Obama's CIA Problem

It seems in choosing a new director for the CIA President-elect Obama is having a problem, a problem largely caused by his left-wing base.



In making his decision he wants to choose someone who is against and was not involved with the use of "torture" and has already to turn away his first choice, John Brennan for this reason. This reasoning is extremely faulty in my opinion. The CIA needs an experienced person at the helm in these trying times, not someone who needs on the job training, but agrees on a rather undefined issue to begin with.

Hopefully, Obama will be able to realize the gravity of the threat that terrorism poses and make rational choices to pertaining to who he wants to run the CIA, and how he wants to go about enacting policy. I would hope he will have the leadership skills and not be allow the far left to shape his policies. He hasn't so far. Let's hope he continues in this fashion.

The Presidency Isn't a Popularity Contest

Recently a topic of discussion by the media has been how low President Bush's approval rating is, coming to a low of 19% and how he is "the worst president ever." Even though the approval rating is true, I find there to a misinterpretation of what the President should do.

The Presidency is not a popularity contest. Sometimes Presidents have to make tough and unpopular decisions, it's part of the job. And it seems these presidents have acquired these numbers in the most trying times, when a lack of such decisions could have proved to be the most costly.

An recent example of this is during the worst of the insurgency in Iraq. In that time President Bush most likely could have become more popular if he decided to withdraw. With worldwide protests decrying America, a Congress that was doing quite the same, and a situation in Iraq that was even depressing conservatives, it would have been easy to withdraw, but where would that have left us? I'll tell you. It would have left a completely failed state from which Al Qaeda could launch attacks from, a civil war, and a region deeply damaged due to such actions.


Instead we stayed, the surge was enacted, and we have agreed on a Status of Forces Agreement that will allow the Iraqis to have a chance at a real future worth looking forward to. In my opinion, it has been worth it. We have taken action that will change how the Middle East fundamentally operates and although it will not be an easy task it will be well worth it.

I believe President Bush will be judged well by history. It may well be years and years down the road, but as far as foreign policy is concerned, I feel, as with other presidents, that his legacy will be a good one. We'll have to wait and see if President-elect Obama will be able to make the same tough choices to keep us safe.

The Status of Forces Agreement and its implications

Thomas Donnelly, of the American Enterprise Institute, in Congressional testimony yesterday discussed the long term implications of the Status of Forces Agreement. His words are insightful and should be heeded.

In the past five and half years we gone to great lengths to establish a democracy in Iraq, but in the process, tough as it was, we have turned an avowed rogue nation into a future ally in the region. If we continue on this path we should see a country who can be looked upon in the region as an example of a representative democracy. If this is done all our sacrifices will have been worth it.

Donnelly's testimony follows:

I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman and ranking Member for this
opportunity to testify on an issue I believe to be critical to America's
strategy and military force posture not only in Iraq but the broader Middle
East.
Since the committee invited me to appear, there has been excellent
news: the approval by the Iraqi cabinet of a strategic framework and
status-of-forces agreement, defining the role of U.S. military in Iraq when
their current UN mandate expires at the end of the year, represents a tremendous
success for the United States and for a free Iraq. Word out of Baghdad is
that the Iraqi parliament will ratify the agreement by the end of the
month. If so, U.S. forces in Iraq will avoid the plague of legal
uncertainty and will be free to continue their effective operations without
having to worry about a potentially debilitating debate in the United States or
at the United Nations. These developments also free me to talk about the
larger issues and interests at stake.
To focus, as the media have done, on
the timetable for withdrawal of American troops at the end of 2011, is to miss
the forest for a single tree: agreements such as these define the relationships
between nations that are strategic partners, based upon their sovereignty but
recognizing shared geopolitical interests. Five and one-half years is a
long time, and the United States has paid a high price in blood and treasure,
but make no mistake, this is what we have been fighting for: an Iraq with an
increasingly legitimate, effective and representative central government; an
Iraq increasingly aligned with the United States instead of constantly at war
with us; and a bulwark of strategic stability in a volatile region.
The
agreement itself protects vital immediate and enduring U.S. interests in
Iraq. To begin with, allowing the UN mandate to expire without at least a
bridging arrangement permitting U.S. operations in Iraq to go forward would have
been a disaster, risking the loss of the initiative so arduously won during the
"surge season." And, as successful as U.S. operations have been and as
marked as Iraqis' rejection of extremist elements has been--both in regard to al
Qaeda and Sunni jihadis but also Iranian influence and Shi'ite militias--the
situation remains fragile. The fundamental truth that everyone in
Washington, Baghdad and the larger region know but rarely acknowledge publicly
is that the surge represented, above all, a renewed American commitment to
success in Iraq. This agreement is one of the fruits of that strategic
decision.
Likewise, the agreement represents a serious setback for
Iran. The Islamic Republic has lost and apparently still is losing
influence in Iraq. The Tehran regime has been vehemently opposed to this
agreement, strongly pressuring the Maliki government and portraying the
negotiations as evidence of U.S. and Western neo-colonialism. When Prime
Minister Maliki visited Tehran this past June, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei lectured Maliki on the subject, and pressed the Iraqis for a
"memorandum of understanding" on defense cooperation. Maliki has remained
steadfast, and his position has been immensely strengthened since he launched
Operation Knight's Charge in Basra last March, cleaning out Shi'ite militias and
Iranian "special group" operators. Maliki clearly has the votes
within the Shi'ite bloc in the Iraqi parliament--despite the fact that his Dawa
party has itself only 15 votes in the 275-member body--as well as the Kurdish
bloc, to ensure approval by the end of the month, when the Iraqi parliament
adjourns for the hajj season.
Tehran also intensely lobbied and,
reportedly, even bribed Iraqi politicians to oppose the agreement. More
broadly, the Iranian government has been sponsoring an extensive propaganda
campaign since last May, playing to Iraqi nationalism--although Iraqi
nationalism more traditionally has a strong anti-Iranian flavor--and circulating
rumors that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, arguably the most revered figure in
all of Shi'a Islam, opposed the pact. In early October Maliki visited the
reclusive cleric in Najaf to discuss the agreement, and recently, an Iraqi
parliamentary delegation returned this past weekend with what one of the
ayatollahs' spokesmen described as a "green light" of support from Sistani, thus
thoroughly undercutting Tehran's position. Ayatollah Sistani went further
to say that a majority vote in the parliament would represent the will of the
Iraqi people, a critical expression of support for the democratic process and
additional embarrassment to Tehran.
Nearly as important, the agreement is a
defeat for the firebrand Iraqi cleric Moqtada as Sadr, whose populist movement
has been losing support for more than a year. While the Sadrist bloc in
the Iraqi parliament continues to oppose the agreement, Sadr himself has been
increasingly marginalized and, the combined U.S.-Iraqi operations in Baghdad's
Sadr City slum have decimated the leadership cadres of Sadr's militia, the
so-called Jaysh al-Mahdi, or "Mahdi Army." In sum, the Iraqi government
has made remarkable strides in the wake of the American surge, even if these
strides have been one a different timetable and come from different quarters
than we anticipated 18 months ago.
Looking forward, there are reasons to hope
for a continued transformation of the U.S.-Iraqi partnership. The upcoming
Iraqi elections are nearly certain to bring to power a more responsive and
representative group of legislators, especially from the Sunni community.
This will also be critical to the successful implementation of the agreement, as
in many ways it is the Sunnis who have most at stake in a continued U.S.
engagement in Iraq. To repeat: stability in Iraq is fragile and the path
of progress depends upon additional accommodation between Iraq's
communities. Americans in Iraq have never been simple "occupiers;" our
current and future role should be to serve as "interlocutors," the most
trustworthy arbiters among people who have had little reason to trust each
other.
And so, despite press coverage and political rhetoric in Iraq, I am
less certain about what will happen at the end of 2011; the language about
future U.S. presence in Iraq has been stricken from the agreement, but the
potential need endures. The Iraqi government will not want to regard this
framework agreement and any status-of-forces rules as a suicide pact. The
Iraqi army well knows, and its leaders have often said, that its ability to
sustain itself--operationally, logistically, administratively, personnel-wise,
institutionally--is limited, and it is a real question whether it will be mature
enough in three years' time to do without the partnering presence of U.S.
forces. The Iraqi army is the most trusted institution of the new Iraqi
state and we would be fools to take excessive risks in the service of an
arbitrary timetable.
I hope the Obama Administration takes a similar
approach: a campaign pledge in not a suicide pact, either. While it is
impossible to know precisely what circumstances in Iraq or the region will be
three years from now, it is certain that the United States will have important
strategic interests in the Gulf and throughout the Islamic world. These
interests predated 9/11 and go well beyond terrorism; we have been a party to
the "Long War" for at least a generation and, arguably, since Franklin Roosevelt
met Saudi King Abdul Aziz about an American warship in February 1945. As
CIA Director Michael Hayden said last week, Iraq may no longer be--thanks to
American and Iraqi efforts of the past 18 months--the "central front," but
Iraq's critical importance to regional security is in no way diminished.
I would also hope this committee and the Congress will keep an open
mind. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was the region's most constant menace;
today, Iraq is arguably our most constant ally--though I would admit that, in
this region, this is a lamentably low standard. Certainly the Iraqis have
made immense sacrifices to create the prospect of a better future for themselves
and we should not forget that. Dealing with the Maliki government and
other Iraqi leaders is not easy and this agreement won't be an end to the
challenges. At best, this marks the end of the beginning of a long-term
strategic partnership with an Iraq where representative government has put down
real roots. But it must not be the beginning of the end of America's
engagement with and commitment to a free Iraq. There is a corollary to
former Secretary of State Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule." We broke it,
and we've done much to fix it--we don't want to see it smashed to pieces again

.

A Team of Rivals and Moderates

With President-elect Obama's Cabinet coming into place we are seeing a team of, what he would call, rivals, but more importantly, it seems to be a team of moderates.





With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and James L. Jones as National Security Adviser we are seeing the beginning of a foreign policy team that will not swerve sharply to left, and instead will be responsible. That should give conservative some comfort.

Some conservatives have problems with the lack of change in the Administration, and large amount of ex-Clinton officials (and some for good reason like in the case of Eric Holder) but to be honest I'd rather have a relatively inexperienced president be surrounded by experienced centrists than by inexperienced people of any political persuasion, especially radicals.

Does Hillary Clinton have the formal education in international relations that others like Madeline Albright or Condoleeza Rice have? No, but she was one of the best names being tossed around. Compared to John Kerry she's leaps and bounds better. Perhaps if she does indeed get we'd see Richard Holbrooke as her deputy or in another high position.

Gen. (ret.) James Jones, considering his long career in the Marine Corps wold be a great asset to an Obama Administrations. He's had experience as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. He currently is president and chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy, which seeks to find ways to assure that the nation’s energy supply is “adequate, affordable and secure while protecting the environment,” according to the organization’s mission statement. He was considered for the position of Deputy Secretary of State and has worked on security issues throughout the Middle East. This is a very good choice.

Meet President-elect Obama's White House Counsel: Gregory B. Craig

Greg Craig has been appointed White Counsel as of November 15th, but how much do we know about him. Here' the run down on his resume:

* In 1977, he represented the first FBI agent ever to be indicted, John J. Kearney, who was accused of illegal wiretapping, breaking and entering, and mail opening in connection with the FBI investigation of the Bill Ayers co-founded Weatherman (organization).

* That same year, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented the former CIA Director and Phoenix Program administrator, Richard Helms, who was under grand jury investigation for perjury in his 1973 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concerning the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, and the role the United States played in it.

* Defended John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan. Backed by overwhelming psychiatric opinion, he led Hinckley's successful insanity defense.

* In 1983 to 1984, working with Edward Bennett Williams, Mr. Craig represented Victor Posner who was charged with tax evasion in federal court in Miami.

* From 1984-1988 served as Senator Ted Kennedy's Senior Advisor on Defense, Foreign Policy, and National Security.

* As Senator Ted Kennedy's chief foreign policy adviser was responsible for orchestrating a hearing alleging the Contras of human rights abuses. As it turned out all of the witnesses turned to be Sandinista shills.

* In 2000, while serving as the lawyer for Elian Gonzalez's father, Craig did the bidding of the Castro regime by killing an agreement "to transfer custody of Elian to his father, as long as [Elian's family from Miami] could live with the boy and his father in an environment free of U.S. and Cuban officials."

* Since then, Craig has represented foreign officials accused of war crimes such as former Bolivian Defense Minister Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín and Pedro Miguel González, the president of Panama's legislature, who is under federal indictment for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández Laporte.

* Domestically he is most famous for quartebacking the defense of President Clinton during his impeachment.

Considering his past it makes you wonder what will Mr. Craig bring to the fore as White House Counsel. Will he, for instance, go after Bush Administration officials or CIA officers for their actions in dealing with detainees to prevent future terrorist attacks?, or will he not? Considering the recent news of Obama's other appointees I tend to think not. They are an impressive group that I have no problem with as far as their ideology goes.

Closing Gitmo

As President-elect Obama's inauguration approaches the media is clamoring to know what he will do first. One of those very things it has been said has been to close down the prisons at Guatanamo Bay.

This presents the obvious question of, what will happen to those detainees? From what I've seen there seems to be three options, none of them good, and two especially bad.

1. Send the detainees back to their countries of origin: This could be problematic for a couple reasons. First, there is a real chance that upon returning home they will not serve long prison terms and will eventually end up back on the battlefield to be either killed or captured by US forces. Secondly, there is the prospect that some of these detainees could be executed upon arrival. I doubt an Obama Administration would want to do that. Both cases present problems.

2. Prosecute the detainees in the US: The major issue here is you'd be forced to give them the same rights a US citizen enjoys. In so doing though some of the evidence acquired in interrogations might not be eligible to be used due to just how it was acquired. Plus, intelligence gathering methods would be jeopardized due to such public trials. This would be disastrous. We cannot let the ways in which we protect ourselves be compromised.

3. Military trials: Of the 3 options being floated around this is the best. This would be reserved for high ranking Al Qaeda, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. They could be done outside the US, but still the burden of proof would be high under an Obama Administration. Regardless though, what do you do with these detainees once they've been convicted? No one wants them in their state and the cost to imprison them could be high since it'd have to be in maximum security prisons. So what to do?

As can be seen the options aren't good. How we will deal with it remains to be seen though. Nothing is set in stone and hopefully a President Obama will do what is best for the security of our country.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton could go from being the Senator of New York to the Secretary of State. This is quite an interesting turn of events.

Is she qualified for the job (as far as Barack Obama's concerned at least)? Probably. But the question remains, is it a a smart political move? Is it keeping a political rival close, or giving that same rival a venue in which they can undermine you?

In his column today Dick Morris recounts this bit of history that President-elect Obama should keep in mind when thinking about this:

Obama would do well to remember the history of Harry Truman and Jimmy Byrnes in 1944. Byrnes, known as the “assistant president” in FDR’s third term, was widely thought to be Roosevelt’s choice to replace Henry Wallace as his running mate on the 1944 ticket. At the last minute, FDR re-considered and decided Byrnes, a South Carolinian, was too conservative and went with Truman instead. But the Democratic Party establishment clearly was disappointed. While they wanted to get rid of the almost-Communist Wallace, they wanted Byrnes not Truman. (Just like the party establishment really wanted Hillary, not Obama, to be the presidential nominee).


So Truman named Byrnes to be his Secretary of State after he took office on Roosevelt’s death in 1945. Byrnes, who thought he should have been president, proceeded to make his own foreign policy. He flew to a meeting in Europe with the allied foreign ministers and barely kept President Truman posted on the deliberations. He became a loose cannon who thought he was the president. After a year of this nonsense, Truman fired him and brought in George Marshall to take the job.

If Obama nominates Hillary, he will put himself in the same position as Truman was with Byrnes and the results will be just as predictable.

So the question is, is Barack Obama, who I believe to be an intelligent man, going to make the same mistake as Harry Truman, a mistake that could undermine his presidency, or not? Hillary Clinton is intelligent, and could bring a lot to the table, although does her baggage or flaws outweigh the benefits?

Also, some are saying it's a way of neutralizing a rival, although, what's to stop her from challenging him in 2012 if she so wanted? Personally I doubt being Secretary of State would. In fact it might just give her the launching pad to further her ambitions.

Something for conservative to keep in mind

In reading this article by Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard this morning it made me think about a future with a President Obama and how we, as conservatives should behave. One part of it especially spoke to me.

We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD congratulate Barack Obama on his impressive
victory. We pledge our support for those of his policies we can support, our
willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty, and
our constructive criticism and loyal opposition where we are compelled to
differ. We hope President Obama's policies and decisions will strengthen the
nation he will now lead, and that our country and the cause of freedom in the
world will emerge from the next four or eight even stronger than they are today.

I did not vote for President-elect Obama and disagree with some of his views and intended future policies very much so, but let us not behave like the far-left has over the past eight years toward President Bush. Let us be this loyal opposition and treat the office of the President with respect even though we might disagree with the man occupying it.

Obama's National Security Team: Who I'd like to See

As President-elect Obama picks his Cabinet,I'd like to discuss who are possibilities and who I'd like to see.


Secretary of State

I'd like to see Bill Richardson. As governor of New Mexico he's had to make some tough decisions concerning ilegal immigration and is capable of giving solid advce if circumstnaces call for it. Also he has excellent executive and Cabinet experience and is highly skilled in diplomacy.

Another person who I'd be content with, and even more so, is Richard Holbrooke. He has a distringuished diplomatic career and has the judgment that a strong Secretary of State needs.


Runners-up: Dennis Ross, Walter Russell Mead.

Who I do no want is John Kerry as has been mentioned.

Secretary of Defense

Sam Nunn. Dick Lugar or Chuck Hagel are strong possibilities. All would be good choices, and show Obama isn't an ideologue. Obama should pick a tough internationalist like Nunn.

Runner-up: Robert Gates

National Security Advisor

Sarah Sewall. I'd personally feel comfortable with her. She has a good degree of knowledge in such issues since she wrote the forward to the Army/USMC Counterinsurgency Field Manual. I've heard though Susan Rice is more likely to get it.

Runners-up: Joe Nye, Mark Lippert

Neocon Express: Rahm Emanuel: The Next White House Chief of StaffNeocon Express

Neocon Express: Rahm Emanuel: The Next White House Chief of StaffNeocon Express

Obama's First Test

First of all even though I am disappointed that John McCain did not win, I am going to move on, hope President-elect Obama does well and keeps us safe, and when I disagree voice it here.

Even though he won't be inaugurated until January 20th and we won't know how he'll govern until then, his first true test will come in the coming weeks. It concerns his Cabinet. Since he is relatively inexperienced in matters of foreign policy this matters. In this area the key positions to watch for are his choices for Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence as well as Director of the CIA.Who he chooses to fill these positions as well as their deputies will be a key indicator of how he intends to govern in this regard. If for instance he choose someone like Samantha Power, a harsh critic of Israel, that will speak volumes just as one example in the State Department for instance. We will have to wait and see. He's surrounded himself with some questionable advisers so it's any one's guess.

Mainstream Media 1851-2008 R.I.P.

Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States, a historic achievement, and even though he ran a good campaign and is charismatic he didn't do it on his own.

The mainstream media (MSM), in large part helped him. Thanks to their biased reporting and willingness to smear anyone who questioned (Joe the Plumber) or stood against him (John McCain and Sarah Palin) he won. Don't get me wrong, they didn't do all the work, but entities such as the New York Times and NBC especially helped him with their barrage of stories over a wide range of subjects, too enormous to list here, from the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe to, I believe the most egregious, looking into John McCain's POW status and speaking with the person who ran the prison he was held in.

The MSM is dead here. They were more interested in electing Barack Obama and doing anything to achieve that than, even at the price of their jobs, being honest brokers and investigating what should have been investigated.

A Look Back: The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush- Part 1

Considering that our election is tomorrow I thought it prudent to to look back on the past eight years and where exactly we are in respect to our standing in the world and where we have to go from here.

Since this is such a large task I am going to break into multiple parts by region of the world. I will also look to insert my insight into it. The 1st segment will be on the Middle East.

The Aftermath of 9/11 and Afghanistan

After the events of 9/11 we, as a nation were put in the position where we had to react. Since it was attack on our own soil unlike the embassy bombings in Africa or the USS Cole, it provided a game changer. A game changer, that resulted in our attacking Afghanistan.

The leadership President Bush took in the aftermath of 9/11 was superb. He saw what had happened and with the advice of his Cabinet decided to invade. Through the auspices of the the CIA, Special Forces, and the Northern Alliance we were able to readily defeat the Taliban and cause al Qaeda, at least at the beginning, a strategic defeat. Even though we were unable to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, there was damage done to their ability to launch attacks and gave a safe haven from which to attack us from.

Since 2002 though it has been a tough road in Afghanistan. An insurgency developed that was not handled well at first, and quickly lost attention when we invaded Iraq. Due to the Taliban having a safe haven in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan it also made it harder to aggressively attack them. Not much has been done in this regard until recently as well. This is not President Bush's fault per se. Due to a tense political atmosphere in Pakistan it has made acting aggressively much harder, and is amplified when the Taliban and al Qaeda have sympathizers in the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) and SSG (Pakistani special forces). So as can be seen the situation is anything but simple.

More forces need to be put into Afghanistan in the future, but the attack with Special Forces and Predator drones in recent months is a vast improvement.

Iraq

Even though the Iraq War has been questioned by some, I have always felt it was the right move. I think we should have gone further than we did in the 1991 Gulf War, and this was long overdue.

The war hasn't been perfect by any means. After defeating the Iraqi Army in 3 weeks, an insurgency started to emerge that we really didn't a grasp on until recently with the surge being enacted and General David Petraeus taking over in Iraq.

Between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's inciting of violence between Sunnis and Shias, the threat of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and the onslaught of violence that Iraqis were subjected to and that was broadcast on our televisions by the corrupt mainstream media, it would be easy for some, even the most ardent supporter to grow dispodent over the war. 2006 was especially bad year for the war. It was this low point though that inspired the surge.

The addition of 30,000 troops allowed us the space in which we could defeat al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its allies and give the government officials the room they needed to reconcile. In addition to this the surge allowed such successes as the Anbar Awakening as well as the additional awakenings across the country, Mugtada al-Sadr's cease-fire in early 2007, as well as the Mahdi Army's defeat this spring.

Staying the course worked in Iraq. There was and is no other alternative. If we had left we would have left behind a failed state that would have, without a doubt, been allowed to be a base for al-Qaeda to launch attacks on noy only neighboring countries, but the United States and Europe as well. It was not an easy choice by any means. President Bush's approval ratings have dropped, and due to his policies th Democrats took both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. His committment though has been commendable.

Iran

Iran has been a mixed bag. While I think we sholud take a hard line with the Mullahs, the war in Iraq has constrained what we can do and say both in public and private. Even though Iran has been waging a proxy war against us through Shia miliitas in Iraq and even though we have taken action against the Quds Force, there is still only so much that can be done. It was correct to label the Quds Force as a terrorist organization as far as our war effort goes, although in trying to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon we have had less luck. Even though they haven't obtained one as of yet, the fruitless diplomacy that we're engaging is is doing nothing but giving them time to eventually get one. Plus, while we negotiate Israel still lies in peril.

Realistically, I realize we do not have the resources to enter into open conflict with Iran, but at the same time I see this as leading to an inevitable conflict. I think our actions in Iraq regarding the Shias has largely stymied Iranian advances, but still practicing this strategy, I feel needs to be thought over by the next Presidet whoever it is, for Iran cannot be allowed to go unimpeded too much longer.

Overall, I feel President Bush has shown strength and conviction. I feel due to these atributes we will leave Iraq in victory. I feel his choice to put Gen. Petraeus in charge of CENTCOM will give the next president a leg up in finishing in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan. I'd hope to see a stronger line taken with Iran in the next four years, but do not blame President Bush for this as much as I do the domestic circumsttances that prevented him from taking a tougher stance.

Neocon Express: Poll Analysis: Still up in the air - Surprises are highly possibleNeocon Express

As others are seeing this is far from over. Obama does not have a lock on the presidency, and we still have a chance. Make sure to get out and vote so as to prevent such a disaster from occurring to our nation.

Neocon Express: Poll Analysis: Still up in the air - Surprises are highly possibleNeocon Express

The Looming Election

In but 3 days Americans will take part in perhaps the most important election of our time, the race between John McCain and Barack Obama. The choice here is a complex one, but one between two opposing views of the world.

On one hand you have a candidate who would like to depend on the UN and fruitless diplomacy to solve the world's problems. Who would call for the Georgians upon being attacked to practice restraint, would meet with dictators without preconditions, and overall is untested and according to his own pick for VP would invite an international crisis.

On the other hand you have a man who has been tested and proven himself over a number of years to be ready for the presidency. He has proven what he thinks regarding a number of hot button issues we will be sure to face, and will continue to fight our terrorist enemies aggressively.

This is not a tough choice. We know the John McCain is the right man for the job and if Obama is allowed to be elected it will result in a president who is all too eager to appease rogue nations and is not dedicated to victory on America's terms.

The thought of such a scenario is indeed worrisome. Could we see Israel endangered? A resurgent Russia feel emboldened? Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons?

Make the right choice and vote McCain.