Since before the commencement of the war in Iraq, the two main reasons to remove Saddam from power have been under daily assault by the Left, using the media to push their agenda. The Stop Accusing Poor Saddam people (or SAPS) have ignored every piece of evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein ever had weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups. The problem is that the SAPS drew their conclusions before most of the evidence was even discovered. In most cases, they decided Saddam was innocent for political reasons, and no evidence will serve to shake their conviction. Yet the evidence keeps piling up, as the SAPS shut their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears.

Twelve hours of tapes from a meeting in April or May 1995 are about to be released to the public by the International Intelligence Summit, a non-government, non-profit group that collects intelligence reports from around the world. Saddam recorded hundreds of hours of meetings with his subordinates, who probably did not know they were being taped. Documents and tapes were turned over to the FBI for translation, and tens of thousands of boxes full of evidence remain untranslated to this day. On this particular tape, Saddam can be heard discussing both WMDs and terrorism.

Bill Tierney, a former United Nations weapons inspector, translated the tapes for the FBI. He turned them over to ABC, which used a few choice excerpts from them in a Nightline special. The SAPS will be hard at work making sure the following quotes are interpreted in the way most favorable to Saddam. That only works if you listen to them in a vaccuum, completely forgetting everything else that's known about Saddam Hussein's regime. Keep in mind, too, that Saddam knew his words were being recorded.

HUSSEIN: Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well, I think Hamed was there keeping the meeting minutes with one of them, that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What prevents this technology from developing and people from smuggling it? All of this, before the stories of smuggling, before that, in 1989. I told them, "In the future, what would prevent that we see a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?"

The SAPS would have us believe that Saddam was lamenting that his warning about terror attacks went unheeded. Knowing Saddam's history, keeping in mind that he rose to power as a thug and enforcer in the street gangs of Tikrit, and given the fact that he was training terrorists at Salman Pak at the time of this conference, this sounds more like he had delivered a threat than a friendly warning.

HUSSEIN: This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.

Of course not from Iraq, the SAPS will say. Saddam would never plot a terrorist attack (since, they say, he had no ties to terrorists) using biological or chemical weapons (that they believe he never had). Saddam knew "the story" would not come from Iraq... because the use of terrorist groups affords a rogue nation a certain "plausible deniability." Keep this in mind as you read the next statement:

AZIZ: Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a germ bottle and drop it into a septic tank and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state, no need to accuse a state, an individual can do it. Even an American in a house, close to the White House, I mean, they don't have a logical argument.

According to the SAPS, this would indicate that Tariq Aziz was worried someone might accuse Iraq, should some unknown third party use biological or chemical weapons in a terrorist attack. When one considers that Iraq's biological weapons program was still in secret operation at this time, Aziz was most likely reassuring Saddam that a biological terrorist attack could not be traced back to Iraq.

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, spoke of Iraq's WMD programs. Keep in mind that since 1991, Iraq had been ordered several times to turn over all of its WMDs, including related materials and equipment, to the UN for verified destruction. Holding anything back was a violation of all resolutions back to UNSC#687, and a valid reason to terminate the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War.

HUSSEIN KAMEL: We did not reveal all that we have... Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. Therefore sir, if they want to create problems, I see that our argument now is that biological is everything. No, sir, I disagree and I have to be candid in front of your Excellency. I substantially disagree on this issue. They want it item by item. For the time being, they are not raising all of them with us and we did not declare. I will come back, sir, to the question of whether is it better for us to declare or to stay? In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. Not the 17 tons, no. We have a disagreement which is essential and known. We know it ourselves.

Kamel may have been referring to the 17 tons of anthrax growth media that UNSCOM still listed as unaccounted for after Kamel himself revealed the bioweapons program upon his defection later that year. The SAPS will, of course, say that it was the UN's duty to ferret illegal weapons out, and that it was Saddam's "right" to hide and dissemble. In fact, Iraq was originally given three months to disclose and surrender everything relating to biological, chemical and nuclear programs. Four years later, Saddam's henchmen were still playing hide-and-seek. Saddam never had any intention of complying with his responsibilities, as this short exchange clearly shows.

Eight years after that, following a tragically successful terrorist attack on US soil, it became clear that we couldn't keep waiting upon the whims of dictators. Don't let the SAPS bleat about the "rush to war" and repeat that "Bush lied" about WMDs and ties to terrorists. Saddam Hussein could have easily stopped the slow crawl towards war at any time, had he been willing to come clean. Instead, he appears to have wasted the time of his "final opportunity" to hide and smuggle his illegal weapons out of the country.

What information remains hidden in the tons of documentation that haven't yet been translated? As more information comes to light, the removal of Saddam from power looks more than ever like the right thing to do.

18 Feb 06 UPDATE: It seems Bill Tierney has some complaints to make about ABC's handling of the tapes. ABC discarded Tierney's translation in favor of a "less threatening" version of Saddam's word. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," Tierney told FNC and ABC show host Sean Hannity. ABC also decided not to air a segment in which Saddam says, "In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

The essential premise of terrorism is this: fear of organised, purposeful violence can drastically change the way people act. If people fear an attack, they will change the way they shop, travel, dress, vote or even speak. Actual violence may not even be necessary, once the habit of appeasement becomes ingrained. Eventually, people will automatically modify their own behavior so as not to "cause trouble." Terrorism is schoolyard bullying on the grandest scale. And as we can see from the response to the sudden wave of violence over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, terrorism works.

The European Union and the United Nations are fighting to lead the surrender, it seems. As a result of the violence, the European Union is considering whether to create a "code of conduct" that will encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion. EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini told the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression... We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, "Honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive. It is offensive. It is provocative and you see what has happened around the world." Keep your heads down, in other words. Don't do anything to make them mad. See what happens when you do things they don't like?

Individual European countries are also rushing to appease the angry Islamists. French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication of the cartoons as "overt provocation," and said that any subject matter that could hurt other people's convictions should be avoided. (Don't hold your breath waiting for French -- or any -- newspapers to stop printing anti-American editorials and cartoons.) The Swedish government went so far as to shut down the web site of a newspaper that published cartoons depicting Mohammed. Don't make waves. Don't attract their attention. Just do as they say.

Here in America, supposedly the home of free speech, our own government condemned the cartoons, missing a priceless opportunity to stand up for basic freedoms. "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive," said Sean McCormack of the State Department. Doesn't any government have the backbone to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press? 

The common view is that all Muslims are offended by images of the Prophet. Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist and author, easily refuted that position in a Wall Street Journal editorial. His article reminds us that no such historical prohibition on images of Mohammed or on religious humor exists in Islam -- and that the protests are sponsored by governments (like Syria and Iran) and extremist groups who take themselves too seriously. "Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade," Taheri pointed out. Many depictions of Mohammed exist in Islamic art.

The New York Times and CNN both refused to show the "offensive" Danish cartoons. The mainstream media giants cited various reasons for restraint, ranging from "showing respect for religion" to "not wishing to add fuel to the controversy." Most newspapers and TV stations followed their example. The NY Sun was one of the few newspapers in America with the courage to print the cartoons in question. The Philadelphia Inquirer was another. Some individuals showed backbone, though -- the entire editorial staff of the NY Press resigned when permission to print the cartoons was refused. The media giants more or less capitulated to terrorism, however.

In order to illustrate the news story about the riots, the NY Times did publish one picture: a piece of "art" featuring the Virgin Mary covered in dung. This despite the Times' claim to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." CNN aired cartoons from Arab newspapers to highlight the story, featuring hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Muslim children, controlling the US, falsifying history and so on. Those kinds of pictures won't anger radical Muslims, so the mainstream media feels free to show them.

How can so many be so willing to surrender so many rights as a result of a "controversy" that was so obviously manufactured? The cartoons were first published in September 2005, and were answered by a small but peaceful demonstration. The cartoons were even published in Egypt with no real outcry. There were a few diplomatic protests made by Islamic nations, but that was all.

Then Ahmad Abu Laban, leader of the Islamic Society in Denmark, toured the Middle East showing the actual cartoons alongside severa truly offensive images that he falsely claimed were common portrayals of Mohammed in the West. The worst "Mohammed" image was actually a newspaper photo from the 2005 French Pig-Squealing Championship, during which a bearded contestant was photographed wearing a pig's snout and ears. In areas controlled by dictators or where radical Islam holds sway, places where access to information is tightly restricted, violence flared. Suddenly crowds were burning Danish flags on every street corner, attacking embassies, and promising "Death to those who insult Islam."

Instead of standing up for itself, the West is already beginning to engage in self-proscription designed to appease the self-proclaimed enemies of free speech. If the EU begins passing official guidelines to prevent anything upsetting to radical Muslims from being published, how long will it be before the European government begins actively censoring anything that might provoke an attack? And how long before people here in America begin modifying their own behavior and dress codes to prevent radical Muslims from getting angry? Would you wear a T-shirt with a joke about Jesus on it? Sure you would. Would you wear a shirt bearing one of the Danish cartoons?

We're engaged in a global war on terrorism. Our enemies are radical, violent, fanatic Islamofascists who virtually enslave women, brainwash children and behead or blow up innocents just to make a point. Their aim is to destroy democracy and bring the entire world under the barbaric yoke of shari'a law by use of fear. If we're so worried about offending their delicate sensibilities, and so fearful of their retribution, that we're willing to give up our most essential freedoms to appease them, we might as well submit now and accept dhimmitude.

Hat tip to Zombie for the Mohammed Image Archive

UPDATE: The Brussels Journal posted the translation of an article by Per Nyholm, a journalist with the Jyllands-Posten (the paper that originally printed the cartoons) called "We Are Being Pissed On."

Over the last several decades, Liberals and Democrats have been pulling off the greatest scam of all time -- rewriting history itself. It's amazing how, in a free society, they have managed to hijack the past, twisting the truth by subtle manipulation. Somehow the Left has convinced a sizeable portion of Americans that lowered expectations and government coddling are their birthright by reason of their African ancestry. The new slavery is an enslavement of the mind, and its victims willingly embrace their chains.

Multiculturalists (those who preach self-segregation) have convinced many black Americans to believe they even have a different history from the rest of the country. This is a distortion of reality that has already caused much damage to our national identity. What is "black history month" supposed to represent, anyway? All those people and events singled out for special recognition as being part of "black history" were, in fact, AMERICAN events and AMERICAN people. Every American should celebrate the achievements of Americans who made a positive impact on our shared history, without dividing them according to skin color. All Americans have equal reason and right to be proud of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin as well as Booker T. Washington and Benjamin Banneker.

Race-baiting demagogues use hate and fear to keep blacks from considering candidates from any political party but Democrats when in the voting booth. Yet it was Democrats who seceded from the United States in order to preserve their "right" to own other human beings. It was Democrats who formed the Klu Klux Klan and instituted Jim Crow laws, Democrats who fought for "separate but equal" treatment of black Americans, Democrats who stood in the doorways of schools to keep blacks out and Democrats who turned fire hoses on blacks to keep them from voting. And it has been Democrats who have worked to pin all those injustices on Republicans, who have been the true "party of inclusion" all along.

Most important, it was Democrats who founded and preserved and continue to push for social programs designed to destroy autonomy and self-reliance. Lowering standards for education and employment based on race or sex sends the message "you aren't good enough to compete" to members of the "favored" group. So-called "affirmative" action programs and racial quotas only send the message, "you can't make it without help." Yet an overwhelming number of minorities vote for those who continue to push race-based condescension. How do Democrats keep fooling the people they have been oppressing into voting for them, year after year?

Democrats continue to use the false history they invented to frighten and anger blacks, to prevent them from voting for anyone but Democrats. Those who dare to embrace Conservatism are ostracised, derided as "Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas" for expressing their own point of view. Liberals have consistently characterised former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell and Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as "house slaves" and "sellouts." Rice was even cartooned as Prissy, the lying, lazy slave girl portrayed by Butterfly McQueen in "Gone With the Wind." Most recently, NAACP leader Julian Bond referred to both Powell and Rice, two of the most important and influential people in the world, as "tokens," merely because they refuse to wave the flag of racial victimhood.

Worst of all, I think, are white Democratic politicians who play politics in black churches, to show how "down" they are with the dark-skinned crowd. That sort of pandering is sometimes actually painful to watch. Who can forget Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry giving the "black power" salute while speaking to the NAACP? Or Bill Clinton claiming the mantle of America's "first black President?"

Witness Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) own recent faux pas in this regard, on the national holiday Ronald Reagan created to honor the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. It was King who famously dreamed that his children would "one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A nation, in other words, without race-based quotas or standards... a nation where skin color is not used to herd people into voting blocs.

While visiting the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ, a black church in Harlem, Clinton made a political speech, as Democrats often do in churches. "The House of Representatives is run like a plantation," she told the congregation, "and you know what I'm talking about." That's right -- you people obviously just got in from picking cotton, so you must know what a plantation is like, right? Would people like Clinton get away with those sorts of remarks unscathed, if not for the "D" after their names? After a brief flurry of concern from Conservatives, the HMS Hillary sailed on, undisturbed.

Obviously, Clinton and other Democrats -- black and white -- use emotionally loaded slavery references to paint their political opponents as oppressors. They gamble on the ignorance of history that constitutes a public education these days. The fact that the Left continues to oppose true education reform -- abolishing tenure and subjecting schools to competition through vouchers -- comes as no surprise.

If public schools were run more efficiently and competitively, those who attend them might learn more about American history -- the real history -- than the Left wants them to know. The chains of the new slavery are forged from ignorance, after all.

8 Feb UPDATE: Julian Bond's reference to Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell was incorrectly reported, as it turns out. He did not call them "tokens," but called them "human shields against criticism of [the Bush administration's] record on civil rights" instead. While it's difficult to see a distinction between the two insults, the quote was incorrect.

For years, the Left has been telling us that the innocent, victimised Palestinian people (actually Egyptians and Jordanians) just want peace with those nasty bullies from Israel. Well, the Palestinians themselves finally got the chance to tell the world what they really want. A free and open election in the Palestinian territories has put an Iran-backed terrorist group in power, a group that has sworn to destroy Israel. How "peace-loving" is that?

The Fatah party openly favored negotiation with Israel leading to a two-state solution and an independent Palestine. Hamas, the largest and most influential Muslim fundamentalist movement in the Palestinian territories, entered the political fray with a platform based on the death of all Jews, and the utter destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, the party with peace talks and negotiation in mind was voted out due to corruption scandals and inability to keep order in the cities. That put the party with "a bomb on every bus" for a motto in control, to everyone's surprise.

Hamas is a terror group formed in 1987 to push for the eradication of Israel. An essential part of their ideology is that the Palestinian problem is religious, and therefore can never be solved by political compromise. They believe that the land "from the [Jordan] river to the sea" is consecrated to Islam. It cannot be given up, not even a part of it, especially not Jerusalem. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group of Arab fanatics that served as an arm of Nazi intelligence during WWII. Hamas now receives a majority of its funding from Iran, funneled through Hezbollah and other groups.

A December 2000 intelligence report, for instance, showed that Iran transferred $1,200,000 to Hamas's Qassam Brigades to support 'the Hamas military arm in Israel and encouraging suicide operations.' According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, Iranian support for Hamas and other terrorist organisations is widespread:

Findings related to the interrogation of prisoners captured and documents seized in Operation Defensive Shield show the existence of an institutionalized and systematic network for transferring large sums of money operated by Iran through the organizations under its auspices, which use the banking systems of Syria and the Palestinian territories. Interrogation of the prisoners and the seized documents reveal large-scale transfer of money from Syria and Lebanon to Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and indirectly also to the Fatah/al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (in addition to funds received by Fatah from the Palestinian Authority). These funds were used to encourage murderous terror activities in the Palestinian territories and in Israel; carrying out these activities was a condition for transferring financial support to the terror operatives in the field.

The fact that Hamas runs soup kitchens and health clinics in the Palestinian territories doesn't make up for bombed-out buses and restaurants in Israel. Such community support is useful to terrorist groups needing good will from the populace, not evidence of pure civic-mindedness. Luckily, that's a lesson the terrorists in Iraq never managed to learn, or the (mostly Sunni) insurgents would not be starting to turn against them now.

So the Palestinian people elected Hamas to 74 of the 132 seats in their parliament. Must we treat Hamas as a legitimate political entity if they continue to carry out terrorist attacks? Of course not. President Bush has already warned Hamas that US aid to the Palestinian Authority depends on the cessation of terrorist attacks and the repudiation of their intention to destroy Israel. It was bad enough when the Palestinian government pretended to have no control over Hamas... now the Palestinian government is Hamas. 

Our tax dollars should not go to support Hamas or any other terror group... especially when they already have enough support from Iran. Our resolve to prevent Iran from building a nuclear device must be stronger than ever, now that Iran has a willing delivery system on Israel's doorstep. Israel's security fence may be their best protection from Palestinian terrorists armed with pipe bombs... but it won't stop a nuclear weapon.

Does this election mean, as many Liberals would like to claim, that democracy has failed and freedom in the Middle East is a pipe dream? Hardly. It merely drives home the lesson that open elections are not the sole component of democracy; that along with freedom comes responsibility. Choices do have consequences.

If Hamas renounces terrorism and behaves as a legitimate government, international repercussions will likely be few. The new government already faces the possibility of civil war within the Palestinian territory, as even members of the police force have stormed the parliament building in protest of the Hamas victory. Some Fatah party leaders have already resigned, either through fear of their constituents or refusal to work with Hamas. There isn't much hope for peace with Israel at this point. It seems as though Ariel Sharon's gamble of surrendering Gaza in the hope of buying peace isn't going to pan out, after all. On the other hand, at least we can all dispense with the fiction that the Palestinians want peace with Israel.

Demands for Mahmoud Abbas and the leaders of the Fatah party to resign will probably shift to calls for party reform in the near future, as even the most violent Palestinians prefer fighting Israel to fighting with their own government. With any luck, the Fatah party -- or another, reform-minded party -- can gain enough of a voice to prevent Hamas from declaring all-out war with Israel. That's a road that will lead to no good for anyone.

The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision made by the Supreme Court was arguably the worst abuse of judicial power ever committed in this country. No other Supreme Court decision has caused so much death, nor caused so many people to become so callous about the taking of innocent life. Roe v. Wade was a severe blow to the moral fiber of America... which is why Liberals must fight so fiercely to protect it from Americans, even after all these years. Abortion is THE issue in any political ring, despite Democrat protests that they don't have a litmus test for candidates and judges. That's a bit like the College of Cardinals claiming they don't have a litmus test to approve only Catholic candidates for Pope.

The Supreme Court's decision was based on a right to privacy that is presumed to exist, one of the "others retained by the people" mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. The "right to abortion" was supposedly discovered in mysterious "emanations" of "penumbras" surrounding the Bill of Rights. In other words, the Bill of Rights doesn't actually mention abortion at all, but the Court wanted to find a way to force the Federal government to protect it.

The Bill of Rights, one must remember, is not a document that grants rights to the people... instead, its purpose is to limit the Federal government's power to encroach upon the rights of both people and states. If an issue isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal government has no automatic right of jurisdiction in the matter. The Tenth Amendment specifically states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court decided that abortion was too important to let the hoi polloi have a say, and removed the right of either states or people to decide the question by creating a new Federal power with a pen stroke. No matter what you may think of abortion, Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling: judicial activism at its worst.

And worse, it's a bad ruling based on a falsehood, one that has become so essential to Liberals that they repudiate any evidence that runs the danger of altering the conclusion. Abortion can only be legal as long as unborn children aren't considered human. That's the debate we really need to have.

Many Liberals continue to insist that an unborn child is about the same, medically speaking, as a wart or tumor. One doesn't need permission to have a wart removed, nor does a tumor have any constitutionally protected rights. As long as they can pretend that an unborn child isn't a human being (though they never seem to say what it might be, in that case), the Left can argue in favor of abortion. They call this "choice," as though opponents of abortion are opposed to making choices. The difference is that abortion opponents usually believe that "choice" is what you make when you get into a bed or a car and the clothes come off. In the real world, choices may lead to unwanted consequences, and killing an innocent life you created is no way to avoid them.

So how can we know whether an unborn child is human, and thus protected by law? Science and reason may help us find the correct answer. To be human is to be a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. One's species is determined by one's unique genetic makeup, which is formed at conception and never alters (at least, not in nature). An unborn child is, therefore, demonstrably human -- a living creature with unique human DNA -- and he or she should be entitled to at least some legal protection.

Returning to the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Allowing one person to deprive another of life without due process is a violation of the latter's Fifth Amendment rights. Taking the lives of the most helpless of human beings because they are inconvenient -- the reason almost all abortions are performed -- is simply wrong.

The Left's biggest fear is that Judge Sam Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling could only be overturned if a state abortion ban like the one proposed in Ohio is challenged by pro-abortion groups, and comes before the Supreme Court. Even if the Court does overturn it, the only effect would be to return the abortion decision to the states, where it belongs. When that happens, the damage done to the Constitution in 1973 will be healed, and the debate over the fate of unborn children can begin in earnest, instead of being suppressed by fictional constitutional "rights." 

Many state legislatures, more responsive to actual voters than the Federal government, would regulate or abolish abortion. In 2004, the Associated Press reported that thirty states were preparing to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade was overturned. (Of course, the story may have been exaggerated in an attempt to frighten voters into defeating President Bush's re-election.) Some states might throw the question open for the people to decide by direct referendum.

That's how the Founders intended such unanticipated questions be addressed, but the thought of regular people making real choices is a fearful thing to Liberals. It's strange to see people who supposedly advocate "choice" insisting that people have no say in their own laws.

Are we really going to go through this whole Kabuki dance all over again? I thought we'd had enough of fake international support from backstabbing allies and a corrupt United Nations the last time we faced down a self-described enemy in the Middle East. Do we have to act out the same scenario again, or can we avoid the same pitfalls this time? Who benefits from this diplomatic ballet, anyway? Certainly not America or her real allies.

Once again, we must deal with a defiant Middle Eastern dictatorship that everyone agrees is working on weapons of mass destruction, has declared us an enemy, oppresses its own people, supports terrorism and uses oil to prevent being called to account for any of it. Once again, the United Nations is talking tough, and every nation stands behind us -- as long as we take no direct action. If we decide to do more than write stern letters and make speeches, you can bet that some of those who supposedly back us now will once again back away. And you can bet that it will be some of the same countries that do so. In the words of Yogi Berra, "It's deja vu all over again."

It was only a little more than three years ago that the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to stop the threat posed by Iraq to the entire region. When push came to shove, three members of the Security Council refused to live up to all the resolutions for which they had voted. France, Russia and China, while voting to condemn Saddam Hussein, continued to support him in private. All three countries had oil exploitation deals with Iraq that they would lose with a change of regime. France had rights to the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields, Russia had rights to the West Qurna, and China had rights to oil from Al Ahdab. All three countries, as well as Germany, had extensive economic ties to Iraq. All four of those countries vigorously opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, when the time came to act.

Iraq refused to surrender all the materials and documents related to its WMD programs and other biochemical processes by the specified date. UNMOVIC continued to warn us that Iraq may be holding stockpiles of banned weapons. Yet France, Russia and China refused to even consider the "serious consequences" for non-compliance in the resolution they had signed. France's ambassador to the UN stated that he would veto any resolution that called for the use of force. France and Russia, along with Germany, continued to sell weapons and military equipment to Saddam right up to the day he literally crawled into a hole and pulled it in after him.

It was only after the Butcher of Baghdad was overthrown that we began to discover just how deep in his pocket influential people and institutions in France, Russia and China (among so many other countries) were. The UN's Oil-for-Food program, designed to prevent economic sanctions from being too harsh on the Iraqi people, became the "Oil-for-Votes" program instead.

Now it looks as though the United Nations will make similar strong demands on Iran, to convince them to halt their nuclear program. Sanctions against that country are being discussed... but sanctions will solve nothing, as they solved nothing in Iraq. If Iran should back down in the face of sanctions, how long do we keep them in place? What kind of hardship will they impose on the average Iranian citizen? Will we see another Oil-for-Food program take shape -- and will it, like the Iraqi version, become a cash cow for the regime it's supposed to humble?

This time, we are assured, the United States has the backing of every nation on the Security Council, including France, Russia and China. We are lulled by the thought that all of Europe is with us this time, including Germany. But we had their full backing and support in November 2002, didn't we? As long as standing up to terrorist dictatorships working on illegal weapons consists solely of putting words on paper and making tough speeches, we will have the support of countries that have economic ties with those dictatorships. When it comes time to back those words up with force, though, we can't trust nations whose economies depend on the enemy. We will undoubtedly see the same scenario play out with Iran that we did with Iraq. Which of our allies will stall, and finally veto, the use of force in Iran?

A Chinese delegation was in Iran as recently as December 2005, attempting to negotiate an oil contract worth one hundred billion dollars. In 2004, the Chinese firm Sinopec signed a deal with Iran for exploitation of the Yadavaran oil field near the border with Iraq. There are few reasons for China to back sanctions, let alone military action, against Iran.

Europe is becoming overrun with Middle Eastern immigrants. Between 15 and 20 million Muslims live in Europe, making up four to five percent of its population. France's Muslim population comprises between seven and ten percent of the whole. Most Muslims may be decent, law-abiding citizens, but terror groups, some funded by Iran, run almost unchecked throughout Europe. Not many European countries, especially France, will want to risk repeating the Paris riots of November 2005.

Russia is actually helping the Iranians build nuclear reactors, and even signed a deal to supply the fuel to power them in February 2005. Why would Russia abandon what might be its most dependable source of revenue for the next decade? Given Russia's deepening ties with China, that country could block any action against Iran as a way of appeasing both allies at once.

By working through the United Nations, we once again subject ourselves to unnecessary debate, delay, danger and demoralisation, even as Iran draws us all closer to the brink of nuclear war. The same countries that fought the overthrow of Saddam for economic reasons will likely fight the overthrow of Iran's government, and for the same motive. Shouldn't we learn from our mistakes, and stop entrusting our safety to those who have proven themselves untrustworthy?

If we must deal with Iran militarily, we will certainly need the support of other nations -- but let it be through NATO, not the UN. And let it be soon.

21 Jan 06 UPDATE: Iran signed a deal giving the Chinese oil firm COSL partial oil rights in the Caspian Sea yesterday. The odds that China will agree to sanctions or regime change in Iran are now slimmer than ever.

Four days of grueling confirmation hearings for Judge Sam Alito, and what have we learned that we didn't already know? Nothing. No one's mind was changed -- every Senator already knew which way he or she would vote soon after hearing that Alito would be the nominee, if not before. The only purpose of such a show is to play a public "gotcha" game, as Senators attempt to trap nominees into saying something that can be used to hurt them in the media.

It's about time we stop forcing nominees to endure hostile interrogations that serve no purpose whatsoever, and possibly violate restrictions on psychological torture. At one point, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apologised for the reprehensible behavior of the Democrats on the committee, Alito's wife broke down in tears. We don't need any more of these useless confirmation hearings, the specter of which probably keeps some excellent potential public servants out of the job pool.

Harlan Fiske Stone was the first Supreme Court nominee to appear before the Judiciary Committee in 1925, but the process of confirmation hearings didn't become standard until thirty years later. As far as I'm concerned, the process ceased to have any meaning in 1993, when Ruth Bader Ginsberg perfected the now-standard practice of saying nothing at all before the Committee through lawyerly evasion and use of double-speak. Her non-performance has been the template for all confirmation hearings ever since.

We already knew that Senators love to hear themselves talk more than anything else, and will take any opportunity to grab as much "face time" in front of the cameras as humanly possible. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), for instance, spoke for twelve minutes straight at one point, before he remembered that he was supposed to be asking a question. Alito, like every Bush nominee to every position, was forced to spend several days keeping absolutely still, wearing a poker face, as his personal and professional reputation, his judgment, his morals and his life were savaged before the cameras. The sight of Senator Ted "Splash" Kennedy (D-MA) accusing anyone of being a misogynistic elitist would have been laughable, were it not so morally repulsive. The only thing missing from the circus was Senator Bobby "Sheets" Byrd (D-WV) making a special guest appearance to accuse Alito of being a racist. Instead, that task also fell to Kennedy, who lied about Alito's record, stating that Alito had never decided any case in favor of a minority.

Before the hearings, we knew that no matter how many times the Senators asked the same questions, Judge Alito would never reveal what he thought about controversial cases like Roe v. Wade. "Controversial," especially in this case, means, "a bad judicial ruling that violates the Constitution, that everyone nonetheless is supposed to pretend is a proper law." The Democratic Senators -- and not-quite-Republican Senator Arlen Specter (R?-PA) -- practically demanded that Alito chain himself to upholding Roe v. Wade at all costs. Specter even referred to it as a "super-precedent," although there is no such term in law or logic.

The Left wants all judges to swear by "stare decisis" -- a Latin term meaning to stay with that which has been decided -- in this one case alone, while cheering such decisions as Brown v. Board of Education and Lawrence v. Texas, both of which reversed previous Supreme Court decisions. The Brown decision of 1954 rightly overturned the 1896 Supreme Court decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the "separate but equal" doctrine was upheld. The Lawrence decision of 2003 overturned the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, in which the Supreme Court had correctly determined that sodomy laws, not being specifically addressed in the Constitution, should be decided by individual state legislatures. So why insist that this one case must never, ever be re-examined? Because the Left can not allow representatives elected by the people, supposedly answerable to the people, to vote on the most important element of the Liberal agenda.

We knew before the hearings that Alito briefly became a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton several decades ago because they were against throwing the ROTC off campus. We knew that he didn't immediately recuse himself from a case involving the investment firm Vanguard, although he did so when the plaintiff questioned his involvement. He had no legal obligation to recuse himself, as Vanguard did not benefit from his decision (and a completely different court reached the same verdict in a new trial).

We knew that he would have allowed the strip-search of a ten-year-old girl, because the warrant specified searching "all persons present" in the home of a known drug dealer. Not only was the girl a person, and present, but if the court suddenly discovered a Constitutional "age exemption" from search warrants, every criminal in America would keep a child nearby for concealment in case of a raid. We also knew that none of those things have any bearing on his fitness to sit on the Supreme Court.

How did we know all these things before the camera-hungry Senators on the Judiciary Committee wasted our tax dollars interrogating Judge Alito for four long days? Because the American Bar Association already took all those circumstances into consideration before unanimously granting Alito their highest recommendation, and their findings are a matter of public record. All those questions have already been answered for all to see.

Instead of staging a showy public witch-hunt for their own benefit, the ABA quietly studied hundreds of Alito's decisions and writings, and interviewed thousands of people with whom he had associated. No one can say that their analysis is flawed or their methods not transparent. The process of interviewing "well over 300 judges, lawyers, and members of the legal community nationwide" from "varying and different political, racial, ethnic and gender backgrounds" yielded "consistent and virtually unanimous comments" attesting to Alito's exceptional personal integrity, even judicial temperament and professional competence. Why can't the Senate use methods similar to the ABA for vetting nominees, instead of forcing us all to witness the taxpayer-funded character assassination of decent people nominated to important government positions?

It's lucky for some members of Congress that there is no such vetting agency that might impartially examine their integrity, temperament and competence. The "mainstream" media once held that job, but seems to have abandoned it to the "new" media of talk radio and the internet.

It's become increasingly difficult to hold rational discussions with those who regard the Constitution of the United States as a "living document," subject to change without having to go through the bother of voting. It sometimes seems as though most Liberals have never read the Constitution, or at any rate not understood it. They persist in reading things into it that the Founders never intended, nor would have considered likely in their day.

The process for amending the Constitution is simple and clear, as laid out in Article V -- a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by a ratification by three-fourths of the various state legislatures. Yet activist judges continually seek ways to alter or read the Constitution so as to find support for their agenda, and most of those judges are Liberal. While Conservative activism is just as bad, it is far less common, as most Conservatives believe the Constitution should be used to judge the validity of the law, not the law used to undermine the integrity of the Constitution.

Nevetheless, Liberals seem to see things, especially in the Bill of Rights, that the rest of us just cannot find there. If Federal-level "rights" like abortion and gay "marriage" were specifically enumerated as Liberals insist they were, they must have been secretly written on the back of the original document in lemon juice, just before it was ratified in 1791. Liberals must, therefore, have their own version that they refer to during arguments.

After careful consideration, research and discussion, I have managed to discover what I believe to be the actual Liberal version of the Bill of Rights, hidden away since the 18th century and only revealed to Liberals. Its existence explains why so many Liberals are so wrong so much of the time.

Bill of Rights (Liberal Version)

Amendment I
There shall be no show of respect for any Judeo-Christian religion, or people who believe in a Judeo-Christian religion, or Christian-based holidays, and no one who professes belief in any Judeo-Christian religion shall be considered fit for any government position or office. No law shall abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably or otherwise, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless that speech, that press or those people are in support the actions of Christians or Republicans, or in condemnation of the actions of Democrats, or might be construed as giving offense to anyone.

Amendment II
The military and police being the only forces necessary to the security of the State, the right of the common people to keep and bear arms shall be removed, weighed down with restrictions and regulations until private citizens can no longer own anything that might be used as a weapon.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be regarded as necessary to maintaining that peace. When at home, soldiers of any rank are to be considered disposable, interchangeable, dull-witted robots, who can be instantly trained at need, and considered dangerous, uncontrollable, dull-witted barbarians bent on murder, rapine and torture when overseas. As a group, American soldiers are to be lauded and pitied, but individually, reviled.

Amendment IV
The right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against any searches and seizures shall not be violated without a court-ordered warrant, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by the kind of evidence of wrongdoing that could only be gathered with a warrant, and the warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Personal security shall be considered inviolable for American citizens, foreigners living in America, and foreigners living elsewhere.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, because crimes are the fault of society, and not the individual. Republicans and Conservatives, on the other hand, shall be deemed guilty upon indictment by a grand jury, or even upon accusation of wrongdoing. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, unless that person show evidence of Conservative thinking. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, unless that person shall be unborn or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise be deemed useless to the State, or a burden. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, public use being defined as anything that might benefit the State in some way, including higher tax revenue from said property.

Amendment VI
In all prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial in the media, and later, if necessary, by jury. Guilt shall be determined by the extent of public outcry that can be created over the nature of the crime, but reduced by the level of celebrity status enjoyed by the accused. The word of anonymous witnesses and experts may be used as evidence in the media trial. If a person found guilty of a crime is able to claim disadvantaged status -- meaning non-white, non-Christian, non-male, poor or homosexual -- that person shall have the right to full and open public sympathy by celebrities and members of the media, unless that person happens to be Conservative or Republican, both of which are forbidden to members of disadvantaged groups.

Amendment VII
The right of trial by jury shall be preserved for captured opponents during time of war, who shall be accorded all the rights and benefits of American citizens in addition to the disadvantaged person status, which shall automatically be granted to all "enemies" of America. 

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, not even curtailment of any freedoms or rights whatsoever. Those held for committing a crime shall be afforded luxuries in entertainment and food to make up for the injustice of being incarcerated, as well as the right to at least one book deal.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, especially the unquestionable rights of abortion, tax-paid health care and gay marriage.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the Judiciary, who shall have the power to overturn decisions made by vote of the people, amend the Constitution and even change the meaning of the words written herein at will and without recourse by the people.

It may be both entertaining and instructive to compare the Left's shifting positions on national security under different circumstances. It seems that whether Liberals and Democrats celebrate or condemn security leaks depends solely on whether the situation can be used to benefit them politically.

For more than two years we have been listening to Liberals, puffed up with (self-) righteous indignation, attacking the Bush administration over the supposed "outing" of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame. The Left chooses to ignore the fact that she was not, at the time, a covert agent, nor had she been stationed overseas in at least five years -- either of which condition is specifically indicated for criminality in the law they claim was broken.

A columnist named her work for the CIA as the reason her husband, Joe Wilson, was chosen to evaluate reports that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Robert Novak was understandably curious about the selection, as Wilson is a rabid Bush-hater who never actually investigated the question, and who published his "conclusions" in the mainstream media instead of a report to those who sent him. When Democrats flew into a rage over Novak's publication of supposed national secrets, which they claimed would put the lives of other agents at risk, Novak mentioned that an administration official had let the name slip during a conversation.

Liberals and Democrats immediately divined that Karl Rove, assistant to President Bush, had deliberately exposed Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson. In their view, it makes perfect sense that he would do this, as many Liberals seem to act on emotion rather than reason. Of course, the fact that Iraq actually did send a trade delegation to Niger, which Wilson himself reported as "a possible attempt to buy uranium," made Wilson's false public declarations to the contrary seem a bit odd. And the further fact that nearly 500 tons of yellowcake uranium was actually found in Iraq, and more radioactive material was discovered in at least one shipment of scrap metal from Iraq, made them downright laughable.

The Left was infuriated, demanding that Rove's treasonous act, his betrayal of national security, must be punished to the very limit of the law. When the much-ballyhooed special investigation finally came to a head, however... no one was indicted for exposing or betraying any secrets at all. Fitzmas (so named by the giddily expectant Left in honor of the prosecutor who would surely destroy the Bush administration) was a fizzle.

The simple fact is that no actual crime was committed in the Plame case. Even if events took place exactly as Liberals envision them, they would not rise to meet the standard for illegality laid out by the law. You can take out billboard ads along the highway for the purpose of displaying lists of common, everyday government employees, if you wish... so long as one of them is not currently under cover or has not been assigned to another country in the last five years.

Yet, if you listen, you can still hear Liberals chanting the name of Valerie Plame to this day... like a magical incantation with which to bring about the downfall of President Bush.

Somehow, in all this zeal to safeguard national security, the Left has lost track of the number of times security has truly been violated. When it's done by Democrats, or can be used to attack President Bush, however, violating national security apparently earns the Liberal Seal of Approval. "Leakers" become "whistle-blowers," a term formerly reserved to describe those who expose real government abuses, and usually for other than political purposes.

The real name of a covert CIA analyst was divulged by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in April 2005, despite the fact that the CIA "asked news organizations to withhold his name," according to the New York Times. Kerry's defense was that the agent's name had been in the press years ago, when he had been the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America... and besides, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said it, too. At the time of disclosure, however, Fulton Armstrong held a sensitive undercover assignment. Calling attention to his real profession may have put him in danger. No one, as yet, has officially called for Kerry's or Lugar's impeachment, arrest and trial. You have to wonder why those who demanded arrests and impeachments over the Plame "outing" haven't clamored to see John Kerry frog-marched out of the Capitol building. Perhaps that "D" after his name stands for "Don't Prosecute."

Details of secret Eastern European prisons where captured al-Qaeda operatives were kept leaked out to the press in November 2005. The disclosure including locations, registration numbers from planes used as transport and the names of companies that were used as CIA covers. Every agent associated with those countries, those prisons, those planes or companies is now in jeopardy. The likelihood of a retributive terrorist attack against those countries will cause other countries to reconsider aiding the US, for fear of becoming terrorist targets. Those who should be calling for an investigation into this severely damaging leak seem to regard it instead as a tool with which to attack President Bush. How dare he abrogate the rights of terrorists, and treat them as enemies?

Many Democrats continue to fight the PATRIOT Act, which allowed the same law enforcement tools used in murder, mob and drug investigations to be used to investigate terrorism. It also tore down the "wall," erected at the urging of deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick during Clinton's presidency, that prevented law enforcement agencies from sharing vital information. How anyone claiming to care about national security can oppose the act on the grounds that someone might figure out how to abuse it someday is beyond me. No violations of any American's civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act have ever been verified, despite the hysterical hyperbole one hears from the Left.

Most recently, the fact that the NSA tapped phones whose numbers were found in al-Qaeda databases and speed-dials was leaked. 2006 being an election year, the Left is foaming with faux outrage over this action, pretending not to understand why warrants were not requested under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978). For those who actually don't understand: the phones were tapped without knowing who was using them, because al-Qaeda was obviously reaching out to touch someone in the United States. You can't get a warrant for "whoever picks up," but the President can order wiretapping without a warrant when the subject is associated with a foreign power. Even the FISA review court itself had to admit in 2002 that the President has the power to order warrantless surveillance to gather intelligence, especially as we are at war. (If it helps, pretend the Feds were only listening to the known al-Qaeda contact on the other end of the line.)

So where are the self-appointed security hawks on the Left? Are they demanding investigations into real exposure of covert agents' identities? Are they fighting to extend the PATRIOT Act, so the government will have the tools it needs to track down terrorists before they can strike? Are they calling for heads to roll over the leaking of classified information about where terrorists are housed and interrogated? Are they supporting the efforts of the NSA to gather information on those who have relations to al-Qaeda? Not at all... they're too busy prostituting information vital to national security for talking points and votes.

As a new year begins, it's almost impossible to resist trying to predict what it will bring. Naturally, as a Conservative, I look forward to the new year with more optimism than pessimism. Therefore, this is as much a collection of hopes as a series of predictions.

On the home front, the economy will most likely continue to grow at between 3% and 4% overall. When Liberals say that economic indicators like the stock market and unemployment are back where they were in 2000, they're ignoring some essential facts. The late 1990's economy they praise was based on the unstable technology "bubble" that burst in early 2000, plunging us into a recession that was deepened by 9/11. The Bush tax cuts have fueled several years of recovery and solid economic growth. Not even the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina was able to slow the economy.

The Dow will almost certainly break 11,000 in 2006. New Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke will probably continue Alan Greenspan's policies, at least for now. It's possible that the Fed may stop raising interest rates, and even cut them, by mid-year. If that happens, the stock market will spike, possibly reaching as high as 11,500. The only thing that could harm our economy would be a sudden, sharp rise in oil prices... and that, unfortunately, depends on events in the Middle East.

A showdown with Iran seems likely this year, unless that country halts its nuclear program. Israel will never allow a theocratic Islamofascist state founded on terrorism, whose president declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map," to build nuclear weapons. The only way to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a direct attack on that country may be to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. With their main oil-exporting route closed, the shaky Iranian economy would likely collapse within weeks. Unfortunately, oil prices would probably rise drastically for months, making such a blockade during the winter or summer less likely. China and Europe (with its various struggling economies) would protest any real action against Iran. Things may come to a head in March or April, while we still have a substantial military presence on Iran's doorstep.

Conditions in Iraq will continue to improve despite terrorist activity, forcing the mainstream media to switch its defeat theme from "Iraq is a quagmire" to "the political situation in Iraq isn't perfect." Syria may be forced to scale back support for terrorism, as even the UN is forced to scrutinise Bashir Assad's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. After some more courtroom antics and delaying tactics, Saddam Hussein will surely be pronounced guilty of ordering the killings at Dujail. The sooner the death sentence is carried out upon him, the sooner the majority of Iraqi insurgents will lose hope, causing a greater split between them and the terrorists. American troop levels will drop as the Iraqis continue to build and train their own military, but look to the Democrats to claim that the President is pulling out because he's finally agreeing with them that we can't win.

The Chinese, meanwhile, will continue to manipulate events in Asia. Their military alliance with Russia and North Korea will embolden them to threaten the US over Taiwan. Secretary of State Condi Rice will have a difficult job this year, as she tries to steer the Russian government away from China, and away from the dictatorship it seems to be slipping into. Putin's plan to give his political party even more control over the process of appointing governors may cause more domestic problems and unrest. If Russia can be swayed back onto the democratic path, however, China may tone down the rhetoric over Taiwan.

The UN will continue to wallow in scandal, corruption and anti-Americanism, despite Ambassador John Bolton's attempts to institute reform. Kofi Annan's tenure is too rife with dishonesty and exploitation to change significantly while he remains the Secretary-General. His term is over at the end of 2006, however. 

Without a doubt, there will be disasters around the world this year -- natural as well as man-made. As always, American citizens will respond with aid, while the Left will castigate the Federal government for not taking more of our money and deciding where to send it for us. That won't bother most Americans, however -- the people in front of the cameras are not the people who need the help.

Back home, Democrats will continue to ramp up the anti-Bush rhetoric as the midterm elections approach, despite the fact that President Bush is not up for re-election. They're stuck in permanent campaign mode, and will blindly resist anything the President tries to do during his second term. If they continue to resist fighting the War on Terror with anything approaching seriousness, they may lose a few more seats in Congress, though not enough to give the Republicans a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Fighting judicial nominees like Samuel Alito -- who will be confirmed by the Senate -- will also expose them to the American people for what they are. There may be one more Supreme Court vacancy this year, and the Democrats would do better to hoard what strength they have left.

On the other hand, one of the big issues in the 2006 elections will be illegal immigration. If the Bush administration doesn't do anything to stop the flood of illegals flowing into this country, the Democrats may take control of the issue and even regain control of the Senate, if they can keep their opposition to national security out of the spotlight. It would be difficult for a Democrat to pretend to be serious about keeping the borders secure while opposing other measures designed to keep the country safer.

If President Bush continues to defend himself before the American people, instead of letting political attacks go unanswered as he did during most of 2005, the Democrats will be forced to go even further out on the Liberal limb, losing even more votes. Some politicians who are up for re-election in 2006, like Hillary Clinton, will claim to have been hawks all along, advocate border security, and retain their seats. Unfortunately, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) will likely be re-elected, while Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) may lose to Bob Casey Jr. I wonder whether President Bush will campaign as hard for Santorum, who has always supported him, as he did for wishy-washy Senator Arlen Specter (R?-Pa), who frequently stabs him in the back?

Will there be a successful terrorist attack in the USA this year? It's impossible to tell at this point. If Congress doesn't renew -- or significantly weakens -- the PATRIOT Act, a terror attack will certainly be easier to plan and carry out. The same applies to the Democrat attempts to portray the NSA's tapping phone calls to and from known al-Qaeda numbers overseas as "illegal spying on Americans" -- if they manage to gain traction with this non-issue, they may cripple our ability to defend ourselves. Who knows what other fake scandals the Democrats are holding in reserve, ready to spring on the public before the 2006 election?

The best weapon the terrorists have is time, unfortunately. More people will forget about 9/11 this year, as the little emergencies of everyday life push the memories into a corner. Hollywood will continue to do its part to vilify America, capitalism, Christianity and the Bush administration in movies, television and foreign interviews. Liberals will continue to disparage and degrade all the good America does while exaggerating any bad effects, becoming more shrill and divorced from reality as more people grow tired of their rhetoric and stop paying attention to the news and politics. Demotivating centrist and right-leaning voters would be a big victory for the Left.

However, the one prediction I can make with certainty is that the country will endure. I don't doubt that the Left will try their hardest to undermine those things that most Americans believe in, but I have no doubt that they will continue to fail this year.