Jeff Jacoby writes this morning about the crumbling GOP base. If you want to know why the base is crumbling, go no farther than Robert Samuelson's article in the Washington Post detailing what you don't know about the Senate immigration bill. In it you will find that the bill, should it become law, would nearly DOUBLE the amount of legal immigration into the country, as well as providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. For this we need a GOP Senate, House and President?

Fareed Zakaria says we need a political solution in Iraq, which cannot be obtained through the use of military force or simply building a larger Iraqi security force. I am convinced that he is right. The only way to obtain peace is for the Iraqis to agree on a settlement between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The seating of a permanent government is only the first step. However, only the presence of American troops can prevent the outbreak of a civil war or the prospect of a demagogue murdering his way to power (Moqtada al Sadr, anyone?).

The possibility that Marines murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha is being investigated by NCIS, and the possibility that there were cover-up efforts after the fact. Mackubin Thomas Owens explains the laws of war in these matters, and Michelle Malkin decries the rush to judgment. I find it hard to believe, but not impossible to believe, that American Marines would do something like this. If they did, they should be dealt with severely, for to brush this aside would be to dishonor the thousands of soldiers and Marines who have faced equally difficult circumstances and behaved within the boundaries of law and military regulations.

Michael Ledeen provides some excerpts from a recent interview by a German magazine of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Ledeen takes a dim view of the interviewers efforts, and the ability of our leaders here in America as well as Europe to deal with him.

In the wake of the deaths of two CBS employees and the critically wounding of another in Iraq, Dotty Lynch wonders why there are so few protests about Iraq. She says she cannot believe it is because, unlike Vietnam, there is no draft and, thus, very little prospect that our college-age youths will ever have to go to war unless they choose to do so. Then she proceeds to prove that point exactly. Check it out.

Yesterday was a day of mayhem in Iraq which led to the deaths of two CBS News employees, and a day of mayhem in Afghanistan. The stories, of course, are very real. Millions of Americans will read one or both this morning. How many of them will conclude that it is useless to try and help Muslims live in freedom? How many will conclude that it is a waste of our money and our children's lives to continue with these obviously flawed endeavors? This is how the manner of reporting the news of the war is having an impact on American public opinion. This was true in Korea and Vietnam, but was not true in WWII. The reason? Wartime measures like censorship and propaganda, which were considered absolutely necessary in the declared wars against Germany and Japan, but not in the "conflicts" or "police actions" of Korea and Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it any wonder, seeing every night and reading every morning about the carnage of war, that the morale of the general public continues to drop and, with it, their support for the continuation of the war? How long can our political leaders continue with an unpopular war in Iraq, and a forgotten war in Afghanistan that may soon become unpopular with every instance of Afghans rioting against the presence of our troops in their country?

Speaking of Korea, we now know our leaders expressly approved of a policy of shooting refugees in the chaotic days at the beginning of the war. War is an ugly thing. Our troops feared, with great justification, that North Korean troops were using the masses of refugees as cover to move forward and infiltrate into our lines (the Chinese later used this tactic as well with some success in the fighting retreat of U.S. Marines from the Chosin Reservoir). Perhaps the troops could have been safeguarded without using such a brutal tactic. Perhaps we could have saved a lot of American lives (50,000 or so) if we had simply evacuated Korea. Of course, the whole peninsula would now be as dark as the North is each night, but our boys would have lived and not been forced to commit war crimes.

If you, like me, are hopping mad at the efforts of congressional leaders to shield themselves from properly executed search warrants, but are lacking in the legal expertise to understand why it is not a 'separation of powers' issue, check out Instapundit. The man behind Instapundit is law professor Glenn Reynolds. Just scroll down to find an explanation as to why the law about this is clear, including some links to other sources. The Founders NEVER intended that members of Congress be immune from laws against bribery and corruption.

Robert Kagan has an interesting op-ed piece in the Washington Post in which he argues that it might be good for the country to see a Democrat become President in 2009. Basically, he likens the period we are in to the end of the Truman Administration (something the President also did in his speech at West Point the other day). I have made this point myself, as have a number of others. George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy like no one since Truman, because we now face a completely new global threat, just as Truman did at the onset of the Cold War. This transformation was bitterly opposed by the GOP in Truman's day, and Kagan compares that to the bitter opposition from the Democratic base today. He believes that if the Democrats regain control over foreign policy they will have to accept the new realities and move forward, just as Eisenhower did starting in 1953. An interesting theory, which can only be proved one way or the other if the Democrats win in 2008 (we might get a preview if they regain control of Congress in '06).

Finally, the Suncook River here in New Hampshire made the New York Times this morning. The river's course has changed, leaving an exposed riverbed and some befuddled residents and curious scientists. Apparently, this is not a common occurrence in NH.

So far, House Republicans are holding the line on the immigration bill. I will take a "wait and see" attitude for now. At this point I would prefer no bill at all to the possible compromises.

According to this story in the NY Times, Attorney General Gonzales along with a few other officials in the Justice Department threatened to resign if they were ordered to return the papers seized in an FBI raid to the congressman under investigation. I can only believe that this indicates the story is much bigger than just one allegedly corrupt congressman from Louisiana.

The Washington Post says the decision of the President to freeze access to those papers for 45 days is a bad idea. I agree. Let the wheels of justice turn. An agency of the Executive branch, the FBI, executed a warrant from a member of the Judicial branch, a Federal judge, in a proper manner as part of an on-going bribery investigation. If the FBI cannot properly search the offices of members of Congress, then those members would be permanently shielded from the proper scrutiny to prevent them from engaging in corrupt practices on Capitol Hill.

On a different subject, Ralph Peters comes to the defense of those retired generals who are speaking out against the Defense Secretary and the conduct of the war. Peters makes some good points about how, since World War II, we have allowed a disconnect between the generals and their commander-in-chief.

WOULD SPEAKER PELOSI REALLY BE SO MUCH WORSE?

The fact that I can write that headline to this post should be cause for alarm for every GOP House candidate who wants to win my vote in November (that would be Jeb Bradley). While I know it is not his fault, I am running out of options on how best to express my almost inexpressible anger over the behavior of the GOP on the national level. This week, two things have really taken me to the very edge.

The first is the Jefferson raid fiasco. Is it really the case that a Conservative party, which is how the GOP likes to portray itself, is standing side-by-side with the Democrats in attempting to shield an allegedly corrupt congressman? Isn't the GOP the party of law and order? Didn't they come to power in 1994 promising to clean up the mess on Capitol Hill? In what way are they now any different than those out-of-touch Democrats they sent packing back in November of '94?

The second is the immigration fiasco. If the House GOP caves in to the President and the Senate and passes something similar to the Senate bill, then I really have to wonder how exactly a House led by Speaker Pelosi would be any worse than what we have now. In fact, much in the way the Palestinian people are being made to suffer for willingness to overtly embrace the party that advocates the destruction of Israel, wouldn't it be better if we stopped all the pretense and embraced the big government, big spending, open borders, identity politics party? Since, after all, we are a big government-loving country, as evidenced by the seemingly unstoppable growth of the government, even after the GOP took over Congress.

Perhaps it is time for the American people to enjoy the government they really want. Perhaps it is time for the GOP to taste a well deserved period of minority status once again. Perhaps it is time for those of us who really believe in Conservative principles to re-examine whether or not the GOP is really the place for us.

WBZ AGAIN TONIGHT

I will be on WBZ-Boston again tonight from Midnight to 5 AM. Among the topics I am considering for discussion...

Immigration reform. Will the House and Senate agree on a bill? If they do, will it really help or only make matters worse? (I think the latter).

Are wind farms in the waters off the Massachusetts coast a good idea?

Should the U.S. talk directly with Iran?

Should the NSA have access to phone records?

Will you go to the polls in November determined to throw the GOP out?

Should Congressional offices be off-limits to FBI investigators?

Will Hillary Clinton be the next President of the United States?

The show airs on 1030 AM from Midnight to 5 AM. The talk line is 617-254-1030. I hope you night owls can take a listen.

WBZ TONIGHT

I will be on WBZ-AM in Boston tonight from Midnight to 5 AM, filling in for Steve Leveille. Among the topics I am considering tonight...

The Massachusetts GOP is trying to get a debate on immigration reform, with an amendment to crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers, among other things. I really wonder if rank-and-file Democrats back a policy of lax enforcement, open borders, and benefits for undocumented workers and their children. Since Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democratic/Independent state based on voter registration, it will be interesting to hear my audience comments on the issue.

As a veteran, my name, Social Security number, and birth date is certainly part of the database that was stolen from a suburban Washington home the other day. If you are a veteran who served after 1975, your information is part of that database, as well. The moron who thought it was OK to take the information home with him needs to be fired. Hopefully, the burglars who took the stuff are even dumber and will either be caught soon, or will not understand the significance of what they have.

Scot Lehigh writes about Senator John Kerry in the Boston Globe today. Is Kerry really a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination? Some folks think so.

Some in the U.S. Senate want to make English the official language. E.J. Dionne, who speaks French, thinks it is a bad idea. Under normal circumstances, I would agree. But I am convinced that multiculturalism is like a cancer in our body politic, and official English might be one form of societal chemotherapy to kill it, before it kills us.

Senator Feinstein has some ideas about what to do with immigration reform. Essentially, if you came here illegally before January 1, 2006, you could get an "orange card". Read the article and, if you can, find out more. I am open to any idea that can bring the 12 million into the light, as long as we close the border first (which, I think, Senator Feinstein does not want to do).

Prime Minister Olmert will be visiting the President this week. Ariel Cohen thinks his West Bank withdrawal proposal is folly.

Claude Salhani has some thoughts on what to do about Iran.

Is it still possible to win in Iraq? Frederick Kagan says we can, and has a strategy for accomplishing the mission. Ralph Peters says we are winning in Iraq, and the over all war on terror.

Do you really care about the details of the married lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton? The New York Times thinks it is news, worthy of the front page. Yeesh.

Here is a story in the Boston Globe this morning that summarizes what has been going on in Western Europe concerning immigration. The bottom line? A significant anti-immigrant backlash in France, the Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain. I suspect that backlash will also take hold, it if has not already, in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Italy, which are not mentioned in the article. Since the dawn of mankind, people have consistently resisted the subversion of their "way of life" by outsiders, whether through armed resistance to foreign invaders or conquerors, or with more subtle social and political discrimination when dealing with people who have come to their lands to find economic opportunity or escape persecution. One of the truly great aspects of America is that, while we have always resisted the newcomers to a certain extent, we have a mechanism in place to assimilate those newcomers so that they adapt to our "way of life". That mechanism, the true genius of America's melting pot", is our ability to incorporate some of their "way of life" into our own. We adopt words, cuisine, traditional festivals and numerous other small parts of life from the 'mother country' that make the new arrivals and their children feel that their heritage is still important. Of course, on all the important matters, American culture prevails (freedom of speech, of religion, etc.). Western Europe has been unable or unwilling to adopt the American way when dealing with their immigrants. Today, according to the article, they are starting to adopt at least part of the equation. Unfortunately, having lived in Germany for almost three years when I was in the Army, my impression of the Germans, at least, is that they will be unable to give up their deeply held parochial beliefs about the ethnic centrality of what it is to be a German. I think the French, Dutch and others are the same. That is the key difference between Western Europe and the U.S. when it comes to assimilating immigrants. There is no such thing as an 'ethnic American'. We are all mutts, made up of the genetic material of people from all over the globe. No matter how often or passionately some members of each generation of Americans tries to advocate that there are only 'true Americans' of a certain race or creed or ethnic group, the fact is that, in the end, we adopt each new group into the fold. The Europeans may not be capable of that kind of thinking.

On a different subject, two former defense secretaries write this op-ed piece in the Washington Post advocating the creation of a conventional warhead for some of our nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Read the article. It makes perfect sense to me.

Also in the Post, Jackson Diehl writes about the efforts of Truman Democrats to fend off the power of the isolationist leftists and re-establish the democracy's credibility on defense related matters and an internationalist foreign policy.

It now appears that the story about a new Iranian law that would require Jews and Christians to wear special labels on their clothing may not be true. The Iranian government is denying it, although not before Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper condemned that government as one "capable" of passing such a law. I especially like this bit from the Iranian denial,

The report was described by Iran's local state media as a failed ``campaign lead by a Zionist newspaper.''

The report first appeared in the National Post of Canada. I didn't know they had Zionist newspapers in the Great White North. You learn something new every day. Meanwhile, Ha'aretz, which might be more accurately described as a Zionist newspaper, has this about the Post's retraction of the story, which they are blaming on Iranian analyst Amir Taheri. Thanks to Contratimes for alerting me to the Bloomberg story.

CAN IRAN BE DETERRED?

If the Iranians are moving forward on a program to build a nuclear weapon (which they deny, but the U.S. and the Europeans believe they are doing), then at some point we must consider the possibility that they will achieve their goal. If they do (and I believe they will, even if there are military strikes, which will only delay the project), then what should we do in response? This, it seems to me, is all dependent upon one question...can the Iranian regime be deterred? Hillel Fradkin, while not writing directly about the issue of deterrence, says our leaders should be paying much more attention to the recent letter from President Ahmadinejad.

WILL THE UNITED STATES declare war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? For months, this question has been the theme of diplomatic and public discourse--with horror usually expressed at the idea. But it now seems that we have this backwards. For the import of the letter that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, sent to President Bush in the first week of May is that Ahmadinejad and Iran have declared war on the United States. Many reasons are given, but the most fundamental is that the United States is a liberal democracy, the most powerful in the world and the leader of all the others. Liberal democracy, the letter says, is an affront to God, and as such its days are numbered. It would be best if President Bush and others realized this and abandoned it. But at all events, Iran will help where possible to hasten its end. (The full text of the letter, translated into English from the original Persian, can be found at www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Ahmadinejad%20letter.pdf.)

Read the whole analysis. Fradkin believes the letter is in the tradition of letters written by the Prophet to the rulers of neighboring states calling on them to submit to Islam. He believes Ahmadinejad thinks of himself as an agent of the "Hidden Imam". If this is so, and if he either has control or can gain control of the political and military apparatus of the state, then it may not be possible to deter his behavior.

Paul Starobin, writing in the National Journal, takes a very different view.

Most analysts who have studied Iran believe that the mullahs are, in fact, deterrable. "They respect superior power when they confront it," Kenneth Pollack, a National Security Council staffer in the Clinton White House, said in an interview. Pollack, who backed the Iraq war, added that he views the mullahs as less reckless than Saddam Hussein, who pulled "crazy stunts" like the attempted assassination of the first President Bush.

Starobin lays out a compelling case for the efficacy of nuclear deterrence. It worked with the likes of a sociopath like Stalin, and with an ideologue like Mao. It works regionally on the Indian subcontinent, and it has survived the break-up of the Soviet Union. He believes the only real question is how to set up the deterrent. Should it be a multinational deterrent, or should the U.S. take the lead and provide the umbrella for those who feel at all threatened by the Iranians? Most importantly, can the Israelis be brought into a deterrence regime?

The question hinges entirely on the rationality of Iran's rulers, and the prudence and caution of U.S., European and Israeli leaders. Unfortunately, while Starobin is right in his assertion that nuclear deterrence has a perfect track record thus far, human history is filled with examples of leaders losing control of events, or taking actions based on entirely false assumptions, or taking actions based on the emotions, rather than rational thought.

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

I have made the comparisons between Germany in the early 1930s and Iran today a number of times, and I am not alone. But this story is downright eerie.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

Read the whole thing. Rabbi Hier is quoted later in the article as saying, "The world should not ignore this," said Rabbi Hier. "The world ignored Hitler for many years -- he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he'd never come to power -- and we were all wrong." Could it be happening again? Could the world be looking on as a powerful, growing nation is taken over by fanatical ideologues led by a messianic figure? Could the people of the powerful institutions of that country, arrogant in their belief that they can 'control' that demagogue, soon find themselves unable to stand up to him? Will he then launch them into a destructive war to achieve his apocalyptic goals? The parallels are chilling.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post in which he assures us that, should the Democrats take back the House and he become the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he will not immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Ed Morrissey thinks Conyers is a liar. He recalls that Conyers held a mock impeachment proceeding in a Capitol Hill basement that was fully reported in the media at the time and that until just a few days ago his website was advocating impeachment.

Conyers is a liar, and not a very good liar at that. He has tried for at least a year to get Democrats to start impeachment proceedings, losing patience to the point where he just held them himself in frustration. As Milbank reported at the time, the only thing Conyers lacked was subpoena power. "'Tis the beginning of our work," he told the Democrats on his ersatz impeachment panel back then. Suddenly faced with accountability in the upcoming elections, Conyers wants to pull wool over the eyes of the electorate by erasing evidence and accusing Republicans of paranoia. Get used to this level of deceit and chutzpah if the Democrats take Congress this fall.

Read the whole thing. Like Morrissey, I believe Conyers and his ilk are just as rabidly for impeachment as the rest of the zealots of the left-wing blogosphere. They believe, sincerely, I think, that Bush was "see-lected, not ee-lected" and that "Bush lied, people died". Only the influence of the sober and rational folks within the Democratic Party will keep these people under wraps in the run-up to the election. Once they take power, "Katie, bar the door".

Check out this piece about two Presidents who saw their approval ratings fall like a stone throughout their second terms, each fighting an unpopular war to help a people achieve freedom.

The Europeans are putting together a package of incentives for the Iranians to give up their nuclear program. Before the package is even finalized, President Ahmadinejad is already rejecting it. Either this guy is absolutely convinced he is perfectly safe from significant economic sanctions or military action, or he wants conflict (I think the latter).

In Pennsylvania, Conservative voters have toppled some of their most important RINOs. I think this is a good indicator about Conservative anger across the electorate. What that portends for November is still hard to say, although I would be worried if I were a "moderate" Republican facing a primary challenge this year.

An end to the Korean War? Perhaps, as the administration weighs the possibility of signing a peace treaty with the North Koreans.

The Senate is moving closer to the House on the issue of immigration reform. While I still would not bet any money on it, there is now a real possibility of reconciling the two versions and crafting an acceptable compromise bill that includes a significant toughening of border control (although not nearly enough) and creates some path to citizenship for some of the illegals already here. Even if they manage to pass some compromise, though, it might not be enough to assuage Conservative anger at the GOP.

In the Palestinian Territories, another sign of impending civil war,

In Iraq, another sign of progress toward the seating of the new government, which would help allay concerns about a civil war.

Yet another new poll, this time from ABC News/Washington Post, shows the President and the GOP sliding to historic lows. If you look inside the numbers, you'll see that the drop is being driven by the increasing disaffection of Republicans. Honestly, if a pollster called me and asked if I approved of the job being done by the President and Congress, I would have to say no. Combined with the 90% of Democrats who disapprove and the 70% of independents, any drop in Republican support from the previous highs of 90% will result in an overall drop, which is what we are seeing. Republican support is now dropping to the 50% level or below. Unless things improve between now and November, it looks like it will be a long election night for the GOP.

Who to believe on the issue of immigration? Should we believe Derrick Jackson, who cites a report that emphasizes the positive aspects of immigration, or Robert Samuelson who cites information that highlights the negative aspects? Read both columns and make up your own mind. (I think immigration is valuable, but if the flow comes in too fast and with too much volume, you get problems, much like the rain we received here in New Hampshire this past week). Also, should Conservatives disdain compromise on this issue, or is that just another form of insanity, as Tony Blankley says?

The story of Hirsi Ali, a Dutch lawmaker who immigrated to the Netherlands from Somalia and became famous because of her involvement in a film that chronicled oppression of women in fundamentalist Islamic societies (and more famous when the filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in the street by a radical Islamist), should act as a wake-up call to those who refuse to believe that Western society will be able to defeat Islamist radicalism. Ali has resigned her seat in the Dutch Parliament and will move to America. This after officials there began a move to strip her of her Dutch citizenship for lying on her visa application. Read this article from the Times of London by Magnus Linklater. He says it all.

Ms Hirsi Ali's penetrating analysis of religion and society in Muslim countries should be answered, not ignored. This is not just a matter of a novel satirising the Prophet, or a few insulting cartoons; hers is a sustained and clear-sighted critique of Islam, from someone who has experienced its restrictions and believes that there is a reasonable case to be made against it. A country that turns its back on those views reveals itself, not only as illiberal, but one that has lost confidence in the resilience of its own democracy.

Read the whole thing.

Speaking of 'read the whole thing', a phrase I have lifted from Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds, check out his latest TCS Daily column. It is about the increasing financial and social costs of parenting, which he believes is one reason why modern, post-industrial countries are seeing such dramatically declining birth rates. If he is right, then the solution of providing government incentives for having children that are being tried in places like Russia and Italy, will not work. As always, culture is the most important variable in human behavior.

THE IMMIGRATION SOLUTION

After watching the President's speech last night, and reading some commentary about it this morning, I feel that rather than simply offering up more criticisms, I should weigh in with a possible solution.

What is the problem, then? We live in the best country in the world. This isn't just my opinion. Based on the long lines of people wanting to get in legally (with people spending years on waiting lists), and the millions willing to risk life and limb to get here illegally, I am confident that many millions of people think America would be a great place to live. We are a country that is made up of the descendants of every other people on Earth. While there are a lot of other great places to live in the world, clearly, our place is among the favorites.

While we are separated from the millions who want to get here from Asia, the Middle East and Africa by oceans, we are not separated from the millions who want to get here from Mexico, as well as Central and South America. They can simply walk here (if they are willing to run the gauntlet of smugglers, thieves, rattlesnakes, and the harsh terrain).

So, the United States is a magnet, especially for the 'poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free' (and relatively rich). We can control the flow of people who want to come across an ocean with some degree of efficiency, since they need to arrive by boat or plane. But we have been completely unable to control the flow across thousands of miles of border with Mexico.

So, what are the possible solutions? First, we could shut off the magnet. If America was not an attractive place for these people to live, there would be no incentive for them to come here. Clearly, we are not going to drive our standard of living down to the level of Mexico, or the other places where people are yearning to leave and make the journey to America. Second, we could lessen the magnet's pull by improving the conditions in the rest of the world. This is the Left's favorite answer. Unfortunately, we do not have that power. As we are seeing in Iraq, even if we spend billions of dollars and back up our actions with armed men, we cannot change the culture of other countries. They must find their own way to the culture which breeds economic prosperity (based on the rule of law, a solid work ethic that emphasizes self-sacrifice, and relatively free markets). Third, we could block the flow. This seems to be the only possible solution, but it is more than just building a wall.

If I were able to wave a magic wand and solve the problem, I would do three things. First, I would build a wall along the southern border. The wall (or fence, to be more accurate), would be equipped with the latest in high-tech equipment. The border patrol would man the wall but, unlike the Berlin Wall, there wouldn't be machine guns or mines, since the purpose would not be to kill those fleeing oppression, rather, the purpose would be to control the entrance of those seeking freedom and prosperity. Second, once the border is secure, I would expand the number of legal slots available for immigrants to come here. If people had a genuine belief that they had a legitimate shot at getting to America legally, they would take it, rather than risk the illegal path. Finally, I would then legalize the 12 million people who came in when the border was not secure. It is not their fault that our politicians refused to do their jobs. The 12 million should be forced to pay some reasonable fine, whatever taxes are accrued, and then they can get in line for citizenship (that part is the only portion of the Bush plan I like, but the President doesn't do what is necessary to make it work, which is to secure the border).

That is my solution. I look forward to hearing from our so-called leaders about their solutions. It is long past time we stopped playing this one for political gain, and started worrying about the welfare of the country.

The debate has already started about putting the National Guard on the southern border. From what I have heard so far, the President's proposal will not satisfy Conservatives, but I will keep an open mind as I watch the President's address tonight.

Meanwhile, Conservative Christians are loudly proclaiming their unhappiness with the President and the GOP. If they stay home in November, you can bank on a Democratic victory.

In Britain, it appears Tony Blair is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

James Carroll uses the Titanic analogy for America in general.

Michael Barone also analyzes the current political situation in America and Britain, which he says is still dominated by the legacies of Reagan and Thatcher.

Susan Estrich says there is one man who can stop Hillary....Al Gore. If that is the best the Democrats can do, I foresee a sunny '08 for the GOP.

Ralph Peters urges the administration to talk to Tehran. I couldn't agree more. Since, in my opinion, we should not attack Iran without the backing of the American people, we should exhaust all other options, including direct talks. Peters also points out that our intelligence picture of Iran is woefully inadequate. Direct talks will help us gather intelligence, as well as providing a public relations picture of a reasonable U.S. trying to find a peaceful solution to issues of concern to the international community. If the Iranians act like the certifiable lunatics that we have seen in the past few months, then so much the better.

An interesting post on The Democracy Project about "Conservative Battle Fatigue". I feel it, too. But I feel more strongly that the reason many Conservatives are abandoning the President (as expressed in the latest dismal poll numbers) is that he is failing to achieve or, sometimes, even fight for Conservative goals. From campaign finance reform that limits free speech to education reform that increases the level of Federal involvement in education to the on-going failure to control our borders, all the things that have annoyed or angered Conservatives since the beginning of this administration are now crystallizing into, if not quite opposition, then a lack of passionate, or even tepid, support.

Some Democrats are wondering if it might not be better to fall short in the November elections. The theory is that by leaving the GOP in control, they could be blamed for all the nation's ills right up to the election in November 2008, which would then lead to a Democratic sweep of Congress and the White House. I think there is something to this theory, but that we will not get a chance to test it. I think, unless something dramatic happens between now and November (which is very possible), the Democrats will win back the House and Senate. I know that you can walk through the races one-by-one and make the case that such an outcome is unlikely, based on poll numbers, but I get the sense that there is a political tsunami building, much like 1994. It will not be as dramatic in terms of numbers of seats changing hands, but it will result in a change of control. The bright side for the GOP is that this will allow them to re-organize and come back much stronger in '08, hopefully united behind a popular nominee. It will also force the Democrats to put up or shut up on a number of issues, like immigration, entitlement spending, the deficit and, most importantly, the war. They may also jump off the cliff of impeachment, which might just settle the question once and for all about whether the President and his people lied, or were simply mistaken, about WMDs in Iraq. If he lied, and that can be shown beyond a political doubt in the Senate, then he deserves to be removed from office (presumably, Cheney will be impeached as well and will go with him, which gives us.........President Pelosi!.......er, I guess maybe there will be enough political doubt, eh?)

IMMIGRATION DEBACLE

The President is set to deliver a prime-time Oval Office address to the American people on Monday night to push his vision of immigration reform. Initial news accounts of the address indicate that, among other things, he will advocate that the National Guard become involved in securing our southern border. At the time I write this, I have not seen any accounts of what exactly his other proposals might be. If, and I suspect this will happen, he trots out his guest worker proposal again, this speech will not significantly impact his approval ratings, which is the real goal of the speech.

That is because, on the immigration issue, the President cannot have it both ways. He cannot appease "mad as hell" Conservatives by legalizing 12 million people who broke the laws to enter, or stay in, this country. Yet, he cannot appease the 12 million illegals and, more importantly, the many millions of their friends, relatives, co-workers and employers who want them to stay with anything short of amnesty.

For the President and the GOP, this speech can be seen in only one light, as an attempt at political damage control. If Bush really believed in securing our borders, he would have done so in the weeks after 9/11, not almost five years later.

The tough part for me, as I weigh the issue, is that I agree with the basic premise that it is impossible to hunt down and deport 12 million people with our current resources, and there is absolutely no possibility of garnering a political majority to pass the policies and appropriate the funds necessary to embark on such a project. Even if tougher laws and sanctions were passed against businesses that hire illegals, and real efforts were made to enforce those laws, the 12 million would not simply go home. There will always be people willing to hire them, and there will always be ways to acquire the necessary false documents to fool those who are trying to comply with the laws in good faith. Therefore, the 12 million are staying.

But logic is not a factor in this debate and, besides, without a real remedy for the problems on our southern border (and a real effort to tighten the northern border, too) any appeal to reason on the impracticality of deporting those 12 million will fall on deaf ears. Unless President Bush announces his support for building a fence along the southern border and his support for the use of troops to secure it in the meantime, he will be unable to convince enough Conservatives, like me, to support a rational plan for assimilating the 12 million.

HOSTAGE TO UNCONTROLLABLE EVENTS

Could we see a Democratic House after this November's election? According to Jonathan V. Last in the Weekly Standard, the polls tell a mixed story.

IN SEPTEMBER of 1984, an ABC/Washington Post poll asked registered voters whether they preferred a Democrat or a Republican to represent their congressional districts. By a 15-point margin, respondents favored Democrats. On Election Day 1984, Democrats lost 14 seats in the House. In 1996, a similar question produced a 14-point edge for Democrats; in that election they gained 9 House seats. The lesson is that polls are important tools for understanding politics. Except when they're not.

Washington is buzzing with 2006 poll numbers, many of which are self-contradictory. For example, according to a Time magazine poll in March, 49 percent of respondents disapprove of the job Congress is doing, but 63 percent approve of their own representative. When asked which party they would like to see control Congress, respondents gave Democrats an 11-point edge, but when they were asked about the job the parties are doing in Congress, Democrats and Republicans had nearly identical ratings: 39 percent approval and about 50 percent disapproval.

But if you sift through the data, some numbers not only make sense but also look a touch familiar. Could 2006 be 1994, all over again?

The bottom line for Last is the same one I have mentioned many times...

And then there are events. By this point in 1994, the two features we most associate with that election--Hillary Clinton's health-care collapse and the introduction of the Contract With America--had not yet appeared. The events most likely to impose themselves between now and November--immigration and the stare-down with Iran--could be more momentous.

Which leads me to this piece from Arnaud de Borchgrave in the Washington Times. De Borchgrave, who has many contacts in the international diplomatic and security communities, relates this interesting conversation.

At Israel's National Day reception in Washington last week, an Israeli official, speaking privately and not for attribution said he believed Israel would strike first in the next "month or two or three" and that fighter bombers would not be involved as they were to take out Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor before it went critical in 1981. For Osirak, Israel used 14 F-15s and F-16s. This time, the Israeli said, it will be missiles. Cruise missiles?, we inquired. No, he replied, with a gesture of his hand that went up and down again.

What about pinpointing tunnel entrances to widely scattered Iranian nuclear facilities? The Israeli responded Israel has its own geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimeters: "We know far more than anyone realizes." Israel has developed some 100 Jericho-II medium-range ballistic missiles (which entered service in 1989). Jericho II's range varies from 1,500 to 3,500 kilometers, depending on payload weight. They are deployed in underground caves and silos.

Israel has several satellites in orbit -- Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 -- that were launched by Shavit space launch vehicles (SLV). The first two stages of the Shavit were Jericho II missiles. There are unconfirmed reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000 kilometers.

So, the Israelis may take matters into their own hands within a matter of months. As I have written many times on this blog, the Israelis are the wild card. Such a strike, without needing to get overt American permission to cross through Iraqi airspace, would create a political firestorm. The strike, and all the unknowable consequences, would be the deciding factor in the November election, and we won't know which way it will go right up to the actual vote itself. Of course, the result of the election may be the least of our worries at that point.

THE AMERICAN WAY

Barbara Lerner chastises the legion of Iraq War critics in this article on the National Review website. But she reserves her harshest criticism for the man ultimately responsible for all the post-major combat operations failures in Iraq...George W. Bush. Lerner believes that because the President tried to have it both ways, letting Rumsfeld have his way on some things, and the State Department/CIA on other things, the situation was completely bungled. I believe she is right. We crushed Saddam's government in a lightning strike, then we stopped. We should have gone on rooting out potential enemies and slaying them, like Moqtada al Sadr. We should have crushed Falluja the first time around. We should have made it clear that we were as deadly and uncompromising a force as Saddam could ever hope to be, but with far greater power. This would have created the Hobbesian awe necessary to get everyone in that very Hobbesian land (where it is truly a war of every man against every other man) to respect the will of the new sovereign (our hand-picked Iraqis backed by the power of the U.S. military).

But, of course, Lerner's solution would not have ever been implemented by an American administration, and will never be implemented by future administrations. As Richard Widmark (playing the lead American prosecutor) says in that classic film "Judgment at Nuremburg", "We're not cut out to be occupiers. We're new at it and we're not very good at it. We always want to cut the other guy a break. It's the American way". I just recently watched that film again, and that line rang like a bell. Even in 1961, at least one Hollywood script writer understood the real weakness of Americans if they ever tried to build an empire, we don't have the stomach for the brutal work necessary, even if we really don't want an empire, but to help other nations build a democracy. Fortunately, we were brutal enough during the active combat operations part of World War II to convince the Germans and the Japanese to abandon their imperialist dreams (most of their populations spent the first winter after the war just struggling to find food and fuel amidst the rubble of their bombed-out cities). Unfortunately, we were not brutal enough in Iraq to convince the various factions that they shouldn't resort to violence to find redress for their grievances.

My conclusion, then, is simple. No more wars of choice. No more pre-emption. Let the Iranians have the bomb. If they attack us, annihilate them. It's the American way.

ENGAGE IRAN?

If you read only one thing on the web today, read the letter from President Ahmadinejad to President Bush. Parts of it read as if it were written by Dennis Kucinich and other parts as if it were written by some souped-up Muslim version of Pat Robertson. Not surprisingly, some leftists are already saying the Bush should answer the letter by engaging with Iran.

This Iran-U.S. controversy needs to be seen in context. First and foremost, a nuclear-armed Iran under the present regime, which has said many times under many different circumstances by many different officials that it would like to see Israel disappear, is a threat to the interests of the United States. If the Mullahs are willing to think the unthinkable, as Austin Bay points out, that requires the Israelis to contemplate their own massive nuclear response, even without any U.S. assistance or action. Is this an acceptable outcome for the U.S. and its European allies? One can make the argument that a system of deterrence would form, just as it did between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and as it exists now between Pakistan and India. The difference is the virulence of anti-Semitism. We have seen how the ideology of Jew-hatred can lead to the most horrendous of acts, even to the detriment of a nation's survival. After all, the Nazis continued to divert badly needed resources to the extermination of the Jews even when those resources could have been used to help keep the Russian and Allied invaders at bay. Do not underestimate the power of that evil impulse to blame the Jews for all that is bad in the world to lead to even self-destructive acts.

In short, as long as Iran (and many others in the Middle East) hold onto the notion of a "final solution" to the Israeli problem, adding nuclear weapons to their side of the equation will not provide balance, as in the other scenarios discussed above but, rather, do just the opposite by creating a potentially catastrophic imbalance.

Can the Democrats win? That is the question that is buzzing about the blogosphere and the MSM. In the New York Times this morning, we find an article about the intellectual and policy debates as optimistic Democrats talk about their vision for the future. Of course, having observed Democrats since 1980, I am skeptical about their ability to coalesce around an agenda that is in sync with mainstream American values. One of their major problems, it seems to me, is the growing power and passion of the angry, web-driven, anti-war left. Richard Cohen writes about their passion and anger in this piece in the Washington Post.

The anger festering on the Democratic left will be taken out on the Democratic middle. (Watch out, Hillary!) I have seen this anger before -- back in the Vietnam War era. That's when the antiwar wing of the Democratic Party helped elect Richard Nixon. In this way, they managed to prolong the very war they so hated.

The hatred is back. I know it's only words now appearing on my computer screen, but the words are so angry, so roiled with rage, that they are the functional equivalent of rocks once so furiously hurled during antiwar demonstrations. I can appreciate some of it. Institution after institution failed America -- the presidency, Congress and the press. They all endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have. Now, though, that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.

This hatred is being stoked and manipulated by some on the Left toward a particular kind of political action, just as it was in the late 60s and early 70s. Perhaps the leading voice of the new, web-driven, anti-war Left is Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos blog, the most popular blog on the web. In Sunday's Washington Post, he took aim squarely at Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton leads her Democratic rivals in the polls and in fundraising. Unfortunately, however, the New York senator is part of a failed Democratic Party establishment -- led by her husband -- that enabled the George W. Bush presidency and the Republican majorities, and all the havoc they have wreaked at home and abroad.

As Cohen suggests, we have seen this kind of activism before. It led to the takeover of the Democratic Party in 1972 by the McGovernites, who were absolutely crushed that November. If it were not for the political disaster of Watergate, it is arguable that the Democrats decline would have begun at that time, rather than the 1980s. In fact, Marshall Wittmann calls these new activists "McGovernites with Modems".

Here is an early prediction. In 2004, as in 1968, the Democratic establishment held the line and nominated the safe candidate over the anti-war crowd's favorite (Humphrey over McCarthy in '68, Kerry over Dean in '04). In 2008, as in 1972, I expect the anti-war crowd to win out, especially if we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if Senator Russ Feingold is the nominee and he is wiped out by the GOP nominee, Senator John McCain, perhaps. America is a center-right country, and it will not embrace the radical left.

Democrats are beginning to make plans for their takeover of the House after the November elections. John Fund explains why it is not a done deal, while this piece examines the impact the '06 election might have, or not have, on the '08 election.

Conservative behavior will drive this election. The Liberals are fired up and will, no doubt, show up at the polls in large numbers. Some middle-of-the-road voters, or swing voters, have grown so sour on the current Administration, mainly due to the war in Iraq, that they will also show up and be inclined to vote for the opposition party. But, if Conservatives also show up in large numbers, then the GOP has a chance to keep control of the House. This is why Karl Rove is making it his mission to generate Conservative turnout. Can he succeed? Only if the GOP-led Congress and the President begin addressing their concerns. Stop the pork barrel spending. Pass a real immigration reform bill that cracks down on our porous borders and puts real resources into our border security agencies. That would be a good start.

In the end, though, the GOP is at the mercy of how Conservatives feel about their performance when election time comes around in November. If the GOP can turn it around in the next six months, they can at least limit their losses. I, for one, am still undecided. Would we be better off, especially looking ahead to '08, to give the American people a taste of how the Democrats would run things? Would it not be instructive to watch Speaker Pelosi in action? Stay tuned.

GOING SOUR ON THE GOP

The President's poll numbers continue to plunge. The reason, as I have said in the past, is not because the people that hate him have suddenly seen a huge upsurge in their ranks but, rather, because the people that used to love him have grown sour on him. Conservatives are swelling the President's disapproval numbers, and the increasingly bad numbers for the GOP-led Congress, as well. First, the President did poorly in responding to Katrina. He started slow and stuck too long with seemingly incompetent managers (a lot of Conservatives never liked the idea of a Department of Homeland Security in the first place, and I, for one, still don't understand why Chertoff has kept his job). Then, he started throwing money at the problem, too much for Conservatives, not enough for Liberals and Lousianans. Next, the President stuck his finger in the eyes of Conservatives on immigration. Combine that with the frustrations concerning the war in Iraq and, sooner or later, Conservatives began to remember all the things they don't like about how this President, this Congress, and this Administration have handled all sorts of issues since the beginning. Shall I list the bad ideas? Since it is my blog, sure I can.

Campaign Finance Reform - Joining with those who would regulate political speech, even after he said he would do no such thing.

No Child Left Behind - A massive expansion of Federal interference in the public education system, when most Conservatives would rather see the Department of Education abolished.

The Bush Doctrine - Conservatives love the words and the concept, but deplore the fact that the Administration doesn't seem interested in putting it into action.

The Guest Worker Program - Most Conservatives absolutely hate the idea. I, for one, am getting tired of the failure of the President, the Congress and all the rest to really put teeth into our current border enforcement efforts.

Federal Spending - It continues to go up and up and up. For this, we need a GOP Congress?

All of this, and more, has been piling up in the collective minds of Conservatives over the last six years. Now, as we look ahead, most of us are wondering how it could be much worse if the Democrats were in charge. After all, Bush would still be in the White House and a Democratic Congress might give him the chance to give that veto pen of his some work. For the first time in my life, I am seriously considering not voting this Fall (as I can't vote for the Democrats). Why should I vote for a party that doesn't take my views seriously enough to at least try to put them into effect as matters of policy?

I haven't decided on that, as of yet. Stay tuned.

The guy who wrote "Black Hawk Down" thinks Ahmadinejad and his pals are just playing to the home crowd with their pronouncements about nuclear research. While his historical narrative concerning Iran in 1979, and how the radicals used the seizing of the U.S. embassy and resultant hostage crisis as a means to solidify power, is illuminating, it misses the main point. Are the Iranian leaders to be believed when they say they will "wipe Israel off the map"? If so, should the U.S. and her allies, not just Israel, do something about it?

These questions are troubling Charles Krauthammer, who writes this morning about the Jewish diaspora, created by the Roman effort to wipe them out, and their coming back together again in Israel, created by the efforts of Hitler to wipe them out. He wonders if the coming of Ahmadinejad and his ilk, and the fact that more Jews now live in little Israel than anywhere else in the word, puts all the Jewish eggs in one basket. Six million Jews were gathered up by Hitler's henchmen and slaughtered. Six million Jews now live in Israel, within range of Iranian missiles, perhaps soon to be tipped with nuclear warheads. Krauthammer asks, never again?

Last week Bernard Lewis, America's dean of Islamic studies, who just turned 90 and remembers the 20th century well, confessed that for the first time he feels it is 1938 again. He did not need to add that in 1938, in the face of the gathering storm -- a fanatical, aggressive, openly declared enemy of the West, and most determinedly of the Jews -- the world did nothing.

Read the whole thing.

If Moussaoui doesn't deserve the death penalty, then who does? Moussaoui says "America, you lost". I can't disagree with him. As Peggy Noonan writes,

Excuse me, I'm sorry, and I beg your pardon, but the jury's decision on Moussaoui gives me a very bad feeling. What we witnessed here was not the higher compassion but a dizzy failure of nerve.

From the moment the decision was announced yesterday, everyone, all the parties involved--the cable jockeys, the legal analysts, the politicians, the victim representatives--showed an elaborate and jarring politesse. "We thank the jury." "I accept the verdict of course." "We can't question their hard work." "I know they did their best." "We thank the media for their hard work in covering this trial." "I don't want to second-guess the jury."

How removed from our base passions we've become. Or hope to seem.

It is as if we've become sophisticated beyond our intelligence, savvy beyond wisdom. Some might say we are showing a great and careful generosity, as befits a great nation. But maybe we're just, or also, rolling in our high-mindedness like a puppy in the grass. Maybe we are losing some crude old grit. Maybe it's not good we lose it.

I once interviewed David Gelernter, the Yale computer scientist who was one of the Unabomber's victims, about his book "1939, the Lost World of the Fair". One of the images he mentioned and used in his book was a front cover picture in Life magazine that year. It depicted the bodies of a couple of bank robbers lying in the street in New York City. What was fascinating was the caption. As I recall it went something like "good shooting by New York's finest". Can you imagine that sentiment ever being expressed by a mainstream magazine today? Yet, according to Gelernter, it perfectly expressed the attitude of average Americans in 1939. Evil-doers should be met with lethal violence when necessary, and when they got what they deserved it was cause, not for tears or recriminations or guilt, but celebration. Those were tough people back in the America of 1939, and they proved it in spades from 1941-1945. If we have lost that toughness, how can we win this war?

The debate over the war in Iraq continues. Now, ordinary soldiers have weighed in with a new film shot entirely by some local troops from a New Hampshire National Guard unit. Apparently, it is making something of a splash. In Iraq, violence continues as the Iraqi leadership tries to form a new government. Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis write in this piece that all American troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2007. Retired Lieutenant General William Odom, who has opposed the war from the start, says we should withdraw immediately.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

David Broder writes about Senator Joe Biden's plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

This week, after his sixth trip to the war zone, he said that the threat of sectarian violence -- an incipient civil war between Shiites and Sunnis -- has become so great that the United States must redefine its political goals in Iraq. Instead of betting everything on the creation of a unified government in Baghdad, Biden said, we should encourage the development of separate but linked regional authorities in northern Iraq for the Kurds, in southern Iraq for the Shiites and in central Iraq for the Sunnis.

The current constitution gives the 18 provinces of Iraq the right to form regional groups. Biden would retain control of defense, foreign policy and oil resources for the central government now on the way to formation, but he would let the regional governments largely run their own affairs.

As elite opinion solidifies on the case for withdrawal, and public support of the war and of the President continues to drop, just how long can the President maintain his "stay the course" plan?

Here is an argument for taking action against Iran, rather than following the course set by Britain and France in the 1930s when faced with Hitler's Germany.

In Southern Afghanistan, according to this front-page story in the New York Times, the Taliban is making a comeback, emboldened by the replacement of U.S. troops by NATO "peacekeepers". If the report is accurate, it is a good argument for re-enforcing our troop contingent in that country.

On the immigration issue, after days of protests, it appears nothing much has changed. Congress is still dithering and, according to Mickey Kaus, the Administration is now reassuring illegals that they really aren't serious about cracking down. All of this is driving Tony Blankley nuts, as he can't understand why something so simple as the justification for border integrity is falling on such deaf ears among the political and cultural elites of this country. Still, there is at least one indication, based on the results of a local election in Virginia, that ordinary Americans are fed up with this foolishness.

Of course, if we want to get the elites really fired up, let's talk about impeaching President Bush. It still sounds ludicrous to some, but just wait until after the Democrats take charge early next year.

While politicians pander to the public on the issue of rising gasoline prices, and analysts debate whether or not those high prices will help knock the GOP out of power, the real elephant in the living room continues to go unnoticed. Social Security and Medicare continue to head toward insolvency, according to the trustees. Will we ever face up to the fact that these programs are unsustainable in their current form? Will we ever hear a politician say that we need to raise taxes, cut benefits or some combination of the two to put these programs on a sound financial footing? Don't hold your breath. Even now, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) touts the latest report as good news. You see, he says, Social Security is sound for decades to come. Of course it is. No one says it isn't. The real problem is that as we approach the insolvency date, which is 2040 according to this latest report, it becomes harder and harder to fix the problem. Moreover, well before we hit the insolvency date, we will begin to see the Social Security Administration tapping into the money that was transferred into the general fund during times of surplus. This will deprive the Federal Government of even more money that is currently being used for all sorts of other programs, which will require that these programs be cut, or taxes raised to fund them. Or, of course, we could go on borrowing even more money.

Medicare is in even worse shape, made all the more difficult because of the addition of the Prescription Drug Program, or Medicare, Part D. Expect the politicians to continue to try and pass the buck, in this case by paying providers even less for their services. These costs will then be transferred to other patients, resulting in even more upward pressure on health insurance prices, resulting in more companies dropping their coverage, or forcing their employees to pay a greater share.

How do we get out of this spiral? In terms of health care, the simplest, most effective answer is not the creation of a massive, government run health care system, or even just a massive, government run health insurance company. In both cases stingy (and justifiably so) taxpayers will starve the system of the funds necessary to provide top level health care, resulting in shortages and waiting lists. Hundreds of thousands of well paid health care workers will abandon their professions to find new lines of work, especially those with the most education and skills that can be transferred to other industries. No, the answer to our health insurance cost problem is to re-establish the connection between the consumer and the provider on the issue of price. If every American above a certain income level had to pay for health care directly out of pocket, this would create a massive market for those services, and it would cut out the middleman whose mountains of paperwork decrease efficiency and increase costs. If every American above a certain income were required to carry catastrophic health insurance, this would create a massive market for those policies. Only those Americans below a certain income level would need to be subsidized by the government, and health care providers and insurers, now relieved of the enormous inefficiencies of the current system, would be much better able to provide them free or low-cost care.

Too simple to work? You are free to choose your doctor based not only on competency, geography, specialty or availability, but also on affordability. Your doctor is able to choose you, without the insurance middleman. He or she can carry a certain number of poor patients, charge them less, and pass the costs on to the more affluent patients. I, for one, would rather pay extra for my doctor knowing it is going to help the poor people in my neighborhood than see the money leached off every step of the way by bureaucrats, both public and private.

As for Social Security, why can't we say that if you are 50 or older, you stay in the current system with no changes? If you are under 50, you can opt to stay in the system or buy into a private account, with a safety net to catch you if your investments go bad. Why can't we say that everyone who has an income over a million a year is automatically suspended from the rolls, until and unless their annual income falls below that level? Should millionaires really get Social Security, if the system is approaching insolvency?

Let's try it. It just might work.

Bill Crawford has another installment of good news from Iraq. It is always worth reading to counteract the almost uniformly negative portrayal of conditions in Iraq painted by the MSM. As always, this is not because the MSM's portrayal is inaccurate, the violence is very real, but that it is incomplete.

The view of conditions in Iraq that is now held by the vast majority of Americans is the one factor that is driving down the President's poll numbers, according to this analysis. Unfortunately, no amount of good news out of Iraq will turn this thing around. Like Truman during the Korean War and Johnson during Vietnam, George W. Bush is fated to limp to the finish line of his Presidency considered by most as a failure. Of course, history could smile on him later on, as it does with Truman, or continue to condemn him, as it does with Johnson.

Dennis Ross has a new strategy for dealing with Iran. It calls for the U.S. to sit down with the British, French and Germans to develop a negotiating strategy that would involve tough sanctions for Iran if they continue on their course toward a nuclear weapon. The strategy would bypass the Security Council, as it appears the Russians and Chinese will not agree to real sanctions. In my view, it might help restore relations with the Europeans, but would not stop the Iranians.

Claude Salhani argues against unilateral sanctions against Iran which are being debated in Congress. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide any alternatives.