France has been making some serious noise about military action against Iran to prevent their developing, possessing and using a nuclear warhead. The rhetoric almost makes the French sound manly but until they actually fight I'll withhold judgment. They've backed off the talk recently but still sound as if they have at least half estrogen and half testosterone coursing through their foie gras clogged arteries, which is a huge improvement from when Chirac was at the helm.

Anyway, back when the US invaded Iraq, the liberals and assorted other inane folks on the left screamed that we were acting "unilaterally" even though we had numerous nations allied with us including, but not limited to: Spain, Britain, Australia, Poland, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Japan. The hand-wringers always said that France wasn't involved so it wasn't really a coalition and didn't give damn that they were disparaging those who actually were allied with us in liberating Mesopotamia.

Well now that the French seem to have morphed into a testosterone-fueled beast ready to take on the mad Mullahs, will those who called our coalition a sham support an invasion? Even though it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chirac was protecting cronies who were working in concert with Saddam to enrich themselves and didn't want the Oil for Food spigot turned off, they still screamed that idiotic unilateral screed. Will those wretched folks now support an invasion of Iran because the French do? I guess we'll soon see.

Iran is a major problem, they are fighting us in a proxy war in Iraq as is Syria. Should they get nukes, the Straits of Hormuz will be a constant battleground and we'll have to invade to keep it open as a huge amount of oil flows through that thin body of water. The fact that the French are rattling, well maybe not sabers but silverware is a testament to just how important this issue is.

"The Baghdad of today is different from the Baghdad of yesterday."

So were the words of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after a meeting in New York where the two discussed a possible future role for the UN in Iraq as a means to aid economic and political reforms. The Washington Times reports that al-Maliki has assured the Secretary-General that Iraqi Security Forces will be more than capable of protecting UN Delegates while in Baghdad citing that levels of violence in the city have decreased.

To be sure, political reconciliation remains the most difficult goal to be achieved and the UN's ability to be successful in a role designed to facilitate reconciliation can be somewhat questionable. (The United Nations has not proved itself very successful on a number of issues in recent years) However, it is still a very positive area of contention to note levels of violence in Baghdad have reduced greatly. If anything could be pointed at as being the major obstacle impeding political reconciliation it would be the violence in the capital. Hopefully, as the violence diminishes – along with political corruption in the Iraqi government – the goals of stability are attainable.

Remember George W. Bush's Axis of Evil speech? Remember how the libs all wrung their hands because the Texas Redneck Idiot had the audacity to call out our enemies a la Ronald Reagan and his Evil Empire speech.

Well guess what? President Bush was exactly right when he lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea in the same sentence...he only left out Syria:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials.

Details about the Israeli assessment emerged as China abruptly canceled planned diplomatic talks in Beijing that were to set a schedule to disband nuclear facilities in North Korea. The Bush administration has declined to comment on the Israeli raid, but American officials were expected to confront the North Koreans about their suspected nuclear support for Syria during those talks.

But wait, isn't this the same Syria that Rep. Dennis Kucinich just visited and disrespected the president? Is that country led by Boy Assad, the second hand despot that Speaker Nancy Pelosi acted like she could do business with? The same Pelosi that said of Assad "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel..." The Israelis are in a desperate position should Assad get nukes and they know it so they took action, apparently with U.S. knowledge.

While news regarding Israel's successful air raid in Syria remains somewhat murky (it is widely believed that the bombing served the purpose of destroying nuclear material that had been acquired by North Korea), it has recently come to light that on July 23, 15 Syrians and several dozen Iranians were killed in a explosion involving a disastrous chemical weapons experiment.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the accident occurred when a warhead containing chemical weapons materials was being mounted on a SCUD missile. This, of course, raises a number of questions regarding the recent allegations of North Korea allegedly supplying Syria with nuclear material. If the allegations are true, was Syria in the process of acquiring a nuclear warhead or material that could be used to construct a "dirty bomb" of radio active material?

This disaster shows a clear collaboration between Iran and Syria regarding a weapons of mass destruction program that, in light of Iran's current nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East to escalating even further. It is no secret that Dick Cheney has been pushing President Bush for military action in Iran and incidents like this do not exactly calm anyone's nerves about Iran and Syria's threat to U.S. troops or allies.

According to this article in the UK Telegraph, and I've heard it said before, President Bush is determined that by the time he leaves office, Iran will not have the capability to make nukes. So far, this has meant ever increasing diplomatic pressure, but is military action necessary?

It appears that the final pieces for a military offensive are falling into place. The French are on board now, thanks to a recent election. Israel bombed a high value target in Syria, which may or may not have been nuclear material, they won't confirm or deny. Syria has links to Iran and North Korea. Iran has been overtly working against us in Iraq. And now rumors are that Rice is on board with the military option:

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

Read the article for the rest. It is quite possible that this election cycle the question of Iraq may take a back seat to that of Iran. It's hard to imagine Bush getting support from Americans and Washington DC for an attack, but a significant portion of the 70% of the public who rate him poorly do so because he isn't fighting hard enough.

Six years ago, hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pa. Almost 3,000 Americans died in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. What do we remember about that terrible day, and which danger is worse – the prospect of us forgetting the events of 9/11, or the prospect of those events being exploited for political gain? Bob and Susannah discuss in a Sept. 11 ^th cartoon.

I'm writing this while sitting in Philadelphia International Airport (yes, I'm flying on 9/11) and it seems that the airport is not as full as the myriad other times I've flown out. The girl at the Continental counter says it's been light but of course this is anecdotal evidence.

I was sitting here thinking back to that early September day in 2001 when the most beautiful, crystal clear day was stained by two planes flying into two New York City landmarks. I watched most of it happen from a mile or two away. I was heading to Long Island to meet with a client and was traveling on the 440 just before the Staten Island Expressway exit when the first plane hit. The initial word was that it was a small commuter plane, yet I didn't quite believe it as it was such a clear day.

I exited onto the SIE headed toward the Verrazano Narrows Bridge when the second plane hit. To get an idea of the distance from the bridge to to the WTC, click here. I watched the second plane hit and saw the fireball as clear as one can from a couple of miles away, the plane came in low over Jersey City/Hoboken/Bayonne and hit with dramatic force. I was talking with my dad on the phone and he just cursed when it hit, the radio was set to Imus and he pretty much did the same, I don't recall. Traffic on the bridge stopped and outbound from Brooklyn was halted to allow rescue squads from Perth Amboy and Old Bridge in Jersey to gain access. I spent what seemed an eternity on that bridge inching along until I finally hit the exit for the Belt Parkway. It was soon after that the towers fell and, to be honest, it never crossed my mind that they'd come down. I thought of all the people and rescue personnel and what they were experiencing.

Pretend you didn't read the headline and have no idea of the meme of this post.

Now listen to these words:

...but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there."

Who would you imagine said them?

Perhaps Cindy Sheehan? How about Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos? Maybe even Duncan Black or Ted Rall?

No, they were spoken by Osama bin Laden, the man who orchestrated the deaths of 3,000 and now calls for even more.

It's a sad place to be when your words sound exactly like the greatest enemy America has had in decades. This puts the Democrats in an even more precarious position, they must appease their base as I've mentioned before, in which case they will appease bin Laden or they have to allow the president to finish this war and take out al-Qaida and their various cells. I'm predicting they go the latter route or risk having themselves branded Osama's enablers.

Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate find themselves in a serious bind. With the Petraeus report scheduled to be delivered to Congress on September 11th detailing the effectiveness of the surge, our esteemed elected leaders know full-well that we have made progress and they must stifle it. They find themselves between what's right for the country--a successful outcome in Iraq--and their simmering base who want them to cut and run at the first opportunity this fall. The power of the far-left was on display this summer as every important candidate prostrated themselves at the feet of the new far-left powerbroker, Markos Moulitsas. The far left is really mad and the Dems are stuck in an uncomfortable position--bow to the angry base or lose the Presidential election.

The Petraeus report is their worst nightmare--a detailed document showing success in Anbar Province that was unthinkable a year ago. A strategy set forth in Iraq that dramatically improved the situation for our troops and the residents who live there. In other words, the report will contain good news from Iraq and the Democrats can't have that because popular opinion may well shift towards winning this war and not retreat. Although sectarian violence continues as witnessed by recent horrific bombings, our forces seem confident they can have and can address that issue as well.

How worried are the Dems? So worried that Senator Chucky Schumer demeaned our troops (and was rebuked from Fallujah with great haste), Leader Harry Reid won't even use Petraeus' name when discussing the report and the report has been attacked as fiction before it is even delivered. That sounds to me as though they are very worried.

We are at a crucial point once again in the Iraq war as well as the greater War on Terror, it's time the elected representatives step up, vote for the good of their country and not for the good of their reelection and allow General Petraeus to speak his mind without belittling his report before he even delivers it.

With the sixth anniversary of 9/11 approaching, I've been seeing some things that bother me. From articles saying we should essentially move on, as it were, to this disturbing story: ABC went through much heartache last year when they released the miniseries "The Path to 9/11," a docudrama about events leading up that fateful September day. The series laid a good amount of the blame at the feet of Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger and ignited a firestorm in the blogosphere and in Washington. In fact, the outcry was so vociferous that ABC actually toned down a scene in which Berger wavered over attacking a camp where Osama bin Laden was allegedly staying, thus allowing him to escape and laying waste to the Clinton line that we "almost" took the al-Qaida leader out.

Fast-forward to the present. On September 11, 2007, many new DVD's will become available including most ABC productions from last season. Mysteriously, The Path to 9/11 is not among them and no date has been set for release. The writer of the film sees some political shenanigans in play:

With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries' writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it's crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.

Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries' many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem."

The Clinton camp went insane when Sean Hannity got an uncut copy and played the scenes that were cut in the final film that aired.

With only one week left until General Petraeus' report to Congress, the rhetoric is likely to increase about the success of the surge in Iraq and congressional reaction to it.

Over the August break, both sides have stepped up their efforts to display the war in the best or worst light possible with Freedoms Watch launching an ad blitz aimed at Blue Dog Democrats who have to this point supported the war but may waver and MoveOn.org targeting vulnerable Republicans in their home districts.

Now that Congress is back in session, the leadership skills of Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi will be tested. The left-wing will no longer abide Pelosi's inept skills in dealing with her caucus on the war and she will have to rein in those who differ in opinion. That will be particularly difficult when it comes to the freshmen Blue Dogs who will pay dearly in their home districts if they cave to the defeatists.

The surge is working. That is no longer even debatable as every credible news source has been forced to admit albeit with as negative a spin as possible. Troop death are down considerably and Moqtada al-Sadr has even vowed to play nice, albeit for later advantage if Congress should retreat. Is everything rosy? No, and it may not be so for some time, yet the situation is improving better than any war supporter hoped and any anti-warrior feared. We still have a ways to go but we are making incredible progress (in many but not all areas) if the embeds on the ground are to be believed.

Despite the best efforts of our esteemed Democratic leadership, the American public believes that yes, we can win the war in Iraq:

A majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq, but there is dramatic disagreement on the question between Democrats and Republicans, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

The poll comes ahead of a September report to Congress by David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, on the progress of the so-called surge in quelling attacks by insurgents and creating an atmosphere where the new Iraqi government can develop.

The good news for Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi is that 86% of the people in their own party believe the surge is not working so their constant refrain of retreat and loss is working on the party which is heavily invested in our losing. At least someone in the country is actually paying attention to them.

The media has been beating the drum of losing so incessantly that it seems people just stopped paying attention to them. Perhaps they're reading alternate coverage that paints a more realistic picture of the actual situation, one in which we are in fact making progress but still have a ways to go.

Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, as the NY Post reports:

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

Of course, she has it completely wrong. The fact that we have not been attacked again is proof that our policies are working. Should another attack occur between now and the election, the Dems will use that as a battering ram and claim that all the actions we've taken have amounted to nothing. In other words, Hillary's using terror as a political tool, something the Democrats have criticized President Bush for doing.

So no, another terror attack would not be good for America or the GOP. It would, of course, be good for the Democrats, just as losing in Iraq would be good for them. It's amazing how bad things for our nation mean good for the party of Hillary Clinton and John Murtha, isn't it?.

I'm a firm believer that Bill Clinton got off way too easily when discussing the failures of pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and our lack of response when repeatedly provoked. Yes, we were attacked prior to Clinton entering office.

The kidnapping of our hostages in Iran and the Hezbollah attack in Beirut are but two glaring examples of pre-al-Qaida terror. The hostage taking was a nadir for our country and Jimmy Carter did not have the nerve or the military to respond. Ronald Reagan also did not respond to the attack that killed 240 Marines and others in Beirut, but at the time we were in the middle of a civil war and we had no idea which side was which and who our friends were and who were our enemies.

The attacks against our interests and military in the 1990's were a different story altogether. From Mogadishu to the first World Trade Center Bombing to he African embassy bombings to the Khobar Towers to finally a direct attack on a U.S. warship -- the USS Cole -- and still we did almost nothing. We said to Osama bin-Laden "attack, we won't respond" and he was emboldened enough to first allow planning for the Millenium bombings and the Bojinka plane bombings (both luckily stopped by heads-up policewomen) while funding the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

There is an explosive new declassified report just released by the CIA's own Office of Inspector General (OIG) titled CIA Accountability With Respect to the 9/11 Attacks (caution, PDF). It represents the results of an investigation conducted by the OIG after 9/11, concurrent with the other fairly useless 9/11 commissions and committees, investigating the attack and the failures of our intelligence community leading up to it.

The report directly refutes the impression given by the prior administration during the 9/11 Commission Hearings about the competence of the CIA and the intelligence community in general during the Clinton years. Notably, the report refers to years of mistake after mistake -- and from the dates used in the summary it's clear that the OIG was not talking about problems that started after President Bush took office in 2001.

This is not good news for Hillary Clinton, since many people associated with her husband's administration are playing key roles in her election campaign, and would (I assume) hold important positions in any potential Hillary administration.