Yes, I know: it's not amnesty because we're using a different word now. However, any time the penalty proscribed by law for an offense is waived for all offenders, it's amnesty no matter what you may call it. Do they get to stay here? (Hint: Yes.) Well, that's amnesty. And the effects will be far-reaching and devastating to the country.

What sort of message does it send when people are allowed to violate a variety of laws repeatedly with relative impunity? Not only did illegal immigrants deliberately cross the border without permission, or knowingly overstay their visas, but they break other laws every day they remain here. Even the so-called "hard-working, law-abiding" illegals we keep hearing about use false Social Security numbers to get jobs and bank accounts, lie on applications and other forms, and falsify records and documents on a daily basis. Why should anyone obey the law, when millions of criminals are to be forgiven en masse?

And what will happen after they are given instant legal status? Has anyone bothered to think that through? One of the main reasons we are given for letting them stay in the country is that no one else will do the jobs they do for so little pay... but once they are legal, neither will they! Why would anyone perform hard labor for below minimum wage if they are legally able to look for better work, or demand more money for the work they currently do?

We've been told we can't deport illegal aliens without a steep rise in prices for agricultural products, domestic services and construction. But wages -- and thus prices -- in those areas will rise anyway. Of course, hordes of illegal immigrants will continue to flow across the borders to work for lower than legal wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, legalising between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants will cost the US economy trillions of dollars, and that includes huge numbers of uneducated, ignorant, and unproductive immigrants -- the kind the mainstream media pretend don't exist. And after all that, we will still have illegal immigrants coming into the country. In other words, we will have gained absolutely nothing from the passage of this bill.

The bill contains provisions that would, we are told, ensure that workers holding the new Z-Visa remain employed and out of trouble with the law, or else they will be deported. Does anyone actually believe that the mere passing of laws ensures compliance? We're talking about relying on swift and accurate responses from the same agency that approved student visas for Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi six months after they flew jetliners into the World Trade Center.

As soon as the illegals gain legal status, the first thing a hungry government will do is make them pay taxes. Hasn't anyone considered the implications of that? The ACLU and various "immigrants rights" groups will file a flurry of lawsuits charging that expecting permanent residents to pay taxes without giving them the right to vote violates their civil liberties. The more brazen among them will undoubtedly use the phrase, "no taxation without representation." What American can possibly argue with that?

The Democrat-controlled Congress will rush a voting rights bill through (no doubt just in time for the 2008 elections). Instant millions of new Democratic voters -- just add legalisation. Congratulations are due the Democratic party for ensuring that the Republicans will be maginalised for at least a generation... with the eager help of many Republicans, including the President.

And what of this persistent meme that we can't deport between 12 and 20 million people? I have never heard anyone arguing that we should. It's a strawman argument, designed to conjure mental images of stormtroopers kicking down doors in the night and hauling screaming people away. The amnesty crowd likes to pretend there are only two possible solutions to the problem of illegal immigrants -- rewarding them with full legal status or rounding them up for cattle-car deportations. The truth is that there's a middle ground that involves neither amnesty nor mass deportation: enforcing the law.

The only thing on which everyone seems to agree is that millions of people living in the US without papers, permission or rights is a huge problem. The first thing we need to do, logically, is stop the problem from becoming any worse. When President Bush signed Congressman Duncan Hunter's Secure Fence Act of 2006, he made building 854 miles of double-layer fencing at the most common people-smuggling routes across our southern border the law. It's not rocket science. When you have a leak, you have to stop the inflow before you can pump out the water. We've already got the law on our side. All we have to do is enforce it -- and that's all so many Americans really ask. Yet that fence has not yet been built.

After building the border fence to stop the inrush, we need to enforce the laws regarding those who hire illegal workers who are already here. No one seems capable of checking the Social Security numbers that illegals write on their job applications. If the immigration bureaucracy is so disordered and crippled that Mohammed Atta got a visa six months after 9/11, why would anyone imagine it can handle the mass legalisation of up to 20 million people plus all their relatives? To make matters worse, all background checks for these new Z-Visas must be performed within 24 hours of the application. It's a bureaucratic disaster of Biblical proportions waiting to happen. If only Cecil B. DeMille were still alive to film it all.

There's still time to stop this gross injustice from taking place. President Bush himself has come out blasting opponents of his amnesty-that's-not-amnesty plan. (Funny... he finally lashes out hard, and it's against those who have supported him all these years.) He would not have done so if he were not fighting a growing backlash. And just what form is that backlash taking? The kind that carries the most weight in Washington DC... money.

According to the Washington Times, the Republican National Committee, "hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors" after a huge dropoff in donations. "Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue," said one fired phone bank employee.

Even if the bill passes the Senate, it can still be stopped by any Representative who happens to remember the Constitutional stipulation that revenue-generating bills must come from the House. Even so, that would just leave us right where we are now -- with open, undefended borders and growing numbers of criminal trespassers in our streets. Further illegal immigration must be stopped and our laws enforced before we can even consider what to do with the illegals already living among us.

Arlington National Cemetery

Just before the 2006 election, I predicted (among other things) that without the slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives, amnesty for illegal immigrants would soon become a reality. "If Democrats take control of the House," I wrote, "that barrier will vanish like mist, and the Democrats will have a flood of uneducated, largely ignorant new low-class workers to turn into good little Democrat voters, all demanding a piece of the government pie."

Six months later, here comes the amnesty. Although the remaining Republicans managed to write increased border security measures into the bill, no one is naive enough to think they won't be simply ignored, just as they were in 1986. The "one-time" amnesty Ronald Reagan signed was also supposed to result in tighter border controls... which the Democrat-controlled Congress simply "forgot" to fund. So twenty-one years later, here we are again: facing another "one-time" amnesty, with promises of more border security we know will not be honored.

This compromise will cut the 850-mile border fence the President signed into law just before the 2006 elections -- of which only two miles have yet been built -- to 370 or so miles. Anyone care to place bets on how much of even that shortened fence will ever exist in reality? With the Iranian terrorist group Hizballah building a massive base in South America from which to attack the US, how can we afford not to build that fence?

The main point of the bill (much of which has not yet even been written) is to grant every single illegal alien currently in America a visa, allowing them to stay despite the fact that they broke the law to get here and violate numerous laws every day that they remain. I wonder when Congress will do the same for other categories of criminal. For instance, will car thieves be granted a "path to ownership" which allows them to keep their unlawfully-obtained vehicles? If so, I'm going to feel awfully stupid for saving up money to put down on a new car... the same way millions of people who are patiently waiting for permission to emigrate to the United States must feel as though they just received a boot to the face for respecting our laws. If lawbreakers are allowed to keep what they obtained by criminal means, then no matter what you may call it, it's an amnesty. Period.

But we have to "bring millions of people out of the shadows," we are told by people such as Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). What shadows? Remember those huge illegal immigration rallies last year, in which hundreds of thousands of criminals -- along with their supporters and enablers -- marched through the streets of major US cities protesting the audacity of people who thought we should enforce our own laws? The only "shadows" I saw were cast by all the Mexican flags and "This is OUR continent, not YOURS" signs. There were other signs as well, but many of them were in Spanish, so I couldn't read them.

This amnesty proposal will result in a huge influx of uneducated and unskilled immigrants over the next decade, too fast for our culture to absorb them. Food and services will increase in price, as the artificially-depressed wages paid under the table to those who had no choice but to accept them will have to rise. It will also bring in millions of new illegal immigrants, expecting yet another "one-time" amnesty a few years down the road. Many of these people will demand free medical care, welfare, and other government services. And which party will promise them all the freebies they could want? By agreeing to this compromise, the Republicans will doom their own party and marginalise Conservatives for years, ensuring a one-party Socialist state for at least a generation.

The only slim chance to stop this abomination of a bill is for every person who cares about America's future to write, call, email and send smoke signals to our Senators and our Representatives, demanding that they vote against this amnesty proposal. Let them know that you will not support or vote for any politician who betrays America in this way. It's the only power we have, and if we don't use it... we will lose it.

UPDATE: Watch Congressman Duncan Hunter's reaction to the amnesty bill. His campaign website is http://www.gohunter08.com

It sounds like a long bad joke, the kind that never seems to reach the punchline. A group of Muslims living the good life in America -- some of whom came here illegally, and lived in "sanctuary cities" -- decide the country's so bad, they ought to buy some AK-47s and grenades and take on the US military base at Fort Dix, NJ. To get into the killing mood, they film themselves running around waving guns and screaming for jihad. Then they take the film to be transferred to DVD. Luckily, an alert Circuit City employee tells the cops, who tell the FBI, whose agents infiltrate the group. A proper punchline would have been to sell them weapons designed to malfunction, let them launch their attack, and film them getting slaughtered by the men they were trying to kill. It'd make a good training exercise.

Unfortunately, this is no joke, but an example of what we're up against. Liberals try to tell us that there are no terrorists, or that 9/11 -- if not a government conspiracy -- was some kind of one-time fluke we should all just ignore. (What 1993 World Trade Center bombing?) We're lucky that some people in this country take the threat of terrorism seriously enough to report suspicious behavior to the authorities. People like the Circuit City clerk who helped stop these would-be killers should be rewarded. Instead, it will be a surprise if he's not sued and branded a "racist." Sooner or later, the New York Times will publish his name, and the lawsuits will begin. 

Concerned passengers on board an airliner in November 2006 complained about a group of imams who were praying loudly, changing seats to cover all the exits, and asking for seatbelt extenders although none of them were particularly overweight. We still don't know whether that was merely a "dry run" or an actual terrorist attack in progress. The six imams are currently suing not only US Airways, but the unnamed passengers who questioned their decidely questionable behavior. That's the latest way our enemies have discovered to frighten people into ignoring them as they plot and plan. Who needs the hassle of a lawsuit? Don't make waves. It's probably not what you think, anyway.

On 9 May 2007, a woman called a flight attendant when she realised that the seat-back pocket in front of her contained a box cutter such as the terrorists used on 9/11. The passengers were taken off the plane and re-screened before the flight was allowed to take off. Because no Muslims were directly offended, the media barely reported the story. If she'd said nothing, would another flight from that airport have contained more hidden weapons along with hijackers prepared to use them, having walked through screening without being stopped?

The media and those on the Left like to downplay stories like the planned Fort Dix attack, as they have every terrorism-related incident in this country since 9/11. Because these men were caught, we are told they never posed a serious danger. Some have used this incident to question our involvement in Iraq, since fighting them "over there" obviously has not prevented terrorism "over here." But Iraq and Fort Dix are all part of the same worldwide terror movement, as were London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan and thousands of Islamofascist terror attacks that have taken place since 9/11. The men and women these terrorists intended to kill were probably headed to Iraq as part of the "surge," which all Americans should hope will secure Baghdad and help stabilise the Iraqi government. Attacking them at Fort Dix might have delayed or prevented their deployment... which could only help our enemies.

The New York Times is already laying the groundwork for an entrapment defense, claiming that the men involved in the New Jersey jihad would never really have carried out their plan without the encouragement of the FBI informer. One article stresses that "informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations." The Washington Post referred to the group as a "leaderless, homegrown cell of immigrants" with no ties to al-Qaeda -- as though al-Qaeda's the only terrorist group in the world. One member of this cell, it turns out, was a sniper in the Kosovo Liberation Army -- a group that received assistance from Osama bin Laden. As for the dangers of "homegrown" Islamist terror groups, ask the survivors of London's 7/7 bombings.

While it appears true that this group was an independent cell, they certainly drew inspiration from al-Qaeda. And why is al-Qaeda so inspirational? Because -- according to Democratic politicians, Liberal activists and members of the mainstream media -- al-Qaeda has already won the battle for Iraq. If the Democrats have their way, if they force America to surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran, we can expect to see many more of these "homegrown" terror cells in the future.

After all, everyone loves a winner.

One of the worst aspects of the aftermath of a national tragedy like the school shootings at Virginia Tech is watching the rush by many on the Left to politicise it. Most Americans are spending the first few shocked days mourning those who died, recognising the heroes and offering what comfort we can to those who survived and all their families. Opponents of the Second Amendment have been busy dusting off the same old arguments, giving them a new coat of paint and deploying them in their misguided attempt to bring totalitarianism to America.

Law-abiding gun ownership has long been considered a mark of maturity and responsible citizenship, and is an integral part of our national character. The first thing a tyranny or dictatorship must do is deprive the people of a means to resist. For this reason and many others, the government was forbidden from interfering with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" by the Constitution. It's ironic that Liberals -- the same people who scream about the destruction of the First Amendment because someone's chats with known terrorists might be tapped -- are stepping right up to demand we surrender a right they don't like quite so much.

Many Liberals feel that the reason for the tragedy at Virginia Tech was that a person had a gun in that building. On the contrary, the reason for the tragedy was that only one person had a gun in that building. Trapped by chained doors, with campus police focused on the building in which the first two killings took place, the students and teachers had no way to defend themselves. A single person with a weapon could have saved dozens of lives.

School shootings have been thwarted by private gun owners before they reached the notoriety of a Columbine or the death toll of a Virginia Tech. In 2002, for instance, armed students at Appalachian Law School confronted and subdued Peter Odighizuwa, who had begun a killing spree by shooting the Dean, a professor and a student. In 1997, Pearl High School's Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his handgun from his truck as Luke Woodham killed two fellow students and wounded seven others with a rifle. Myrick stopped Woodham as he left to continue his attacks at the nearby junior high school, holding his gun to Woodham's head until police arrived. The media downplays or flat-out ignores the fact that guns can save lives, too -- they're just a tool.

The Liberal answer to criminal use of guns is to get rid of guns. Well, that sounds simple. After all, getting rid of alcohol with the 18th Amendment worked all through the 1920's, didn't it? One is forced to wonder how they plan to implement this new Prohibition. House-to-house searches? Random pat-downs on the street? Checking every American's credit card records for "suspicious" purchases? Metal detectors and x-ray machines on every street corner? Too obvious. Instead, some Leftists plan to remove our Second Amendment rights by making them too difficult and expensive to exercise.

Democrats in Pennsylvania, for instance, are trying to push legislation that will force law-abiding gun owners to pay a fee for each gun they own every year, as well as submit to full background checks and fingerprinting. A registration card will be issued for each gun that is approved, and its owner must carry the card with the gun at all times. Guns must be completely disassembled or locked up when not in use, reducing their self-defense value to zero. Annual registration renewal applications will require the owner's name, age, gender, Social Security number, business address, home address, telephone number, date of birth, citizenship status, and any other information that "the Pennsylvania State Police may deem necessary to process the application."

PA House Bill 760, introduced a month ago, also specifies that anyone who sells a gun must notify the State 48 hours in advance of the sale, and the State must be notified within 48 hours of any change in one's registration information. If this bill becomes law, it's hard to imagine the size of the bureaucracy that will be needed to enforce it. And criminals, of course, will simply fail to register their guns. Law-abiding citizens will be utterly reliant on the police for protection from gun-owning criminals. But police cannot be everywhere at once, nor would most of us want to live in a country with that kind of pervasive government presence.

In neighboring New Jersey, already a near police state for gun owners, the Democrats plan to "crack down" on ammunition sales. A recent state commission recommended that every gun owner should have to obtain an ID card that would contain a list of his or her guns with serial numbers. The gun owner must show this card in order to purchase ammunition, and it would become illegal to possess ammunition for a gun one does not own. Stores would have to record the amount of ammo sold for each gun. Criminals would simply drive to another state to purchase ammunition for their unregistered guns. Of course, if the Left tries to take this sort of legislation country-wide, black-market reloading will be as big a business as bootlegging in the 1920's.

Virginia Tech, like many colleges and all lower schools across the country, was as close as possible to the Liberal dream of an unarmed populace completely dependent on the authorities for protection. No one was allowed to have a gun on campus except for the police. The last attempt to change the law that allowed the school to restrict Second Amendment rights was killed in subcommittee more than a year ago. All those who obeyed the law were rendered defenseless by it. The one man who chose to break the law was able to kill with impunity. Let's make that universal, say the Liberals. Does that make sense? 

We don't ban cars when bad drivers take lives. We don't ban medicine when abused drugs take lives. We don't even ban government when bad laws cost lives. Let's not react to a terrible crime by punishing the law-abiding citizens among us... people who might be able to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

By the late 1790's, America was fighting an undeclared "Quasi-War" with France on the high seas. France's Revolutionary government, at war with England, began allowing its navy to seize American ships trading with that country. England began interfering with American ships trading with France. Congress authorised the War Department to build six frigates (primarily intended to fight Barbary pirates, no longer confined to the Mediterranean by Portugal) in 1794, but by 1797 only three had been built.

Meanwhile, the French were further incensed by a trade agreement between America and Great Britain. In 1796, France refused to receive American diplomats, and would not restore diplomatic relations until America paid "a large bribe." In April 1798, Congress authorised President John Adams to acquire a dozen ships of war, drastically increasing the size of America's fledgling Navy, and granted those ships the authority to capture armed French vessels found off the American coast. Later that year, Congress increased the authorisation to allow American ships to capture any French ship in international waters.

In the midst of all this tension, pacifist George Logan took it upon himself to "treat unofficially for a better understanding between the two Governments." In June 1798, Dr. Logan went to France to assure that government that the American people wanted peace despite the belligerence of President Adams. His words emboldened the French to continue their seizure of American vessels, undermined US foreign policy and no doubt prolonged hostilities (which lasted two more years) by revealing tensions within the US government, which the French could exploit.

Logan's high-handed activities caused Congress to pass the Logan Act the following year, which prohibits American citizens from attempting to conduct their own private foreign policy initiatives on behalf of the United States. Only the President may speak for the country as a whole when dealing with other governments. The Logan Act (US Code 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953) reads:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Resurrection of Christ (1475-79) by Giovanni Bellini

Although we've almost completely secularised Easter with rabbits, eggs and baby chicks, it is probably the most important holiday in the entire Christian calendar... even more so than Christmas, which gets all the attention these days. Resurrection -- life after death -- is the heart of that religion, not just birth. Take a moment to remember that Bellini painted no bunny rabbits (unless one is hiding among those bushes in the background) and have a happy Easter.

Both House and Senate have now sent a clear message to the world: Osama bin Laden was right. America does not have the stomach for a fight. We cannot stand the sight of our own blood. Our allies, especially those in Iraq who are depending on us to help them stabilise their country, get the message loud and clear. So do our enemies, who now know that if they manage to hold on for another eighteen months, they will prevail. Worst of all, our troops get the message, too.

Democrats in the House amended a bill containing needed funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to include a specific withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq: the end of August 2008, regardless of circumstances. Members attached some $24 billion worth of pork, mostly designed to bribe specific Representatives who would otherwise not have voted in favor of the bill for various reasons. For instance, the bill contains $74 million for peanut storage, apparently a vital wartime concern. Spinach growers -- who contributed over $30,000 to the campaign of Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) -- will receive $25 million to "offset losses from last fall's E. coli contamination" if the bill becomes law. Dairy interests -- who contributed $9,000 to Rep. David Obey's (D-WI) last campaign -- will receive $252 million. Now that's a return on investment! When asked whether the campaign contributions were a factor in the pork attachments, Obey said, "I represent dairy farmers. You got a problem with that?" Due to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's machinations, the bill passed 218-212.

The Senate version of the bill contains vital military spending like $16 million to build new offices for House members, $13 million for the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program and $5 million for fish breeders, all labeled "emergency spending."  It was thought that the bill would not get through the Senate with the withdrawal date included, but it passed with a vote of 50-48. 

If the President does not approve funding by mid-April, the military will begin to face severe hardships. Those hardships will be felt most keenly by our troops in the field, who will begin to run short of ammunition, armor, replacement parts and vehicles, food and medical supplies. It will become more difficult to replace the wounded and rotate troops out of combat. Therefore, the President must sign an appropriations bill by then.

On the other hand, setting a date for withdrawal is tantamount to national suicide. It sends the message that America is too weak to fight; that we can be beaten by terror tactics. If we leave Iraq before the people can protect themselves, the Iraqi experiment with democracy will succumb to Iranian control on one side and that of al-Qaeda on the other. Both will become far more powerful than they had previously dared to believe. With our defeat at the hands of a few thugs and bombers, we would deserve the opprobrium of every country on Earth, nor would any country hesitate to act against us. North Korea would build its nuclear arsenal unchecked, as would Iran. China's tenuous alliance with North Korea and Russia would become unbreakable. Pakistan would fall, and India would face a nuclear-armed radical Muslim regime without backing from the West. Europe's reluctant slide into Islamofascist domination would become a free-fall. Therefore, the President must not sign any bill that contains a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

There is only one thing for Bush to do. The President of the United States must go on strike.

If President Bush refuses to sign any bill, for any purpose, until a clean military funding bill reaches his desk, he can effectively shut down the federal government. Congress would be hamstrung, unable to pass any measure until the President once again picks up his pen. In the absence of an Executive branch, the Legislature has no function, and it's time the Chief Executive exercises his ability to rein in the excesses of this Democrat-controlled Congress. The Democrats may have taken over one branch of government, but they need to be reminded that Congress is not the whole of it.

It remains to be seen whether President Bush has the foresight and fortitude to make such a move. If he does not, he might as well pull our troops back from every corner of the world now, and we should all prepare for the worst the world can throw at us.

Hat tip to QandO blog for the pork list.

What would happen if one country committed a blatant act of war against another, and no one did anything about it... or worse, attempted to compromise with the attacker? Would that country's leaders feel embarrassed over their breach of protocol and apologise? Or would they feel emboldened by the soft response to commit more attacks in hope of gaining further concessions? History has taught us that the latter is far more likely. Some simply refuse to learn the lesson. It's happened before, of course, and it seems to be happening again.

On Friday, 23 March 2007, a group of British sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall were inspecting a small ship in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which was carrying vehicles for sale in Iraq. Their inflatable boats were surrounded and captured by six heavily armed Iranian gunboats, and the 15 Brits were accused of entering Iranian territory and spying. They were moved to Tehran, and face a "trial" for espionage. But with British and American ships routinely stopping and inspecting water traffic in that area for years, why would Iran choose to act now?

It's probably no coincidence that the Brits were taken hostage hours before a critical UN vote on sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt its nuclear program, to show Iran's defiance and try to influence Great Britain's vote. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that the Iranians believe the UK will be unable to respond, with Tony Blair on his way out. This seizure may have been staged in response to the disappearance of Revolutionary Guard commander Ali Reza Asgari, who Iran suspects of defecting to the West with his detailed knowledge of Iran's nuclear program. In that case, the captured Brits would be offered in exchange for Asgari's return. The Iranian government may even plan to drive a wedge between Great Britain and America by holding the Brits hostage in return for the release of five members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard captured by Americans in Iraq. The Iranians may have decided to commit this act for any of these reasons, or all of them, or for some reason yet unknown. In any case, it's no surprise that one of the world's worst terror-supporting governments would act like terrorists themselves. After all, the Iranian regime began when revolutionaries took over the American embassy in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Prime Minister Blair has warned the Iranian government that the seizure was unjustified, and that they only have "a few days" to return the Brits, but his implied threat has no teeth. Blair has already been forced to withdraw troops from Iraq by a weak-kneed Parliament. President Bush has pledged to back him, but Congress won't even support our own troops in battle, much less would they commit to aiding the British in a  new fight. Some members of the Democrat-controlled Congress are trying to pass a measure that would prevent President Bush from using force against Iran without specific Congressional permission. That, too, is no coincidence -- our enemies pay closer attention to the workings of Washington than most of our own citizens.

The weakness openly displayed by the Left is now coming back to haunt us all. No one has ever attacked a country because that country looked strong. The more we try to appease and compromise with our enemies, the more they will continue to act aggressively. The only possible effective response to this act of war is a credible threat of force if the Brits are not promptly returned. And that's precisely the response both we and Great Britain are unable to make. The Iranians will, in the absence of any action on our part, keep committing minor acts of war until another major war becomes inevitable, with them many times stronger than they are now.

That's how it's always done, after all. Only this time, the enemy will start off with nuclear capability. The coming war with Iran, if not prevented by strong action while they are still only a conventional military power, will forever change the face of the world.

The Democrats seem unable to come up with a way to lose Iraq without being held responsible for the failure. They must find a way to appease their angry far-Left base -- or, as Rep. David Obey (D-WI) redundantly called them while berating a Marine's mother who asked him to cut off funding for Iraq, the "idiot Liberals." If they don't, both major political parties may find themselves at odds with their own main supporters, for different reasons. That ought to make the 2008 elections interesting, to say the least.

First, those wanting to lose tried to pass a "non-binding," or pointless, resolution voicing their non-support for General Petraeus' plan to crack down on Baghdad violence with additional troops. Oddly, the Democrats came up with this plan right after the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Petraeus as overall commander of US forces in Iraq. Even if it had passed, the resolution would have had no effect whatsoever aside from making a show of telling our troops (and enemy forces) that Congress is pushing for their failure. That strategy petered out as the news from Iraq began to indicate that the "surge," as it was called, was already showing positive results... before most of the additional forces even arrived.

Democrats tried implementing Representative John Murtha's (D-PA) "slow bleed" strategy that would have placed heavy conditions on anything or anyone sent to Iraq -- and would have left our troops without vital supplies and reinforcements. That plan was sunk when Murtha openly crowed, "They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work." Even some of his fellow Democrats cringed to hear Murtha place himself at odds with our own military, and the "slow bleed" plan bled out. Perhaps they merely shrunk from hearing their party's true position expressed so unambiguously.

By mid-February, the Iraqi Army reported that terror operations in Baghdad had dropped by 80 percent. Closed shops had re-opened, markets were once again crowded and displaced families were returning to their homes. Insurgent leader Moqtada al-Sadr left the country, the Iraqi government stopped protecting insurgents, and raids netted leaders as well as men and materials that had been used to attack innocent civilians daily. Though it's early yet, these signs are very promising. Unless, of course, you need the American effort to fail in order to garner political power.

Next, Democrat Senators Carl Levin (MI) and Joe Biden (DE) tried to rewrite the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq to add provisions specifying that US forces in Iraq could only fight al-Qaeda. They seemed to want a return to the strict rules of engagement under which American forces must wait until they are fired upon, then must positively identify the shooter(s) before returning fire. It's not clear how the Democrats planned to force al-Qaeda members to wear uniforms or badges to make such identification possible. This plan didn't fail so much as just fade away.

Others, like Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), argue that the terms of the war have been fulfilled, and so America must withdraw from Iraq, even if Iran and al-Qaeda would dominate the region as a result. But the Authorization referenced the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made it the aim of America's foreign policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Until that democratic government has stabilised -- meaning, among other things, that it can control its borders and police its own cities effectively, and has undergone at least two peaceful transitions of power through free elections -- the job is nowhere near complete.

Meanwhile, American deaths in Iraq are down 60%. Sunni/Shi'a cooperation is evident even in violence-torn Fallujah. The surest evidence of this is that most media outlets have abandoned the "daily death count" once mournfully inserted into every news story even remotely related to Iraq -- especially if the story contained good news. The Democrats are growing desperate to force a loss in Iraq before "Bush" can win -- as though it's all merely part of their endless political game. Yet even as House Democrats passed yet another resolution that would force America to abandon Iraq (attached to a military appropriations bill), Republicans defeated the Senate version. And the games continue.

Another plan popular among Democrats is to impose a series of "benchmarks" upon the Iraqi government that must be met in order for US troops to remain in Iraq. But if the Iraqi government is unable to meet those benchmarks, isn't that a sign that they need more help from us, not less? If the Iraqis do meet them, doesn't that mean the long-term plan to reduce violence and stabilise the government is beginning to work?

Most Democrats want to implement a withdrawal sometime before the 2008 elections, so they can attribute the resultant chaos and violence to President Bush... who wants to stay and finish the job regardless of political considerations. From now until November 2008, the Democrats will push bill after bill after bill, all desperately seeking failure in new and creative ways, disguised as concern for the troops or fiscal scruples. There's something fundamentally dark and disturbing about one of America's two main political parties investing their future so deeply in losing a war that they can't allow victory under any circumstances.

The only thing that's becoming clearer by the day is that America's main opponent in Iraq is really in Washington DC.