly not to alter the meaning of the words in the Constitution to suit an agenda. Kelo v. New London, in which the very meaning of the phrase "for public use" was changed to allow local governments to transfer private property to new owners who might generate more tax revenue, was perhaps the worst moment in the last three decades of Supreme Court history. Ignoring the fact that the McCain-Feingold Act blatantly violated the First Amendment by placing strict limits on political speech was a close second. Federal judges should not misuse their power to tell state legislatures how to write laws, allocate money or impose cultural decisions. A President should only nominate judges to any bench who are either originalists or constructionists -- not activists of any kind.

If any Presidential candidates meet the criteria for first tier issues -- and no one should bother to run who cannot do so -- they can battle over issues of the second tier.

See also: A Conservative Candidate, part 2

There is no doubt that Darfur, the western part of Sudan, is in a horrible situation. Members of the Janjaweed milita, a radical Muslim group supported by Sudan's Arab government, roam the land killing, raping, burning and pillaging. About two million people -- blacks, either non-Muslims or not Muslim enough to suit the militias -- have fled their homes for refugee camps, where they are brutalised and terrorised on a daily basis. Approximately two hundred thousand people have been killed since February 2003, according to a study by Dr. John Hagen of Northwestern University. The Sudanese government has refused to allow the United Nations to send international troops. And the UN, tired of the violence (or perhaps unable to wring a dishonest Euro out of the situation) is considering whether to just pull out, taking with them what slim hope the refugees have left.

And so, as in any dire situation, the world turns to America for help. Activists and protesters demand that President Bush stop the genocide. Hollywood actors appear in television and print ads urging action in Darfur. When President Bush mentioned Darfur in his 2007 State of the Union address, Democrats leapt to their feet, clapping wildly. When he spoke of victory in Iraq a few seconds earlier, however, most Democrats sat in stony silence. Those on the Left keep telling us that we're not the world's police. Ideological brothers-in-arms to those who cry, "Save Darfur!" recently marched in Washington DC alongside Vietnam-era traitor Jane Fonda, denounced the President for sending troops to Iraq, spat at an Iraq war veteran on crutches and defaced the Capitol. How dare they demand he send troops to Sudan?

Besides, for what purpose should we send troops -- to simply stand between members of an Islamic militia and their victims? Liberals and their pet Democrats attack the President daily for his proposal to reinforce American troops in Iraq who (as they see things) serve only as targets for the enemy. We are constantly treated to Left-wing hand-wringing over the dangers faced by (again, in their twisted view) the "children" who were "sent by Bush to die" in a "war of choice." Time magazine recently captured the Liberal attitude in a cartoon: rows of soldierly silhouettes wearing targets on their backs, with the caption, "21,500 reasons to oppose Bush's troop surge." Yet the same people want us to send those troops to perform that function in Sudan instead?

Or are we to believe that they want those troops to remove the Arab government behind the genocide? Let us apply the "Iraq test" to the Darfur situation, to help anticipate whether Liberals would consider regime change in Sudan a "good" war or a "bad" war once it reached the limit of their short attention spans. Sudan poses no possible threat to America. Sudan never attacked us. The violence in Sudan is contained. Sudan is not threatening to invade its neighbors, has no weapons of mass destruction, and we already know that Liberals do not generally believe there is an Islamic terrorist threat to the world.

If President Bush sent troops to remove Sudan's president, and if they were true to their professed principles, the anti-war crowd would practically break their necks rushing out to the streets to hold a protest rally. They have shown by opposing the war in Iraq that they do not consider genocide or brutality sufficient reasons to impose change on a "sovereign" government, even one so heinous as that of Saddam Hussein or Sudan's Umar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir.

We should not commit troops to a situation in which the Left would once again have the chance to stab them in the back without a pressing national interest -- and there is no such need for American troops to be in Sudan. As much as we should oppose genocide and fanatical Muslim mass murderers, the same Liberals who demand we "do something" there have damned it by their own overblown criticism of our having done something elsewhere.

Hat tip to RightThinkingGirl for the Time magazine cartoon.

Who would ever have imagined that America would be trying so hard to fight a politically-correct war just five years after 9/11 that we'd do the enemy's work for him? In a thousand years of open battle, al-Qaeda's mass-murdering fanatics could not possibly force the United States military to retreat one single inch. Yet some of our own people have been screaming for an all-out flight from Iraq every day of the last four years, and those voices are growing louder now that the Democrats control Congress. Retreat would hand the enemy a huge victory -- psychological, symbolic and very real -- and prevent the US from projecting force anywhere in the world again for at least a generation. And we may be on the verge of giving in to the terrorists.

Those on the Left cite excuses for retreat ranging from the high-sounding "innocents have been killed," to the ignorant, "it's an Iraqi internal problem," to the ridiculous "we should have never removed Saddam from power." Another "reason" we're often given is that Europeans -- the people responsible for more military massacres and imperialist invasions throughout history than the US could ever hope to achieve -- are unhappy with us, and the anti-war crowd insists that surrender would restore their good opinion. Thanks, but I think we can live with their largely impotent disapproval while continuing to fight the enemy.

In post-war Iraq, too many people have been killed while the enemy was either using them as human shields or deliberately blowing them up, and (gasp!) the cowardly thugs have even managed to kill a few of our troops while sacrificing themselves by the tens of thousands. If we're going to consider the deaths of non-combatants -- and we should -- we at least owe it to them to be honest about who is truly responsible for their deaths, and what we're trying to achieve there.

In any war in history prior to forty years ago, Iraq would have been acclaimed as a huge victory for our side, and the post-war insurgency -- fueled largely by al-Qaeda, Iran and Ba'ath party thugs -- put down without a second thought. It's impossible to imagine Americans pulling out of Germany, wringing their hands, if the post-WWII insurgency known as the Werwolves had been funded, supplied and bolstered by an outside force. Sometimes it seems as though "the greatest generation" was the last great generation.

On the other hand, few object to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Some actually want to send American troops to Darfur, in Sudan, to fight Islamofascist mass murderers there. It's just Iraqis they don't want to help, and for purely political reasons. So the topic of conversation in Washington changes from "how do we win this fight?" to "how fast can we get out of it?" regardless of what will happen after we leave. It seems the only person in the nation's capital still interested in winning the fight in Iraq is President Bush. Democrats plan to hold a vote on a non-binding resolution demanding that Bush send no more troops to Iraq. A non-binding resolution means that it carries no actual force, being useful, therefore, only to our enemies as propaganda. If the Democrats feel so strongly about retreating from Iraq, then let them cut off funding, instead of merely holding symbolic votes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused the President, who has already begun sending additional troops to help clear Baghdad of insurgents, of "moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" because he knew Congress would not cut of funding for them if they were already there. The Democrats want so badly to relive the end of Vietnam, when they forced the US to abandon Vietnam and cut funding to our allies, that they ignore what happened next, and what will surely happen again if they repeat that mistake.

Iraq is not Vietnam, despite the hysterical comparisons made every day in the media and by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But those on the Left don't seem to mind if it becomes Cambodia, as long as they can use every death as political capital in their perpetual campaign season. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, Iraq will become first an abattoir, then a client state of a radical rogue nation sworn to destroy us. If the Democrats allow that to happen, they would be at least irresponsible, if not derelict in their duty to the nation.

Well, the Democrats have been screaming for a "change of direction" in Iraq for ages, and it looks as though they're going to get one. The new direction they prefer, of course, is "away, at high speed, with tail tucked firmly between legs." Instead, they're getting a new focus on Baghdad as the center of Iraq's security problems, with special attention reserved for Iran's interference. In fact, it's becoming ever more likely that Iran will soon take its rightful place in the spotlight of the War on Terror.

Several things President Bush mentioned during his "surge" speech of 10 January 2006 were worth noting, aside from his plan to send five brigades -- about 17,500 troops -- to help the Iraqi government secure Baghdad. That alone resulted in howls of impotent outrage from the "cut-and-run" crowd. (Oddly enough, some of the same people upset over Bush's intention to send more troops to Iraq were calling for him to send more troops to Iraq a few short months ago.) The President referred to "too many restrictions on the troops," hinting that -- at last -- our troops will be allowed to fight the enemy, instead of having to contend with contradictory and crippling rules of engagement. He stated that "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." Well, it's about time.

The key to securing Baghdad -- and Iraq -- is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. When he and his band of religious fanatics first formed their own militia and began enforcing their own laws with Iran's backing and support, al-Sadr should have been arrested. When the Iraqi government actually issued a warrant for him in 2004, al-Sadr should have been arrested. Now, al-Sadr controls a large section of Baghdad itself, and has enough followers in his Mahdi Army to pose a serious threat to the Iraqi government. He inserted himself into Iraqi politics, and may control a significant portion of Iraq if the Democrats get their way and we abandon the country. Moqtada al-Sadr is the single greatest threat to Iraqi security and, as such, must be treated like the enemy he is.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki apparently agrees, in principle. He's offered al-Sadr a choice: disarm the Mahdi Army or face attack. Merely disarming the group, however, may not be enough. Something not mentioned in Bush's speech, but even more critical to the success of Iraq's future, was his promotion of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to the top military position in Iraq. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq, literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency techniques. His most important task as overall commander may be dismantling the Mahdi Army one way or the other.

Another major change in the conduct of the war seems to have slipped right past the "mainstream" media. President Bush recently placed Admiral William Fallon in charge of CENTCOM. No one in the media seems to be asking why a Navy admiral would be placed in charge of all US forces in the Middle East. There is, of course, only one answer: Iran. Fallon's expertise in naval air power would be most useful against that country, if the use of force becomes necessary.

The change in tactics to focus on Iran has already begun. A raid on an Iranian "liason office" in Irbil, in northern Iraq, netted five members of a Revolutionary Guard faction "known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," according the the US military. This appears to be only the first of many such actions designed to stop Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs.

There's no guarantee that reducing Iran's interference in Iraq will lessen the violence and allow the elected government to expand its control. But it's a sure thing that allowing Iran to continue fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq is bad for the Iraqis... and for us. The "new direction" for the US in Iraq might just be towards the east.

The Ballad of Sandy Berger *

Come and listen to my tale about a sneaky little crime,
The perpetrator didn't do a single day of time.
When documents went missing from the Archive in DC,
It turned out they were stolen by a man they call Sandy.

Berger, that is.
Security Advisor.
Democratic star.

The moment that the story broke it went right off the air.
Bill Clinton told the media "hey, move away from there!"
We'll never know just what he tucked inside his pants, you see,
Or what the records would have done to Clinton's legacy.

History, that is.
Covering up mistakes.
Avoiding prosecution.

Now it's time to lay the blame for what ol' Sandy did.
Anyone who steals the past from us should be forbid
From ever getting clearance back for that locality
And should in fact be living in a penitentiary.

Federal, that is.
Stay a spell.
Make some new "friends."
Don't come out now, y'hear?

* sung to the tune of The Ballad of Jed Clampett, from the tv show "The Beverly Hillbillies"

Having taken control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, the Democrats proceeded to surpass even my own worst predictions concerning their domestic policies before they even took their seats. Raising the minimum wage will hurt the small businesses that create the most jobs and slow growth in larger companies. Forcing unions on Wal-Mart will result in America's largest private employer reducing its workforce. Creating State-run "free" healthcare will make Americans (especially those among the swelling ranks of the unemployed) more directly dependent on government benefits and therefore less likely to vote for politicians who promise to reduce those benefits. Refusing to fund border security and granting amnesty as well as government assistance (like Social Security) to illegal immigrants will create a massive new group of solidly Democrat voters. Manipulating the economy and national security to solidify their majority, however, is just an appetiser before the main course: taking the Presidency without the bothersome detail of winning an election.

Many on the Right reacted with glee to the news that professional mourner Cindy Sheehan stopped stalking President Bush long enough to lead a group in shouting down Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as he held a press conference. The Democrats courted and supported these people in order to gain power, and now it's only fair that they have to put up with the incessant whining, right? But the situation isn't as simple (or as entertaining) as it seems on the surface. I believe Sheehan -- who once deserved sympathy, then pity, and now only scorn for her shameless manipulation of her son's death -- is being used to furnish an excuse for action against President Bush. And Sheehan stands to gain some credibility, too, by attacking someone besides Bush for a change.

Those who remember their Shakespeare (they still teach Shakespeare in schools, don't they?) may recognise in the press conference disruption an echo of Richard III. After having ruthlessly murdered or discredited everyone who stood between himself and the throne, Richard (then Duke of Gloucester) set up a scene in which he would be "forced" to accept the crown against his will by the desperate pleas of London's citizens, led by the mayor. The Duke of Buckingham, who hid his own followers among the crowd to manipulate it, advised him to look busy and refuse at first, but reluctantly acquiesce to the crowd's demand:

The mayor is here at hand: intend [express] some fear;
Be not you spoke with, but by mighty suit:
And look you get a prayer-book in your hand,
And stand betwixt two churchmen, good my lord;
For on that ground I'll build a holy descant:
And be not easily won to our request:
Play the maid's part, still answer nay, and take it.
- Richard III (Act III, scene vii)