The next great debate: Nuclear Power

Is there such a thing as global warming or is it just a hoax? Many (NOT ALL) conservatives will contend that it is just a hoax, and Many, (NOT ALL) liberals will contend that it is real; that man is the cause of global warming.

Plus we must realize that not just many democrats but some republicans too have bought into it, as have a plethora of Americans. So it is something that we should take seriously. Whether it's real or not only God knows.

As you guys know from my previous posts, and my header on this blog, I think people should base their political views on facts and common sense before emotion. And that is why I think it would be foolish to think that the global warming crowd is wrong. I think they have a legitimate concern, that we humans may well be destroying our own planet.

Look, my fellow conservatives, I'm not saying we are destroying the planet. What I'm saying is that we simply may be destroying the planet. What do we know? We are puny little people on a huge planet in a magnanimous universe.

To all those liberals who think I'm all of a sudden buying into the idea of global warming, calm down a bit. I'm not. I think it would be foolish to think that we humans could possibly destroy a planet that has withstood natural disasters far grander than anything we humans could create.

Yet I do not stand alone as a conservative who refuses to brush off the global warming crowd, and that is why I endorse Newt Gingrich's Green Conservatism, of which I will expound upon in a coming post.

Yet Gingrich is a strong proponent of nuclear power as a means of cleaning up the planet, something that, in my humble opinion, might bring both conservatives and liberals on the same side.

In my researching of this idea, I came across Warren Tucker, "The Global Warming Two-Step, at Spectator.org, (June 2, 2008) which was written by a conservative who believes in global warming.

He writes that liberal desires to reduce carbon emissions may be more important than their desire to prevent the building of nuclear power plants, with their nuclear waste and all. And this may be important, because nuclear power is the only way we know of that will allow us to reduce carbon emissions.

And, since conservatives have been long chanting how important nuclear power would be toward creating a more energy efficient America, nuclear power would also reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 75% per year -- a goal the global warming crowd could live with.

I also came across an article by Ramesh Ponnuru, "Senator empirical: Bob Corker takes on climate change," in National Review (May 19, 2008), where Ponnuru writes about conservative republican Bob Corker who believes in global warming, but is skeptical about the Lieberman-Warner bill.

What is the Lieberman-Warner Bill? In short, as worded by Ponnuru, the Lieberman-Warner bill is a bill the Senate is scheduled to debate this week, and is called the 'cap and trade' bill. "It would fight global warming by setting a limit on the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. That's the cap. Companies that got their emissions below their limit would be able to sell the excel emission rights to other companies. That's the trade. The theory is that the companies that could most cheaply reduce their emissions would have an incentive to do so. We would get the most emissions reduction possible for the smallest hit on the economy."

Corker has proposed amendments to this bill that would return money raised from these auctions to taxpayers. Likewise, he states he would "support other republicans as they make the case for relying more on nuclear power. If the amendments pass, he says, he will have improved the bill. If they do not pass, he will have educated people about its drawbacks."

According to Jack Spencer, "Nuclear Power Needed to Minimize Lieberman-Warner's Economic Impact," of AmericanHeritage.org, the Lieberman-Warner bill being argued before the Senate this week intends to create a goal for decreasing the amount of CO2 emissions, or cap targets. But, given the energy recourse's currently available, and government regulations, this target may be unattainable.

Whether this bill becomes law or not, this debate in the arena of ideas might offer positive results for both conservatives and liberals. If it becomes law, it opens up the door and creates an incentive for entrepreneurs to develop and purchase other sources of energy, such as windmill, solar and nuclear "faster than they otherwise would."

It this way, as Lieberman contends, "It's a market based approach."

If it doesn't become law, we still have the option of nuclear power on the table as another option for entrepreneurs and lawmakers alike to reduce carbon emissions. And there are better free market options available to encourage this and lower CO2 emissions than this bill, of which I will discuss in more detail in my next post.

Yet still, the debate might bring both sides closer to one key conclusion: the only reliable source of energy that we as humans currently know about that would allow the U.S. to reach the goals of the Lieberman-Warner bill would be nuclear power. Or, better yet, the only way we know of that would allow us to cut CO2 emissions is nuclear power.

Thus, while the global warming crowd, be they republicans or democrats, liberal or even conservative, want less CO2 in the environment (and, technically speaking, who wouldn't?), there are people who don't believe in global warming, and still some who do, who believe more regulations brought on by more regulations would be bad for the economy.

In fact, According to Spencer, "A recent Heritage Foundation analysis... estimates the costs to the U.S. economy (of the Lieberman-Warner bill) at between $1.8 trillion and $4.8 trillion by 2030.

Some republicans, including McCain (of whom Lieberman endorsed for president) support the bill because they claim it is a better alternative to the carbon tax that would raise gas prices. However, Ponnuru writes, the "cap and trade would raise the price of gasoline too, and quite significantly, as oil companies passed along the legislation's cost to consumers... Most economists, whether they favor cap and trade or not, see it as very similar to a carbon tax in its effect. The major difference is political."

And this is why I currently oppose this bill, and why I signed Newt Gingrich's petition, of which I encourage you to sign too if you haven't already.

However, the Lieberman-Warner bill should result in many educational debates to come. Yet one of the most important debates to result from this may be the one that has been put on hold since the 1970s, and that's the debate about nuclear power in the United States.

With nuclear power, every side gets something. The global warming crowd gets a replacement for one of the biggest polluters in coal, and the other side gets an option that might actually benefit the economy (Again, I'll go into more detail tomorrow).

That's why this humble blogger believes its not such a good idea to be all partisan and not consider the other side. It's important to negotiate and compromise and do something good for everyone, not just one partisan view.

Still, as my brilliant wife recently reminded me, what do we do with all the nuclear waste?

I suppose an even better question might be: what's the worse problem for mother earth, global warming or nuclear waste? That might be the next great question on the horizon, and the next great debate.

Detroit Redwings: 2008 Stanley Cup Champions

What more needs to be said.

IAEA still doesn't trust Iran

I suppose we very easily could have taken out Iran instead of Iraq. Why do I say this: because we all know that Saddam didn't have WOMD after all and Amadinejad had a more viable military and was a lot closer to having WOMD.

Then again, Saddam said during interrogations that he was simply waiting for U.N. inspectors to leave before he started rebuilding again. While it has since been proven that he lied about having them, he still had the capabilities of doing so.

So, if we did take out Iran instead of Iraq, we would basically have the same problem in reverse: Amadinejad would be out of a job, and Saddam (an even more insane man) would still have his. So, which way would you rather have it? Either way, the anti-war crowd would have been roaring and chanting.

Here's the latest news on Iran:

The IAEA on Monday expressed "serious concern" that Tehran was still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads, as well as defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

"Washington and its European allies fear Iran wants to use the sensitive process of uranium enrichment to make an atomic weapon, but Tehran insists its drive is entirely peaceful and has refused to freeze such efforts.

How can you trust a totalitarian dictator nation? The answer is you can't. We can never take our eyes off these folks. And, if nothing else comes from winning in Iraq (which I think we will), we will have a nice stronghold right next to Iran so we can keep an eye on this guy.

Ever since we have had a presence in Iraq, Amadinejad has thrown temper tantrums, but he hasn't done anything credible. Sure, he could be a lying thug just like Saddam regarding WOMD.

But, one thing we do know, if he had them, there's no doubt he wouldn't hesitate to use them against Israel. Or, better yet, hand them off to terrorist thugs so they could do the work for Iran.

And that's the thought of the day.

Obama seems to put World Order over America, and that's what scares me the most about him

I want to explain to you today the #1 reason why Obama scares me. And this is just me talking here of course, but Obama scares me because I wonder about his Patriotism. I wonder if he really, honestly has the best interest of the U.S. on his agenda.

Allow me to expound.

I'm scratching my brain at who said this, I have the book around here somewhere, when I find it I'll give this man credit for it, but the idea goes something like this: Over the past 50 years a war was fought between capitalism and communism/socialism, and capitalism won. That was is now over.

I could expound on that, but that would get me off track with the point I want to get across today. That war today, the war of the 21st century will be -- is -- a war between the idea of the nation state versus the idea of a World Order.

Are you a strong patriot of the U.S., or are you a believer that all country's can and should unite and solve all problems as a collective body.

You guys know what it is to be patriots, because I believe most of my readers fit into that category, but I imagine some of you might be on the side of the World Order. Allow me to give some examples of the World Order:

1) World Court: Some people want this court to judge over all the world

2) U.N. Security Council: Some people believe only this body can decide when to go to war

Bill Clinton and George Bush were both against the world court on the grounds that if we signed onto it, it would mean forgoing the protections offered by the U.S. Constitution.

Bill Clinton and George Bush were also both willing to wage war against the will of the U.N. when U.S. interests were at hand. The idea against the U.N. security council is that there are nations among that group who harbor terrorists.

Bill Clinton and George Bush were both patriots. They were both uniters. And they were both closer politically than most people think.

Clinton was a lot more conservative than most conservatives will give him credit for, as NAFTA, capital gains tax cuts, and welfare reform prove. Bush was more liberal than most liberals would give him credit for, as No Child Left Behind, Amnesty, the Prescription Drug Program for Seniors and the lack of a veto on any spending bills proves.

That's a pretty major claim I know, considering the country seems to be so strongly divided along partisan lines. But I honestly believe it to be true, and the reason is because they both are patriots who want to do what's best for their party. (I'm sure you guys might argue this, probably on the grounds that both Bush and Clinton were being political by signing things they didn't necessarily agree with. We'll set that idea aside for now for the sake of this discussion.)

That in mind, I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would stay on the side of the nation state. I think, despite what many of my readers might believe, that she is a true patriot like her husband. And I think that she would be willing, when it is to the benefit of the nation state of the U.S., to cross party lines.

McCain is an obvious patriot. I don't think I need to go there.

Obama on the other hand, I believe he is on the side of the World Order. And, if you bare with me, I think this kind of explains what his wife said a while back. "For the first time in my life I am proud of my Country." She was not proud of her country because all the presidents up to now in her life have been selfish nation staters who put the U.S. interests over the interests of the rest of the world. There was nothing for her to be proud of until now.

I believe Obama's (now former) pastor Rev. Wright was a believe in the World Order, which would explain why he'd talk to poorly of the U.S. I think Obama agreed with him for the 20 years he was a member of his church, but he wouldn't dare admit that, for fear it would hurt his candidacy.

With her husband Obama running for president, a man who places the U.S. in perspective with the rest of the world, Hillaray has something to be proud of.

Remember back when Obama refused to wear a lapel pin with the American flag on it? How about the time he failed to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance? If I am right in my thinking here, his view as wanting to lead America toward the World Order, and hailing the World Order over the U.S.A would explain these actions.

If you remember from a previous post I wrote, 45% of democrats say they do not consider themselves to be proud of America (Click here for story). Likewise, I believe it is this 45% who believe that it is possible to create a perfect world, where there are no bad guys.

That is why they believe it is okay to talk to thugs like Amadinajad and the leaders of terrorist organizations (see Jimmy Carter). They honestly believe in the bottom of their hearts that there is good in these people, and that the good will stand out. In fact, they believe that that "good in everyone" is how this World Order will come to be.

The rest of Americans, the 80% of republicans and 55% of democrats who consider themselves true patriots, believe in a more idealistic world, where there will always be thugs. And there will always be thugs that cannot be trusted, like Kim Jung lll in North Korea. Thus, you will remember Jimmy Carter too with the help of Bill Clinton in a deal where the U.S. would give N. Korea aid in exchange for N. Korea scrapping it's nuclear program.

Well, we all know how that went. North Korea now has nukes. In this New World Order, where we trust one another, you can see how this might lead to a thug nation playing along until one day it's leaders break the news that they have been developing nukes and a space program in an attempt to take over the world. This new naive World Order would be stunned.

The reason that a World Order will not work is because there will always be people out there who will be thugs, and who will only have there self interest at hand, i.e. terrorist thugs, totalitarian dictator thugs, terrorist harboring nation states who must not be given any credibility by silly visits to their nation.

I honestly believe Obama believes in the World Order. He wants to carve a big chunk off the U.S. in order so that we are no longer considered a Super Power. He wants to tear down our military. He wants to stop investing in space military defense programs. He wants to get rid of all our nuclear weapons.

He said all that in a 2007 speech. He said that because he wants America not to be America anymore, but a part of the World Order. That scares me more than anything in the world.

He will endorse the KYOTO treaties in the name of protecting the environment, which would give the World Order the right to regulate all industries, including those who fall under the U.S. Constitution. This in effect would not give these U.S. industries protections granted by that Constitution.

This in effect would ruin the U.S. economy. It would push us back. And you know what would happen. China and India do not give a damn about the World Order. All they care about right now is growing their economy. At present, they have no intention of buying into the KYOTO treaties, and thus their economy will keep growing, and they will catch up with the U.S., and eventually surpass us.

The World Order will not work because there will always be some nation like China and India right now who won't abide by it. Who will take advantage of the lackadaisical naivety of the rest of the liberal world to build up their own nation, and what good or bad will that result in. Will China become the next Super Power and force Communism again on everyone? Will North Korea become the dominate power and force their totalitarian views on us? Imagine if Iran joined forces with those two and formed their own World Order. We could have a war of the World Orders.

Gosh, this sounds like a book. Too bad I can't write a novel. (I've tried, I suck at it.) But do you see what I mean? We, the U.S., with our dominant economy and military, are the safeguards of the world right now. We donate more money to charitable causes around the world than all the other nations combined. We protect the world from thugs by our mighty military (see Kwait 1990), while the U.N sits idly by while genocide occurs in other nations.

I do not want that to happen. I want the U.S. to remain the Super Power of the world. I believe in the idea of the sovereign Nation State, as pretty much most of the West has believed in this idea since the fall of Ancient Greece. There you had cities within one nation fighting against one another, hence Sparta and Athens.

Just imagine what greatness could have occurred in Ancient Greece and what longevity would have occurred if only those city states could have gotten along, and were united as one Nation State. This leaders of Ancient Rome realized this, and that is why they created the Nation state of Ancient Rome, and preached Roman Pride, and they built up a strong economy and a mighty military and never hesitated to destroy or at least hold back their enemies, because they knew there would always be enemies.

Yes, the idea that all Nation States can get along and live in a free world sounds wonderful. I would love it if that were possible. But what the Europeans want is not necessarily what we want here in the Michigan, U.S.A. That is why the rules that the world order would make (abortion legal, no prayer in schools, no bible in courts, no "In God We Trust" on our coins, Gay marriage legal everywhere no matter what local people think, and all the protections provided under the Constitution will be overruled as the World Order wishes.)

Do you want that? Yes, I am exaggerating to some extent here to make my point, but I am 100% against the World Order. Gosh, the World Order could force us to have a chip implanted under our skins when we are born so they always know where we are, what our criminal history is, what our medical history is, etc. Now I'm getting into "1984" by George Orwell territory.

America is one nation to be proud of. Despite our mistakes, we have done more good for the world than any nation ever in the history of the world. And while we will fight to defend any other nation who lives in peace as we do, we also have come to the aid thug nation states around the world time and again (i.e. the earthquake in Iran). We even went to war and didn't kill the enemy soldiers when we won the battle (see Iraq 2003).

I am a proud American, a true patriot, a believer in the Nation State, and I absolutely do not want to even trial the idea of a World Order. I believe we as a nation should work together with other nations to maintain peace around the world, but we must remain vigilant of thugs, and try to destroy them as opposed to appeasing them and negotiating with them and granting them any form of credibility. We must maintain our sovereignty provided under the U.S. Constitution (which liberals think is old and obsolete).

That is the way to world peace, if it's even remotely possible. The World Order might sound good on the surface, but it will never work. And that is why I am scared of Barack Obama. I see him as that great communicator who convinces his country to do something they might not otherwise consider, and make decisions their grandchildren may never forgive them for making (I hate to make the Hitler comparison because I don't think Obama wants to hurt people the way he did. Obama is more of a Happy Fascist.)

Granted I could be wrong about all this. But that's just what I've been thinking lately, and I've placed all the cards on the table. If he is elected I will be happy, and I will not leave the country. I will respect him as president. I will agree with him on this blog when he does something I like, and I will disagree with him when he does something I think is stupid.

But I will always give him the benefit of the doubt as our leader, just as I did and still do with Clinton and Carter, because I honestly think those guys mean well. And there is always the possibility that I, as Ben Franklin once said, "Could be wrong in my vision for this country."

I think my dad says it best when he said, "I don't care what they do in the political world, so long as they don't take this away from me. As long as they let me stay retired, golf every day, have happy hour every day at 4:00, enjoy time with my kids whenever I want, and simply be happy all day all the time. I don't want them to take this away."

I love that attitude. And I think the same way. I would rather take my chances with McCain or Hillary over Obama. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust that he will put my interest ahead this World Order, which just might make a rule forcing me to pay more taxes for some world cause I don't agree with.

I just don't like his vision for this country. And that's my opinion, and please don't attack me personally in your comments because I do have control over the Delete button.

On that note, have at it. Rip into my theory here. Tell me where I'm wrong. I will respect your opinion, and I may even change my mind, as I have done that too from time to time, as I think any intelligent person would. But keep in mind I do not hate Obama, I merely think he has a scary world view, and he has his priorities in the wrong order (no pun intended).

Thank you for reading. And that is the thought of the day. A deep thought, but a thought indeed. Whew.

For part 2 click here.

DNC ups Michiganders to 1/2 a citizen each

According to the NYTimes.com, democratic officials have decided to allow Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated, but to give them only half a vote each.

This does not come as much of a surprise to us here at Freadom Nation, considering we figured that the goal of not considering Michigan and Florida as part of the Union in the first place was their attempt to keep Hillary out of the White House, and give the more liberal Obama the upper hand.

If they had wanted to be fair to us "non-citizens" here in Michigan, and down there in Florida, and if they wanted to be fair to Hilary who received most of the democratic votes up here and down there, Howard Dean and the dems would have reconsidered.

But recent history shows that liberal base of the democratic party, which has control of the DNC through the infamous Howard Dean, don't necessarily care about being fair. What's most important is that they get their liberal agenda passed, and the only way to do that is a) activist judges, and hopefully b) president Barack Obama.

Now, of course some of you might be saying, "Wouldn't Hillary Clinton help get a liberal agenda passed, nominate liberal Supreme Court Nominees, appeal to the World Court, end the War in Iraq, and things like that?

Well, if history is any guide at all, her husband tended to rule middle of the road. He signed that horrible and very conservative NAFTA agreement, and he did bomb Iraq once, and he did sign a bill that would (gulp) cut the Capital Gains tax.

In all reality, the liberal controlled DNC does not want any more such poppycock, and that is why they have done everything in their power to all but hand the nomination to Obama.

Anyway, Dean and his liberal part of the DNC only consider us Michiganders as only half Citizens. Or is it 1/2 Citizens. Or should we be simply casted from the Union so that Dean can have his candidate.

Well, it's their party not ours.

'nough said.

Despite critics, War in Iraq going well

The initial war in Iraq was fought brilliantly and showed the mite of America.

The aftermath of the initial war culminated in other nations taking the U.S. seriously, and they made bold actions to show that they weren't threats.

Steven S. Hayes of weeklystandard.com,"In the Drivers Seat," writes that "Syria's Bashar al-Assad, worried that he would be next, authorized his intelligence services to increase their assistance to the CIA. Libya's Muammar Qaddafi voluntarily gave up his own WMD programs, telling Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi that he did not want to be the next Saddam Hussein. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak hinted at more open elections, and there were municipal elections in Saudi Arabia."

Then things went wrong the next four years, and by April 2006 things could not have looked worse.

According to Weekly Standard (Feb. 4, 2008) "How Bush Decided on the Surge," Violence explodes wit a fury, unseen in Iraq in the nearly three years since American troops had deposed Saddam Hussein. Shia militias hadn't responded to earlier al Qaeda and Sunni provocations. But now they erupted in a killing spree. Shia death squads slaughtered thousands of Sunnis. Bagdad became a free fire zone. Iraq was on the verge of all-out civil war."

Public morale toward the war plummeted. Anti-war democrats and republicans were having a field day.

However, despite the skeptics even in his own party, and even among his own cabinet, Bush decided that "Failure was no option... I never thought I had to give up the goal of winning." Likewise, he was aware that nothing could possibly have broken the will of the military more than defeat in Iraq.

Likewise, Bush knew that a defeat in Iraq would a major boost for terrorist organizations around the world, and he did not want that. As you can see from my previous post hereand here.

Despite all the negative media slanted at Bush, and the low polls, he kept his head up and finally, after the 2006 defeats, met with his top aids and shifted policy in Iraq. Even while change was too late to save the lives of thousands of soldiers who died in the rebuilding of Iraq, and what some called a civil war, change was needed and change occurred in the name of The Surge and General David Petraeus.

He fired his trusted Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and hired a new guy named Robert Gates , and he listened to the ideas of David Petraeus among others. And, while many of the members even among his own political group insisted that this was not the course to go, he decided to listen to Petraeus who believed "the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy." Otherwise known as The Surge.

Petraeus had used this same strategy in another smaller region of Iraq earlier in the war, and believed the same strategy would work in Baghdad as well. Ultimately, Bush agreed that the best strategy presented to him with the best chance of working was The Surge. It was a last ditch effort to save his presidency.

Now, more than a year later, it is clear that the surge has worked. After the surge, the majority of Iraq is now safe for women and children to walk the streets, businesses have opened in areas that were only a year ago strong havens for insurgents. The economy in Iraq is booming. Schools have reopened. Iraqi soldiers have taken over much of the war effort and security of Iraq. Most important, killings in Iraq have decreased by 70% since the surge was ordered, according to military officials.

This report from Yahoonews shows that May, 2008, was the least deadliest month in Iraq since the fighting began in 2003. Some troops are now on their way home, more will go home in July, and then, the report states, there will be a 45 day grace period where conditions in Iraq will be evaluated before further troops are sent home.

The Iranian influence in Iraq has been also stymied, but still not completely. According to a recent CIA report, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Saudi Arabia has been decimated to the point that it is a shell of its former self, and is on the run in the rest of the world. However we must still be vigilant, because we have let our guard down before thinking this group was beat, and they struck us when we were least expecting it.

All of this should be coupled with the fact that Iraq has had three successful elections whereby not only men but women were allowed to participate in the democratic process of voting for candidates they wanted to run their country. Iraq now has a democracy, and that means that over 28,221,181 Iraqi civilians are now free to enjoy their God-given freedoms.

One of Bush's goals from the onset was the hopes of creating a stable Democracy in Iraq, in the hopes that people of other totalitarian nations in that region would see how nice it is to live in freedom and want that for themselves. Not only that, but Bush was aware that there has been only one time in history that two democratic nations went to war against one another.

That's where we stand right now. Iraq is safer than it ever has been, and Iraqi soldiers are starting to take the forefront in defending their own democracy.

The questions we have to ask ourselves are these:

Are we, as a nation, willing to admit defeat and walk away from Iraq and hope to God the Iraqi's can defend themselves? Do we want to risk Iranians swooping down on Iraq and forming a Super Iran with a monopoly over the Oil Supply in the Middle East?

If this happened, how many Iraqi civilians would die then?

That aside, defeat in Iraq would be a major victory for al-Qaeda, who would once again be allowed to gain a strong foothold in Iraq, a foothold that was given a near fatal blow during the surge. Do we want to risk leaving Iraq, and risk losing a year-and-a-half years of progress against al-Qaeda?

In my humble opinion, I think that even anti-war democrats are aware of this. I think even Hilary is aware of this (I don't know about Obama, and that's why he scares me so much).

I think the anti-war members of Washington are only catering to the left base, and will never pull out of Iraq. Because they know the consequences on their legacies would be dire.

And, despite the polls, I don't think the American people want to lose in Iraq either. Most of them (except for 45% of democrats) are proud of their nation, and do not want the scar of another military defeat.

While Bush decided that "Stay the course" strategies needed to be changed, I think that democratic "cut and run" policies will be tanked soon enough as well.

Saddam, Al-quaeda started wars, not our president

Despite what Scott McCellen says in his new book, despite what democratic blogs have been chanting over and over the past several years, George W. Bush did not start the war against Al-qaeda nor did he start war against Iraq. In fact, it was the other way around.

It was Al-Quadea who waged war against the United States way back in 1992 with the first bombing of the World Trade Center. The terrorist organization continued to be a conundrum for the U.S. all the way up to 9-11.

So, when 9-11 occurred, George W. had no choice but to retaliate by declaring the complete destruction of Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist organization pent on the destruction of the U.S., and the announcement of the Bush Doctrine, which called for the destruction of any nation that harbors terrorists, which included Afghanistan and Iraq, and called for the justification of those wars.

The Taliban may not have necessarily been a part of Al-Qaeda, but it allowed the terrorist group a safe haven, and thus, according to the Bush Doctrine, the Afghanistani government (the Taliban) were terrorists themselves. And, while Saddam may not have been directly linked to the 9-11 bombings or Al-Qaeda, he made no effort to dis-locate Al-qaeda from his country. Thus, he was a terrorist.

This, in my humble opinion, should have been the major basis for declaring war against Saddam. If Bush made any mistakes in the run up to the war, I think it was his insistence on using the idea the Saddam had WOMD over the fact that he was harboring terrorists. It is also known by PLO documents that Saddam funded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

At the same time Saddam continued to snub his nose at the UN and "bluffed" to the world that he had WOMD. He himself even admitted during interrogations after he was captured that he did not have WOMD and he was bluffing all along. He bluffed because if the other nations of the Middle East believed he had WOMD, he had super power status in that region.

So it wasn't just Bush and the CIA who were fooled by Saddam, so were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Carl Levin and many other democrats, but republicans too, the U.N., the E.U including France, Spain and Russia, and many other nations and organizations world round. It was not just Bush who believed that Saddam had WOMD. Even Saddam's own scientists believed Saddam had them. We were all fooled.

Either way, Saddam had plenty of time to prove that he did not have these weapons, and he continued to lie about it. He honestly believed the U.S. would be like the U.N. and not act upon its threat. And if the U.S. did not, it would hold no credibility around the world, just like the U.N.

So, when Saddam failed to prove he had no WOMD, something he was totally capable of doing, and when he failed to leave Iraq, something he was given plenty of time to do, he -- Saddam Hussein -- started war against the U.S. Bush clearly put the honus on Saddam's shoulders, and it was Saddam who opted for war -- not Bush.

Yet, while some say WOMD was no reason to go to war since Saddam never had them, Saddam admitted during interrogations that he had every intention of rebuilding his WOMD stash as soon as the U.N inspectors left Iraq, many of whom he had bribed. And his own scientists said point blank that he had all the capabilities to rebuild, if he didn't have them in the first place.

Saddam would continue to be a threat to the security of the region, the U.S. and the rest of the world unless he was taken out of power. And that doesn't even mention the threat he was to his own people. He kept them captive in their own nation. He tortured thousands. He killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in one day with the wOMD he had at the time. He was a genocidal, unstable maniac who had to go.

There were still other reasons for invading Iraq, such that Saddam continued to defy the Gulf War Cease fire with the U.S. by continuously firing on U.S. and British planes flying in the no fly zones. Based on that cease fire agreement alone, the U.S. was justified in going to war with Iraq. This also would have been a better reason than WOMD for justification for war.

As a bonus, Bush knew that if war with Iraq did occur, and if the U.S. won, that the U.S. would have a stronghold right in the middle of the Middle East where all the unrest seems to occur between Radical Muslims and Israel. And, better yet, the U.S. would have a stronghold right next to another harbor of terrorists -- Iran.

With all due respect, the war in Iraq was one that was absolutely necessary and just. The problem was how to wage the initial war, and how to rebuild the nation and restore democracy after the fact.

It's fine for people like McClellan to disagree with the War in Iraq. The question we ask ourselves is: why didn't he speak up sooner? Why did he wait until his book came out a year later? Was it because of money?

Either way, nothing he said was new news. It had already been said many times by liberals in Washington, liberal bloggers and liberals around the world. And while we hate war too, we do not forget that there are thugs who want us dead, many of whom happen to live in the Middle East, right in the middle of which our troops are stationed -- no wonder they want us out so bad.

And when the anti-war crowd speaks out, they only seem to embolden the enemy. And perhaps that's why the leaders of Hezbola have already endorsed Obama for President of the U.S., not that they have a vote anyway.

Bottom line, Bush did not start this war. His hand was forced by the enemy pulpit.