The Neo-Cons strike back! Bill Kristol says it is the Democrats who are in denial, not the President.

Michael Barone looks at some poll numbers about the Iraq War. They are not as one-sided as you would think by simply following coverage in the MSM. The bottom line is that a majority of the American people do believe we are at war against the Islamofascists, therefore, they are divided and uncertain about how to deal with the conflict in Iraq. The Democrats have also not reached a point where they are trusted by a majority to aggressively fight the war. Six months ago I was pretty certain the Republicans would lose control of Congress. Now, I am not so certain.

Here is a warning to Islamofascist terrorists from Jacques Dhervillez...

I suspect that you have found recent events in Lebanon rather disconcerting. One of your leaders, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezb'allah, is quoted as saying:

"We did not think, even one percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons. Neither I, Hezb'allah, prisoners in Israeli jails nor the families of the prisoners would accept it."

Your traditional strategy, of using terrorist tactics while counting on your enemies to adhere to the rules of diplomacy and formal warfare, doesn't seem to be working any more. What you have really done, by past decades of terrorism, is open a Pandora's Box of horrors that may ultimately harm you and your people more than anyone else. This toughening of the tactics of Western powers is merely an example of Magruder's Law that:

"Combat inevitably sinks to the lowest common denominator of the combatants. If you like to wrestle in the mud and your opponent likes to gouge out eyes, then sooner or later you will both be eye-gouging in the mud."

If the Isamofascists continue to make war against us, if they continue to threaten us, if they continue to gain power in the Muslim community at large, then we shall see what one writer calls "The Dark View of Islam on the American Street" translate into actions. If Americans become convinced that Islamic radicalism is an existential threat then, like the Germans and Japanese during World War II, all Muslims will be seen as legitimate targets in the war to defeat the Islamofascists. This is the big war I keep writing about that I see looming on the horizon.

Some foreign policy experts are beginning to publicly state why they believe our withdrawal and defeat in Iraq would not be such a bad thing. Others are convinced that the Iraq War has only made our security situation worse, which helps bolster the argument that a withdrawal and defeat would be harmful in the short term, but beneficial in the long run. Here, though, is an argument that the war in Iraq is providing a dumping ground for extremists, shipped out by their autocratic home governments to seek martyrdom (meaning, death) in Iraq.

Bob Woodward is adding to the mix, alleging in a new book, according to this New York Times story (they caught the Washington Post napping), that the President and his advisors are misleading the American people about how badly things are going in Iraq. Only a few weeks from the mid-term elections, hmmm...timing is everything, isn't it?

The President has de-classified the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate that was first issued back in April. You can read the summary here (via the New York Times website). It is about as bland a document as you will ever read. Its conclusions are all very elementary for anyone who has been following the progress of the war against the Islamofascists. It also reveals the selectivity of the leaks that led to front page stories in the Times and the Washington Post. Clearly, the leaks were designed to strike a political blow against the President, the GOP, and the current policy regarding Iraq. In that, they have succeeded, albeit temporarily. By releasing the full summary the President is creating a counter-story that will dominate the headlines for a couple of days and, no doubt, lead to a great deal of commentary either blasting the leaks or refuting the conclusions drawn from them. As a political matter, I suspect the story will work out as a wash, giving neither side any advantage they did not already have as we draw closer to the mid-term elections. The real mystery facing those of us who are trying to predict the outcome of the elections is just how independent, moderate, swing voters will react to the Iraq War and its relationship to the over-all War on Terror and how economic conditions, immigration reform, and other issues will play into the equation. Polls from just a few weeks ago seemed to give the Democrats a significant advantage. But recently, the numbers seem to be turning around for the President and the GOP. We may very well see another repeat of the 2002 and 2004 elections which resulted in narrow Republican victories. Unfortunately, unlike World Wars I and II, and more like Korea and Vietnam, we will continue to try and prosecute the war without national political unity. As the casualties mount and frustration builds, which it will, the disunity will grow even more pronounced. Eventually, if history is any guide, the American people will elect political leaders who will find a way to end the fight, probably via withdrawal, as in Vietnam.

David Ignatius criticizes the Democrats for their failure to honestly address the consequences of an American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Washington Post reporter Jonathan Finer decries the dishonest debate about Iraq.

Tony Blankley writes about the Pakistani surrender to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Waziristan, an under-reported story that has tremendous significance in the prosecution of the War on Terror.

The Weekly Standard has this piece about the Islamization of Morocco. I suspect that the extremists are going to continue to gain ground throughout the Islamic world, even though the majority of Muslims probably do not want to live under Sharia law. Remember, the majority of Germans were not Nazis, yet the Nazis still won inside Germany. The majority of Russians were not Bolsheviks, yet the Bolsheviks still won inside Russia. Extremists win in domestic struggles all the time, primarily because they are more united, committed and ruthless than their usually dispirited and divided opposition. If the Islamic world continues to trend toward the extremists, the efforts by American and European politicians to convince their publics that Islam is a "religion of peace" will fall more and more upon deaf ears. Eventually, if the people of the West begin to really feel threatened, extremists in their countries will begin to make political gains. I still think the big war is coming, and nothing I can see across the globe gives me much hope of avoiding it.

The New Hampshire factor is analyzed in the New York Sun. Good for Romney and Kerry, bad for Clinton and Giuliani.

The Israeli Premier and a high-ranking Saudi official held a secret meeting recently, but now it is not so secret anymore.

Iran is close to agreeing to a suspension of uranium enrichment if that part of the deal can be kept secret. American officials who oppose the deal leaked it to the Washington Times, so now it is not so secret anymore, either.

Speaking of leaks, Robert Kagan is critical of the conclusions being drawn from the recently leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate about terrorism.

The Iraqis are still unable to reach a consensus on the federalization of their nation, as called for in their constitution. This is primarily because it is not in the interest of the Sunni tribes to see the Shiites take almost total control over their oil-rich southern part of the country, with the Kurds in control of their oil-rich northern part of the country, leaving the Sunni tribes in possession of their oil-poor central part of the country. Secondarily, it is not yet in the interest of Moqtada al-Sadr, who is working to block the federalization, because, IMHO, he wants to be dictator of the whole country.

Meanwhile, U.S. Army units in Iraq are finding that the sectarian allegiances of Iraqi soldiers are making them less effective in the effort to secure Baghdad. At the same time, U.S. Army units in the States getting ready to deploy to Iraq are finding it difficult to reach a proper state of readiness due to shortages in equipment.

Some Israeli settlers in the West Bank are breathing a sigh of relief at the political weakness of the Israeli government in the wake of the Israeli-Hezbollah war. It seems highly unlikely that the settlers will be forced to abandon their homes anytime soon. Meanwhile, across the border in Lebanon, it seems that the U.N. force is something of a joke, due to its limited power to do anything.

In Iran, hard-line clerics are angling to achieve even greater power with the upcoming election to the Assembly of Experts. Amir Taheri sees a growing danger from Iran due, in part, to the betrayal of French President Jacques Chirac.

Hezbollah held a big "victory" rally in Beirut yesterday. Sheik Nasrallah says his group is re-armed and has 20,000 missiles on hand. More importantly, he says his group will not disarm unless the government of Lebanon is "strong". My guess is that he will not consider the Lebanese government "strong" until he is at its head.

I hate to agree with Leftist columnist Robert Kuttner, but he is right about the uniformly bad military options we face when considering action against Iran. We cannot stop their nuclear program with airpower alone, and to attack them (an act of war) without the resources and the will to carry through with a total war against not only the Iranians, but all our Islamofascist enemies, would create far more harm than good.

Contrary to earlier reports, Hamas will not recognize Israel as a pre-condition for participating in a unity government with Fatah in the Palestinian territories.

Bill Kristol and Frederick Kagan at the Weekly Standard say there is now an almost universal consensus on expanding the size of the U.S. Army, except inside the Administration. They are right, and the shortsightedness of the Administration on this issue will prove tragic for our country in the years to come.

Probably the most disheartening news of the week is the story of Pakistan's surrender to the Taliban in Waziristan, which is one of the mountainous tribal regions in the northwest portion of the country. While Pakistani government officials and their American allies in the Administration may try to make it seem as if this is a chance for the tribal leaders to clean their own house, it really amounts to ceding the territory to the extremists. Al Qaeda and the Taliban now have a safe-haven, nearly the size of New Jersey, in which to reconstitute their terrorist training camps and plan, train for, and launch attacks in Afghanistan and around the world. Once again, George W. Bush has gambled on being able to fight this war in a limited way and is in danger of losing. The major global war will probably not be fought on his watch, but it is coming. Perhaps it will come when Pakistan falls into the hands of the Islamofascists, perhaps sometime later or from some other cause. But it is coming.

The Senate Republicans have reached an agreement with the President on the rules regarding interrogation techniques to be used against our terrorist enemies. The deal should increase John McCain's stature as he mounts a run for President in 2008. Whether it will impede our ability to get information out of captured terrorists only time will tell.

The Army continues to labor under the strain of too many responsibilities for too few troops. Why the President continues to resist the obvious need for a larger military is beyond me.

The Iranians are going to get more time to consider halting uranium enrichment, as the U.S. government has given its approval to an extension of the already-passed August 31 deadline for halting enrichment. At some point everyone will realize that the U.S. and its allies do not have the stomach for a military resolution of the problem, and the Europeans will not go along with any significant sanctions, which will leave the Iranians free to move forward with the development of nuclear weapons. Only the Israelis will be left to ponder the option of striking the Iranians before they can achieve their goal.

In Iraq, there is some good news out of Anbar province. It seems the local tribes, all of whom are Sunni Arabs, have made an agreement with the Shia-led government to fight against the Al Qaeda elements in their province. This should lead to a significant degradation of the insurgency in that part of Iraq.

Gerard Baker opines about Europe's slow surrender to the forces of radical Islam.

Charles Krauthammer also has some thoughts on that issue.

Anne Applebaum is sick of apologies, and so am I. Thomas Sowell is sick of suicidal handwringing, and so am I. Mackubin Thomas Owens is sick of defeatism, and so am I. I am sick of hearing about lawyers who argue that lethal injections cause pain to scumbag murderers. I am sick of Americans who are not willing to do a damn thing to get us off our oil addiction.

I am sick this morning, and I think I am not alone. Are the President's poll numbers starting to creep up again just because the price of gas is going down? Democrats like to think so, but I think it is something else. I think Americans saw the bomb plot get busted up in Great Britain, and remembered that the same types of men who brought death to us on 9/11 are still out there. I think Americans are seeing the governing elites of this country arguing about whether or not to treat terrorist cutthroats by the rules of the Geneva Convention and are wondering if the people in charge have gone stark raving bonkers. I think Americans are seeing the violence in Iraq and the threats from Iran and asking themselves if it really would be wise to just walk away and pretend nothing happened. Finally, I think Americans, on the anniversary of 9/11, remembered what did happen. They remember that the terrorists attacked us first. Conveniently, every once and a while, just when we might begin to forget, the radicals across the Muslim world rise up and utter threats of violence, engage in riots, or shoot a Catholic nun or stab a Dutch filmmaker. We may not like the way things have gone in Iraq, but once again, just as another election looms, many Americans are starting to ponder the realities of the world we live in and the alternatives we face. Which party is more likely to do the brutal things necessary to defeat these fanatic barbarians? In the end, in 2002 and 2004, enough voters thought the answer was spelled G-O-P. Could it happen again?

Rich Lowry responds to an earlier piece by Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden about increasing troop levels in Iraq. They all have good points to make. Korb and Ogden are correct to point out the strain the Army is facing with many units having deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. Lowry is correct to say that if we want to win in Iraq, and we can win with more troops, we ought to deploy those troops necessary to achieve victory. The underlining argument is really not about troop levels but about whether or not "victory" can be achieved in Iraq through the application of American military force. After many months of watching the story unfold I am increasingly inclined to believe that traditional victory cannot be achieved until the outside meddlers, Iran and Syria, (especially Iran) are taken out of the fight. This does not mean that we will "lose" in Iraq. So long as we maintain over 100,000 troops in Iraq, none of the players can seize power by military means. None of Iraq's neighbors can invade and seize chunks of Iraqi territory, and Al Qaeda cannot operate with impunity, as they did in Afghanistan prior to the American invasion of that country. The question remains, however, about the staying power of the American public. If we cannot win without regime change in Iran and Syria, or at least a change in their meddlesome policies, and we cannot lose so long as we keep our troops in Iraq, then we have a stalemate that could last for many years. Americans don't like stalemates, especially ones that cost American lives.

The Pope is taking some heat from a Turkish cleric about remarks the Pontiff recently made concerning Islam.

The GOP is gaining ground in the battle for control of Congress. Chalk it up to falling gas prices, rising concern about terrorism, and the inability of Democrats to shed their peacenick image.

Charles Krauthammer does a cost-benefit analysis of a military attack on Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is a sober and frightening analysis. Both options are very bad, and Krauthammer thinks we only have about a year before the decision must be made.

Chafee beats Laffey in Rhode Island. The Republican establishment can heave a sigh of relief this morning, but it may not help them in the end, as Sheldon Whitehouse won the Democratic nomination (as expected) and he will be a formidable candidate, especially since some Laffey supporters will almost certainly choose to sit the general election out. Unless he stumbles badly on the trail, I expect a Whitehouse win in Rhode Island.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the state's school funding law was unconstitutional, and gave the Legislature 9 months to fix the problem. It is deja vu all over again as the state faced the same situation back in the mid-90s. With not enough support or time to get a constitutional amendment passed, the legislature will certainly fight their way through the process and come up with something that will probably be unsatisfactory to almost everyone, and objectionable to some. Since Governor Lynch knows that he cannot support an income tax and get re-elected I expect that, in the end, they will go back to some property tax based system which will stick it to some towns and help others.

Bernard Lewis says the West may lose the war on terrorism.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has requested a visa to enter the U.S. in order to give an address to the United Nations in New York. The Jerusalem Post says the U.S. and the U.N. ought to confront Ahmadinejad legally as he continues to advocate genocide against the Jews and the destruction of a U.N. member nation - Israel. The fact that a head of state of a member nation of the U.N. can get away with advocating the destruction of another member state without facing any kind of sanction whatsoever is a clear indictment of the United Nations as an effective body.

THE SLEEP OF 9/10

ABC-TV is now re-editing portions of a new docu-drama called "The Path to 9/11". The changes come in the wake of vociferous complaints from the Democrats and former members of the Clinton Administration. Apparently, in its original version, the show takes a very unflattering look at the Clinton Administration's handling of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That, of course, does not fit into the Democratic narrative about Republican incompetence as the sole cause of all our present ills, thus it cannot be allowed to stand. Likewise, it does not do much for the potential presidential campaign of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Am I angry about this? No. The failures of Bill Clinton in this area are apparent to anyone who takes time to review the history. But he was not alone. George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter all failed to adequately understand or deal with the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism and its violent, terroristic manifestations. Most of America's political and foreign policy elite also failed to understand this phenomenon. The mistakes and misunderstandings that led to 9/11 go all the way back to our failure to declare war on Iran after their "students" stormed our embassy in 1979, our failure to declare war on Iran after their Hezbollah proxies killed over 200 of our Marines in Beirut in 1983, our failure to re-orient our military posture after the Cold War, our failure to re-allocate resources to defeating terrorists after the bombing of the USS Cole, our African embassies, and on and on. I am angry that all the smart people in our foreign policy elites (and most of the rest of us as well) missed the signs of the coming storm. I am even angrier that those same elites (and much of the rest of the population) has fallen back into its pre-9/11 slumber, with politics-as-usual running rampant, and our enemies biding their time and gathering their strength. Our next wake-up call will involve deaths in at least the tens of thousands, and may very well shatter our status as the world's lone superpower, leading to chaos and destruction that we have not seen since the Second World War.

Stanley Kurtz has an in-depth review of the consequences of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Jeff Jacoby slams the State Department and the Administration in general for its weak response to the Iranians, including the issuing of a visa to a former Iranian President who is making a lecture tour of the United States.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad is purging liberals from Iranian academia.

David Ignatius points out that there are lines of communication open between Iran and the rest. He says the choices we face when dealing with Iran are talking or fighting. Unfortunately, while those open lines are quite real today, if the current Iranian government purges liberal elements from the structure of its society, those lines will probably be shut down.

Amir Taheri thinks that the political debate about Iraq going on here at home is damaging the war effort.

Joe Klein writes a column suggesting a speech the President should be giving about the war on terror.

Five years after 9/11 we have a weakened President, in fact, a weakened governing elite at all levels, engaged in a debate about a war that they have bungled at all levels. Who is to blame for this sorry state of affairs? While there is much to go around, the worst offender is, of course, George W. Bush. History may look back at him as Harry Truman, if his policies eventually bring victory. But it may also look at him like another Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson. He also tried to fight a war without mobilizing the nation and sacrificing his domestic agenda. He also spent too much time listening to his domestic political advisors (or his own political instincts), calibrating his foreign policy efforts to match his political needs.

George W. Bush continues to make speeches declaring that this nation is at war and, in fact, that we are part of a war for the existence of civilization as we know it. Yet, he has never mobilized the nation to fight such a war. He never asked Congress to declare war. He never asked for a resumption of the draft or an expansion of the military. He never asked for the general public to sacrifice for national security by going on a crash program to end our dependency on foreign oil. If this war is about our national survival, why haven't we taken efforts commensurate with that goal?

Sadly, no one is listening anymore. He has cried wolf, yet he refuses to take common sense steps to protect us from the wolves. His party will suffer the consequences this Fall. The nation will suffer the consequences for decades to come.

In Mexico, democracy is under threat. If the situation continues on as it is going, we could see a civil war. The last time Mexico was undergoing revolutionary ferment the U.S. sent its soldiers across the border to try and punish one of the warlords. This time the traffic will be headed our way, in even larger numbers than we are seeing now.

Another article from the NY Times that investigates the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

In Sudan, the government is telling the African Union peacekeepers they need to play ball (while the Sudanese government crushes resistance in Darfur) or leave the country.

We may be entering the era of asymmetrical war. This will mean more widespread violence lasting for longer periods but, ironically, less overall death and destruction. If you doubt that is true just go back and read any history of World War II. When modern warfare is waged between nation-states with armies, navies and air forces, the destruction is on a gigantic scale.

Crikey! Steve Irwin is dead, killed by a stingray.

Another article chronicles the political mess the GOP finds itself in.

NATO is taking the offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Four Canadian soldiers have been killed, but the Taliban has lost many more.

The falling birthrates in Europe are getting more attention, as this article in the New York Times explains how the phenomenon is spreading to the East.

Kofi Annan met with Iran's President yesterday. President Ahmadinejad is holding firm. They will hold talks, but will not stop enriching uranium. So far, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the U.N. will hold firm and agree to sanctions as they had threatened to do. Iran will keep saying "we just want to talk" and the Russians and Chinese will say "we should keep the diplomatic options open" which will lead to the Germans, French and others to agree with that concept, which will lead to no action in the Security Council regarding sanctions, which will lead to........and that is where my crystal ball becomes clouded.

The Times of London has a couple of stories that I find very interesting. This story indicates that some people around Senator Hillary Clinton believe she may decide not to run for President in 2008. They are also reporting that the Israelis are making plans for a war against Syria and Iran. The Telegraph is reporting that Hezbollah is arming Palestinian militants in Gaza for a new war against Israel.

Walid Phares has some thoughts about the new videotape from "Azzam the American".

Uriel Heilman has a column in the NY Post about how the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war has revived hopes even among "moderate" Arabs that Israel can be militarily defeated.

Mark Steyn thinks the recent conversion to Islam by two Fox journalists in order to escape captivity sends the message to the Muslim world that we in the West are hollow men, without values or convictions of any kind. Jeff Jacoby writes that he hopes he would have the courage to take a bullet rather than renounce his own religious convictions.

IF YOU WERE one of the journalists kidnapped in Gaza last month and ordered at gunpoint to become a Muslim, what would you have done? Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and photographer Olaf Wiig announced their acceptance of Islam on a videotape released by their kidnappers -- ``because they had the guns," Centanni later said, ``and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

Whether their acquiescence was an act of cowardice or of prudence, reasonable people can debate. Clearly it wasn't their only choice. If I were ever told, with a gun to my head, to recite the Shahada or die, I hope I would have the courage to take the bullet.

And I hope I would remember the example not of Centanni and Wiig, but of Fabrizio Quattrocchi, an Italian security guard taken hostage in Iraq in 2004. Quattrocchi's jihadi captors, intending to make a video of an infidel's craven death, ordered him to kneel beside an open grave with a hood on his head. Defiantly, he stood up, tried to rip off the hood, and shouted, ``I will show you how an Italian dies!" They murdered him an instant later, but he died bravely, on his feet, refusing with his last breath to be humiliated by savages.

Like Jacoby, I wonder if I would have had the courage to refuse to give my captors the satisfaction of seeing me renounce my own beliefs.

Niall Ferguson writes an interesting article in Time Magazine speculating about what the world might look like to a future historian (himself) looking back on the 30th anniversary of 9/11 in 2031.

Here is an in-depth piece from the Washington Post examining how Republican insiders are worried about losing the House this November.

WBZ TONIGHT

I will be filling-in for Lovell Dyett on WBZ-AM in Boston tonight from 9 PM to Midnight. Among the topics I am considering for discussion:

Do you favor or oppose the new mandatory health insurance law in Massachusetts? Do you think it will work? A board recently set the rates for low-income people who will be required to buy the insurance.

Are you outraged by the new British-made film "Death of a President"? The NY Daily news is.

Is victory impossible in Iraq? A new report paints yet another pessimistic picture.

Should we use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb? It appears as if the Russians and Europeans are not keen on sanctions.

Should airport screeners use profiling, Israeli-style, to better screen passengers? Here is a description of how it works.

Other items of interest:

Rich Lowry says the Democrats are the party of defeat when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Derrick Jackson blasts U.S. automakers for continuing to make big gas guzzlers.

Is Mexico drawing closer to civil war? Opposition lawmakers took over their assembly building and prevented President Fox from making his state of the union speech.

Should the U.S. put the Guantanamo detainees on trial or release them? Here is a plea from the father of a Kuwaiti detainee for the government to do just that.

WPRO THIS AFTERNOON

I will be filling-in for Dan Yorke this afternoon on WPRO-AM in Providence, RI from 3-7 PM. Among the topics I am considering for discussion:

Who should be the next U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, the incumbent Lincoln Chafee, Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey (he is running against Chafee in the GOP primary) or Democrat and former state AG Sheldon Whitehouse? The race between Chaffee and Laffey is garnering national attention, including this article in Salon.

Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism? Are those who oppose the war doing the same thing that isolationists and appeasers did in the 1930s regarding the Nazi threat? Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts on the matter. Here is an interesting article that makes the comparison between President Truman's situation in the early 1950s and President Bush's situation today.

Should we take military action against Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons? The Iranian government is voicing defiance about the prospects of sanctions from the U.N. as they continue to refuse to cease enriching uranium. David Ignatius says it is a test of wills between Iran and the U.S., while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is now saying that he opposes military action against Iran.

Who should control Congress, the GOP or the Democrats? What will the House look like if the Democrats take over? This piece takes a look at the men who would be Chairmen of the powerful committees.