Gitmo should be fixed and stay open

Newt Gingrich is on meet the depressed this morning. The discussion right now is around closing Gitmo. I was to the point I didn't see a difference between closing Gitmo and putting the "terrorists" in American prisons and keeping it open, until Gingrich spoke this morning.

Basically, what convinced me that Gitmo should be kept open, as Newt says, until the end of the War on Terror -- however long that might be, because "whatever problems that are associated with Gitmo now are going to be present no matter where you hide those people. Therefore, instead of moving the problem, we should solve the problem where it exists today."

Obama said in a speech this past week said terrorists are using Gitmo as a recruiting tool, and a greater incentive to terrorize. I think this is just another statement by Obama in which he is blaming America for terrorism. When, in fact, these terrorists are the bad buys, and they are the blame.

The blame is their extreme religious beliefs and hatred of anyone who loves material things and believes in a different God should die.

So, in summary, we should keep Gitmo open and do whatever it takes to prevent Gitmo from being a terrorist recruiting too. It can be done.

Obama wrong on maintaining presence in Iraq

Just prior to my son bringing something to my attention that I will write about in my next post as soon as I'm finished writing this one and publish tomorrow, I came across this article about Barack Obama.

In case you don't feel like clicking on links today, it's a Yahoo News article written by Maxim Kniazkov about how Obama "vowed Monday not to seek permanent US military bases in Iraq and reiterated his pledge to pull out the bulk of US forces by mid-2010."

It seems to me that one of the main reasons for going into Iraq in the first place was to create a U.S. military presence right in the middle of where all the conflict is in the Middle East. That way we can kind of keep an eye on things.

However, with Obama being of the crowd of democrats that believe an American presence at different places around the world is something that makes America look too arrogant (click here for a further explanation of Obama's vision of a world order). To me, that explains why he does not want to do this.

However, I think this would be foolish. I would like to quote columnist Cal Thomas, as he wrote in the book he co-wrote with Bob Beckel, "The United States was once feared and respected. A major reason the world is in such turmoil with so many simultaneous threats is that we have not done enough recently to instill fear in those who would harm us."

Man, I love that quote. In fact, I'm going to say it again:

"The United States was once feared and respected. A major reason the world is in such turmoil with so many simultaneous threats is that we have not done enough recently to instill fear in those who would harm us."

I don't understand why Obama would want to just give away what the U.S. has worked so hard to obtain.

One thing we as Americans have to realize. The Iraqi people were incapable, or a better way of stating it too scared to fight for their own freedoms. So we did it for them. And polls show they are happy with their new found freedoms, and are now willing to fight for them.

For our efforts, we deserve to maintain a presence in that region, even if it is a small one. Just enough of a presence to remind thugs that we aren't going to mess around anymore. If you want to mess with the Iraqi people, if you are harboring terrorists, if you have thoughts about destroying Israel or attempting more terror on America or any of its allies, watch out brother.

We cannot be worried about the feelings of these radical Muslim thugs who wish to kill us. Why? Because their God says that we must be destroyed. Their God says that all the land of the world is "rightly" theirs, and that we have taken it in the name of our God. We, therefore, are the enemy.

These people do not comply with the rules of warfare. They chop off heads and dunk heads in water and electrocute and hang and rip hands off if that's what it takes to get what they want. Better yet, they kill and maim to get what they want. They do not think twice about terrorizing others in the name of their God.

As Cal Thomas writes:

"If we seek to fight this war with the same tactics we have used in previous wars, we will lose. That's why it is ludicrous to be concerned about 'torture' and human rights with people who practice one and ignore the other. The most often heard criticism is 'we can't behave like them.' I agree. We must be worse than them and so humiliate,
decapitate, and eradicate them that those who remain will not think of trying anything like this for centuries to come."

And yet Barack Obama has the audacity to say that we will not maintain a presence in Iraq. Why the hell not?

Oh, I know why, because he's afraid of being seen as arrogant. I'm sorry, but when we have thugs who hide in churches and behind school children with their weapons aimed at their own fellow citizens, Americans and America's allies, America must have a presence in that region if the opportunity presents itself.

I know that the Iraqi people may resist. And I know there will have to be some tough talk to negotiate a deal with the Iraq and the U.N. so we can maintain a presence in the Middle East. Something that will be absolutely pertinent to winning the overall War on Terror -- a war that many democrats simply view as "a bumper sticker slogan."

I have no problem with Obama's desire to pull out troops by 2010. However, if this decision should be made because the Generals, the military officials, have declared that area safe for us to leave. Again I state: the decision to pull out troops from Iraq should not be made by politicians in Washington, of which Obama, Bush, McCain all are.

To further this argument, our next president needs to stay the course of the "Bush Doctrine" of keeping an eye on the terrorists and getting them before they get us. We need to stay on the offense.

That means that we cannot go over there and negotiate with these people.

It cannot be like this: Okay, we don't want to be seen as too arrogant. So, we will go talk to the terrorist leaders or totalitarian dictators who have a history of harboring them. We want to be seen as nice and good. We want to be seen by the world that we can be a decent country. So, here, lets negotiate. We will give you this piece of land, and you stop terrorizing.

"Deal?" U.S. President offers hand.

"Deal." Terrorist or dictator shakes hand that is offered, with the other hand behind his back -- fingers crossed.

So, while we are all happy and the world is happy, those thugs will continue to build their weaponry, and train their little terrorists, and will eventually build up their forces stronger than ever. And they will strike us when the opportunity presents -- in the name of their God.

These are not normal people we are dealing with here. They want us off their land. They don't care if we die. And, it's because of his lack of insight about the threat that faces America, that I have my doubts about Barack Obama.

However, he could prove me wrong.

Mr. Carter, Hamas does not want peace with Israel

In the wake of Jimmy Carters speaking with Hamas, the leaders of that group claim to have offered Carter a deal that would amount to "a ten year truce with Israel if Israel agrees to withdraw from all the lands it seized in the 1967 war," according to the associated press.

According to the article, "Hamas would accept a Palestinian state limited to the lands Israel seized in 1967 — an implicit acceptance that Israel would exist alongside that state

"But... the group would never outright formally recognize Israel."

To me, however, this deal seems a bit awkward, especially considering Israel won that land back in 1967 fair and square, and every other time one nation wins a war over another, it gets to take whatever it wants from the losers. So, why is Israel considered to be "seizers" of this land it won in 1967.

In reality, Israel did not seize the Gaza strip and the West Bank, it won them. It has a rightful ownership of them. However, if Israel chooses to give back this land for the sake of an attempt at peace, it has a right to do so.

Once again, this deal would seem a bit awkward, considering that during the Clinton administration's Camp David Accords, Arafat (then head of the Palestinians), was offered everything the Palestinians wanted, and all he had to do was sign on the dotted line.

But, when all was said and done, he refused to sign. What makes Carter think the Palestine ans would actually sign this time around?

The failure of the Camp David Accords gave many Conservatives their proof that Arafat and the Palestinians do not want peace with Israel. They will talk the talk in order to make themselves appear good in the public eye, but when it comes crunch time, there's no way they would ever make any deal with the Israelites anything short of the complete annihilation of Israel.

Thus, if deal did go through, I smell a rat.

Do we take Hamas at its word? Do we do this, considering Hamas's charter specifically calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian State. Likewise, the organization has directed many suicide bombings at civilians in Israel in an attempt to accomplish its goal.

Hamas, in Essenes, is a terrorist organization. And, one must conclude, that Carter is relatively naive to actually think hamas is actually serious about agreeing to any long-term peace pact.

Until Hamas changes its charter to fully accept Israel as a Nation State, and until it completely stops terrorist acts against Israel, how is it than any person could believe anything Hamas's leaders say. And, as long as the Palestinians have Hamas officials leading them, how can we take the Palestinians seriously either.

With history as our guide, Hamas and the Palestinians want Israel to agree to this deal in the hope that one day Israel will let its guard down, at which time Hamas will move in for the strike and destroy Israel.

In essence, we return now to the doctrine: "You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Period."

On this, Mr. Carter said prior to his visit, "This is a study mission, and our purpose is not to negotiate, but to support and provide momentum for current efforts to secure peace in the Middle East."

To that I say this: "Mr. Carter, Hamas does not want peace with Isreal. Read their charter."