The death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi doesn't mean the fighting in Iraq is over, the terrorists will disappear, or that US troops can pack up and go home. Of course, no one ever said that it would mean any of those things, any more than killing a single enemy general automatically ends a war. The rush by those supposedly on our own side to soft-pedal the enormous achievement of killing a dangerous enemy leader is simply amazing, unparalleled in any previous American conflict.

It's hard to imagine Americans having the same reaction when, say, British-trained Czech partisans assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in 1942. Heydrich, the SS officer who headed the Gestapo and was responsible for organising the Holocaust, was considered a likely successor to Hitler. He was given an elaborate hero's funeral, and his death sparked reprisals that resulted in the deaths of over a thousand men, women and children, including the erasure of an entire Czech village.

Did politicians consider Heydrich's death an excuse to retreat from the war? Did journalists diminish the importance of killing an arch-murderer of innocent people? Did anti-war partisans complain that killing Heydrich would only inspire more Nazis, or that his death was immaterial because hundreds more were just waiting to take his place? Most important, was his assassination considered a wrong move because of Nazi retribution? If anyone did spin Heydrich's death in those ways, they are not remembered. Yet these are the same talking points repeated ad nauseum today by opponents of the war and of President Bush.

If Heydrich's death had been greeted with the same general knee-jerk cynicism we have seen from the Left and the media upon the death of Zarqawi, President Roosevelt would have been under enormous pressure not to deploy troops and tanks to North Africa -- especially in light of the fact that the Japanese were winning battle after battle in the Pacific. If Roosevelt had waited to engage Germany until after defeating Japan, WWII might have been lost to a weakness of will. And so might Iraq and the larger War on Terror, if we listen to the Left.

John Kerry, the latest Democratic Presidential candidate, saw Zarqawi's death as the perfect opportunity to retreat from Iraq as fast as possible... ironically, exactly what Zarqawi was trying to accomplish. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), who accused Marines of killing civilans in cold blood, continues to call for immediate withdrawal, whether the news from Iraq is good or bad. Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) called Zarqawi's death a "stunt," then said, "Iraq is still a mess -- get out." Most Democratic leaders praised the death of Zarqawi, to be fair, yet added a "but" followed by condemnations of the war and President Bush. Most launched a "strawman" attack by saying "...but his death doesn't end the problems." As I said, no one said that it would.

Zarqawi's death was by no means the end of problems in Iraq, not even the end of terrorism. I think this event does, however, herald a turning point for the Iraqi people. They have lived under the shadow of terrorism since a few months after the fall of Saddam, yet turned out to vote in ever-increasing numbers despite death threats. Every time a bomb killed novice Iraqi police officers, even more would sign up for duty the next day. Despite Zarqawi's attempts to foment a Sunni-vs-Shi'a civil war, the elected leadership successfully formed a coalition government inclusive of all Iraqis. Zarqawi's death can only have a positive effect on Iraq's new government, even though terrorist attacks continue.

In their drive to find or formulate bad news with which to berate President Bush, the Left has sold the Iraqi people short, ignoring their courage and determination in the face of adversity. As discussed during 2002, in the months before the overthrow of Saddam, a democratic Iraq is the beginning of change in the region. Al-Qaeda is right to fear a democratic Iraq. The question is: why do some Americans fear a democratic Iraq?

As the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi served as a rallying point and a fundraising icon for terrorists around the world. "The terrorist celeb, if you will," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), a former FBI agent who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "It is like selling for any organization. They are selling the success of Zarqawi in eluding capture in Iraq." Besides providing a great morale boost to all Iraqis as well as American troops, Zarqawi's death was a serious blow to al-Qaeda, it would seem. That's not the way the story is reported in the mainstream media, however.

The media is more interested in breathless speculation about Zarqawi's possible successor than American successes, but the (not very) safe house in which Zarqawi spent his last hours yielded a wealth of information about his networks and funding. US and Iraqi forces staged thirty-nine raids the day after Zarqawi's demise alone, based mostly on short-lived information recovered from the scene. Twenty other safe houses were raided, resulting in the capture of even more terrorists and information. There is no way to tell how far exploitation of that material will take us in the fight against terrorist networks and supporters. Hopefully, Baghdad can be secured before al-Qaeda recovers from the near-decapitation of its operations in Iraq.

Most people, however, were simply satisfied to know that the man responsible for such horrific massacres of innocent men, women and children was dead. The only way that news could have been improved upon was if Zarqawi knew who got him before he died. As it turns out, he did survive just long enough to take that knowledge with him into the dark. Good riddance.

With all the Conservative anger directed toward Liberal Republicans these days over immigration and overspending (among other things), it's only natural that talk turns to third party politics as the midterm elections approach. Even such a Republican stalwart as Peggy Noonan, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and chief speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush, recently wondered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed whether it might be the right time for a new political party. The answer, sadly, is no.

Slick-talking professional politicians with what seem like lifetime appointments to Congress have soured people on both sides of the aisle, the Left no less than the Right. Many people feel their voices aren't being heard (unless, of course, they speak Spanish or ask for government handouts). But while the Democratic party remains intact, making a break to a third party can only be disastrous for Conservatives.

Generally speaking, in many states as well as nationwide, the number of those who vote Republican and Democrat are pretty close to even. For starters, no third party can really get of the ground without adequate financial backing and charismatic, effective leadership. Given those things, a Right-leaning third party still only has two ways to win. They can take all Republican votes without missing any, or take votes from both sides. Either way, the end result would be the same.

If a truly Conservative third party emerged, there's no way it would take all the votes that normally go to the Republican party. Even if it managed to avoid the religious overtones and isolationism of the Constitution or America First parties, not all Republican voters are really Conservative. The only way a third party could completely replace the Republican party would be to duplicate the Republican party, which would put Conservatives right back in the same position we currently occupy.

Furthermore, a growing Conservative party would force the Republican party to become even more Liberal than it currently is, to retain power by taking votes from among the more Conservative Democrats. In the end, America would have a medium-sized Conservative party, a small middle-Right party, and a Democratic party not much smaller than it is now -- and stripped of its moderate voters. With two opposing parties to its Left, a Conservative party would have a hard time pushing its agenda.

Suppose a middle-right party like the Libertarians (fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal) gained power? A middle party would weaken both Republicans and Democrats, forcing both parties to play more to their respective bases. Good for Conservatives, right? No. Again, the smaller, more Conservative Republican party would face a pair of more Liberal parties, and have a tough time passing Conservative legislation.

So what's the answer -- just lie down and take whatever the Republican elites dish out? Hardly. The best answer, as long as the Democratic party remains whole, will require time and effort. First, Conservatives must use the primary election process to replace Liberal Republicans with their more Conservative opposition. That's the point to holding primaries.

Second, voters must pay closer attention to their candidates for office and how they vote. It's easy to throw up your hands and proclaim, "I won't vote for any more Republicans!" The problem is that your Senators and Representative might not merit replacement for the reasons that you want change. For instance, only four Republican Senators running for re-election in 2006 voted for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill -- Lincoln Chafee (RI), Mike DeWine (OH), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME). Throwing those four out of office, even at the cost of allowing Democrats to take those seats, would send the right message. When the other Republicans who voted for amnesty come up for re-election, they'll have to go through a primary election as well. That's the right time to remove them from office.

On the other hand, voting against Senators like Rick Santorum (PA), John Ensign (NV) or George Allen (VA) out of anger over illegal immigration would be ridiculous, as they all came out strongly against the amnesty bill. Intelligent, careful voting is the way to take back the Republican party without putting the Democrats in charge.

A third way to make your voice heard is with your wallet. The national Republican party might see the message in dwindling contributions, while your money might be better spent directly on a more Conservative candidate with whose positions you agree.

It's not a fast or easy process, but real change rarely is.

What really happened at Haditha? The only thing we know for certain is that we don't yet know for certain. But that doesn't stop the Left from declaring the Marines involved, and by extension the entire US military and the Bush administration, guilty of atrocities. The media has already tried, convicted, drawn and quartered a group of young Marines, before any but the barest details are known... before, in fact, an investigation has even finished.

The facts we do have tell that a carbomb hit a Marine convoy, a firefight ensued, and fifteen civilians were killed along with eight or nine terrorists (according to most reports). The Left has taken as fact the statements of four people (interviewed by an unnamed Iraqi) who say they were witnesses -- though even the NY Times had to admit that "The four survivors' accounts could not be independently corroborated, and it was unclear in some cases whether they actually saw the killings."

A videotape of bodies with bullet wounds in their chests and heads is supposed to be "evidence" that Marines went on a cold-blooded killing spree. Liberals must believe that noncombatants are rarely hurt during battles, no one could be shot in the chest or head except by deliberate murder, and that innocents are never shot or put in danger by terrorists, insurgents or "freedom fighters." But the US military, in the looking-glass world of Liberalism, is hell-bent on killing civilians for no reason.

The Marines are accused of "covering up" the "massacre." Their initial report is said to have stated that the civilians were killed by the explosive device. The bomb and firefight may have been reported as a single enemy attack, which might have been a mistake that led to the accusations of coverup. Afterwards, the military authorised payments to the families of the victims, a common practice in that part of the world. We can't know the truth about the incident until we see how the actual reports were worded. The Left, however, stands ready to jump on any chance of smearing the troops they pretend to support, no matter how slim.

Never one to lag behind when the US military is being slandered, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) was in the forefront of those making allegations against the US Marines. (To borrow a phrase, I'm ashamed that John Murtha is from Pennsylvania.) Murtha accused the Marines involved of having "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" during the November 2005 incident. While Time magazine portrayed the Marines as barging into houses, throwing grenades around and deliberately shooting anything that moved -- women, children, whatever -- Murtha told reporters, "It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine," and insisted that "There was no firefight." If there was no firefight, he must believe -- or want us to believe -- that this was a deliberate execution of civilians.

Murtha later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "it looks like it's the policy of our troops to do something like this." Keep in mind that the incident is still under investigation, with statements and evidence still being collected... and that the military launched an investigation a month before the media got wind of the story. Yet Murtha seems pretty comfortable declaring that our military coldly executes civilians en masse as a matter of policy. Al-Qaeda In Iraq must be pretty satisfied with that November day's work right now. 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, does this incident not seem like a tactic right out of al-Qaeda's playbook? Set off a bomb, take shots at the disoriented Marines from several nearby windows, and make sure as many civilians get caught in the crossfire as possible (or shoot them yourself, with American weapons -- if, in fact, they were shot with American weapons) while making your escape. Then make a few false statements to panting reporters eager for tales of American atrocities, painting the Marines as marauding killers exacting revenge on innocents. Yet another media manipulation mission accomplished.

After a thorough investigation, it may indeed turn out that Marines of Kilo company were involved in wrongdoing. If so, then they should be judged as harshly as the Uniform Code of Military Justice will allow. Deliberately killing innocent civilians is as wrong an act as anyone can perform -- it's why we are fighting this war on terror in the first place. But if any people ever deserved the benefit of the doubt, if anyone ever earned the right to be accounted "innocent until proven guilty," it's the military personnel of whom we ask so much in our defense.

3 June 06 UPDATE: Michelle Malkin exposes how the UK Times deliberately smeared the Marines by printing year-old pictures of Iraqis executed by terrorists in Haditha with the headline "Massacre Marines Blinded by Hate."

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

- John McCrae, 1915

The Senate immigration reform bill is as close to amnesty as the Senate dares to make it, but it could be even worse. The majority of Americans already prefer the House "enforcement-only" bill over the Senate approach by a 2-to-1 margin. Yet some in the Senate doggedly cling to the hope of granting amnesty and citizenship to the estimated twelve million illegals currently living in the US.

Of course it's amnesty -- what else can it be when penalties for illegal entry, forgery, tax evasion, identity theft, misuse and theft of government services, social security fraud and dozens of other crimes are waived? Where is the amnesty for American criminals? Surely there's too many of them to catch and imprison all at once, which is the excuse for not enforcing our immigration laws.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the Senate bill that would have given amnesty and a direct path to US citizenship to anyone who could prove that they were in the country before the beginning of 2006. Among all the amendments and surprises hidden in the bill, this would have been the worst. Illegals would have been given an "orange card" that would allow them to stay in the US while their citizenship is processed, unlike the millions of law-abiding foreigners who wait patiently in their home countries for permission to emigrate, even temporarily. The amendment was defeated, but garnered 37 votes. One Republican actually voted in favor of the amendment, and two Republicans didn't bother to vote at all.

The following Senators voted to reward foreign lawbreakers with amnesty and citizenship:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Richard Durbin (D-IL) - Co-sponsor
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - Proposed bill
Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Co-sponsor
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - Co-sponsor
John Kerry (D-MA) - Co-sponsor
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Barack Obama (D-IL) - Co-sponsor
Jack Reed (D-RI) - Co-sponsor
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
 
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - did not vote
John Rockefeller (D-WV) - did not vote

Some of these Senators are up for re-election this November, and the voters in those states could send no more powerful message than removing each and every one of the following from office:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

There's a lot of negative buzz these days about MySpace.com, a social networking site currently popular among young people. The news reports story after story about predators stalking kids and teens on MySpace, all of which make it sound like a dangerous site that no right-thinking person would visit. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is even reported to be "cracking down" on "sites like MySpace.com." A dangerous web site that allows sickos to access the personal information of teenagers ought to be shut down, right? Where's my torch and pitchfork?

Trying to shift responsibility to the website provider is entirely the wrong approach. That's like blaming General Motors if you drive your car off a cliff, or Craftsman if you hit your thumb with a hammer. The bad guy is not MySpace, nor any other web host. The predators themselves are at fault. The kids make themselves vulnerable through ignorance and lack of responsibility, both of which can be remedied. Although MySpace could do a better job of screening ads on their site, it's not really their job to police the information users post or teach them caution. They just host free web pages, blogs and photo albums.

Kids are going to do dangerous and stupid things unless they understand the pitfalls -- and will probably do them anyway, if they can get away with it. If it isn't MySpace, it'll be some other site that encourages information exchange. Posting personal information on any Web site is a bit like walking through New York's Central Park at midnight -- you can do it, if you want to, but it's somewhat dangerous. There's unfriendly folks there. Most people know enough to avoid lonely places at midnight, but most of them don't seem to understand the ramifications of personal exposure on the internet. Some people blame MySpace for not combing through every post to remove personal information, like a WWII censor blacking out sections of soldiers' letters. That's like blaming the guy who cuts the grass if you get mugged in Central Park.

Consider the conversation I recently had with a MySpace enthusiast. I was reading a book on a train, minding my own business, when a young woman chatting on her cellphone got on and sat down across from me. I couldn't help but overhear the conversation, which started with school, then went on to MySpace, discussing who wrote a post, who made a comment on whose page, and so on.

When she hung up, I closed my book and looked at her. "MySpace-dot-com, huh?" I said. "I never use it, myself." She launched into a passionate explanation of how much fun it is to post messages and talk to her friends, share pictures, and meet new people online. She told me she had never used a computer much before, but couldn't get enough online time now. I didn't have the heart to tell her that I was using a 300-baud modem to post on bulletin boards before she was even born.

"You know that anything you post online can be read by anyone, even if you don't know them, right?"  I asked. "So I hope you're being careful about posting personal information you don't want everyone to have." From the look on her face, it was apparent she didn't see the need for caution. Why hadn't someone mentioned this to her before? "Not everyone you meet online is friendly, you know," I told her. "Just like in real life."

"For instance, consider what I know about you just from sitting here. I know what you look like and where you go to school." I gestured to the college sweatshirt she wore. "I heard at least two of your friends' names. And once you get off the train, I'll know more or less where you live. How long do you think it would take someone with that knowledge to show up at your house? But it took sitting here while you talked on the phone to learn that. I'll bet a lot of people could get all that information and more from your MySpace page." "I never thought of it like that," she confessed. "Most people don't -- but they should," I answered.

The answer to the MySpace problem, like so many other problems, is education. Too many people go running into the jungle with their arms wide, expecting the critters there to be like the friendly stuffed animals back in their bedroom. Parents and teachers need to constantly warn teenagers: if you're posting pictures and personal information on a web site, you can bet that someone's looking at it.

The Senate held its first votes on the illegal immigration issue, and decided not to secure the border before discussing amnesty or any other immigration changes by a vote of 55-40. The following 18 Republicans voted against dealing with border security first:

Bob Bennett (UT)
Sam Brownback (KS)
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Norm Coleman (MN)
Susan Collins (ME)
Larry Craig (ID)
Mike DeWine (OH)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Chuck Hagel (NE)
Richard Lugar (IN)
Mel Martinez (FL)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Shelby (AL)
Olympia Snow (ME)
Arlen Specter (PA)
Ted Stevens (AK)
George Voinovich (OH)
John Warner (VA)

The following 4 Republicans did not bother to vote:

Thad Cochran (MS)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Trent Lott (MS)
John McCain (AZ)

Please call and email them today.

Securing our southern border should be a priority, not a political ploy. It's telling that those who favor amnesty insist on a "comprehensive" bill. They know that most Americans do not want amnesty granted to foreign criminals and invaders, and they know that if such a bill stood on its own, it would be defeated. Studies have shown that mass legalisation could result in over 100 million uneducated, unskilled, disease-ridden immigrants pouring over our border in the next two decades, forever altering our country beyond recognition.

An increase of 6,000 National Guard troops or extra border patrol is an insult when five times that number are clearly needed, along with a physical wall and strict punishment for knowing employers of illegals. Illegals should be given six months during which to leave on their own, after which unlawful presence in the US should become punishable by permanent banishment. If more than half the illegals currently living in the US didn't make a run for the border in that six months, I'd eat my hat. Then they could truly get in the "back of the line" for citizenship -- since that line actually forms on the OTHER SIDE of the border.

And the result of President Bush's immigration speech, after all the hype, was... rather disappointing. Bush threw a few bones to Conservatives, like actually calling illegal immigrants "illegal immigrants." He listed some of the problems illegals cause and crimes they commit on a daily basis. At least those problems and crimes might, at last, enter into discussions on Capitol Hill.

The President mentioned issuing "tamper-proof" ID cards to temporary workers, cracking down on those who employ illegals and ending the "catch and release" program. All of this is a good start toward enforcing our laws. However, his plan to increase the Border Patrol by a paltry 6,000 is a joke, when five times that number is needed.

He made no mention of physical border security, except to note that the National Guard units to be stationed at the border will be used to install some "high tech" fencing, not to patrol or arrest. His refusal to separate border security from the guest worker and amnesty proposals is a sign that he doesn't take this debate seriously enough. Without a real wall, at least in some areas, the hope of securing the border collapses.

Worst of all, as I feared, President Bush wasted his time and ours pushing the amnesty-that's-not-called-amnesty so many Americans dislike. He stated his belief that those who have already sucessfully broken the law should have to "wait in line" to gain citizenship. They will, however, be allowed to live HERE in America while they wait. What sort of punishment or deterrent can that be? Why is it so difficult to understand that the line to enter actually forms on the other side of the border, where millions wait for approval?

Our only hope now is that the House refuses to compromise on amnesty for lawbreakers and a slap in the face to those who respect our laws. I'd rather see no bill signed than one such as the Senate is currently considering. Perhaps then, the border states would take a hand in their own security, since -- as even President Bush had to admit -- "illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities." The half-measures proposed by the President will do very little to relieve that pressure.