It was nearly three years ago when I penned “Victory in Iraq.” At the time, President Bush’s surge was clearly working, al Qaeda was on the run, and Iraq was enjoying a degree of peace and stability. It was obvious to me that, barring some surprising development, the United States and its coalition partners were emerging victorious.

I summed it up this way:

Yes, we've paid a heavy cost in lives and dollars, but the benefits are enormous: the madman and terrorism supporter Saddam Hussein and his monster sons, who had previously used WMDs, killed hundreds of thousands, and operated torture chambers, have been eliminated; democracy has gained a desperate foothold in the heart of the Middle East; and Al Qaeda has been defeated. The war on terrorism continues around the globe, but Iraq was Al Qaeda's focal point.

Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a singular victory moment, a day where all of America (and the rest of the civilized world, for that matter) can celebrate the return home of our military heroes with ticker-tape parades and grand speeches. This isn't a conventional war where the enemy is finally forced to formally and unconditionally surrender at a court house or upon the deck of a battleship.

Last night, President Obama announced an end to combat operations, although 50,000 will remain in Iraq for now, and possibly for many years to come. In his typical fashion, he was ungracious and deceptive, not crediting Bush for winning the war, defying the predictions (hope?) of defeat by many on the left. Obama didn’t mention his own opposition to the surge that enabled the victory. Unbelievable, he never mentioned Saddam Hussein the WMD-user and developer, terrorist supporter, United Nations defier, and torturer and murderer of thousands. Apparently, Obama doesn’t want people to remember the awful tyrant we removed from power.

So, knowing what we know now, if we could turn back the clock, should we have invaded and liberated Iraq? I know that many people, even many on the right, will say, “No.” I admit that, while I am relieved that Saddam is gone and happy that Iraq is a fledgling democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East, the cost was high.

Of course, it’s impossible to know how events might have unfolded if we hadn’t invaded, if Saddam had still been in power over the last seven years. Does anyone think he wouldn’t still be pursuing (and using) ever more dangerous WMDs and that he wouldn’t be more of a threat than ever to international security? Who knows if we avoided calamity by removing the madman?

By liberating Iraq, we can be certain that Iraq is no longer developing WMDs. We can be certain that Iraq will no longer use WMDs against its own people or those of neighboring countries. We can be certain that Iraq no longer poses an invasion threat to its neighbors. We can be certain that Iraq no longer supports terrorism. We can be certain that Iraq is an example of democracy that, perhaps, will inspire others in the Middle East. We can be certain that Iraq is an ally that owes us a great debt.

The thousands men and women of the armed forced who sacrificed their lives or health to earn this victory did not do so in vain. The nation did not spend hundreds of billions of dollars without gain. If the Iraqis can keep their democracy, we may well see and reap the benefits for decades or centuries to come. If so, the answer will be definitive: Yes, it was worth it.

In response to Comedy Central’s embarrassing and sad genuflection to radical Islamists over the use of the prophet Muhammed in a South Park episode (which is an equal opportunity offender if there ever was one), the cartoonist Chris Muir published this cartoon:



I think it’s brilliant, and I display it here in solidarity with him. Once we stop standing up for free speech, we’ve truly lost.

I think the radical Islamists are playing this all wrong. Imagine two men in a bar. Which man appears stronger? The one who ignores an imagined slight from a fellow patron to continue his conversation with the pretty woman, or the one who gets all red-faced, flustered, and wants to fight? By ignoring the slight, the first man appears confident in himself and unconcerned with the opinion of those who are unimportant to him. Taking umbrage makes the second man seem lacking in self-esteem. His opinion of himself appears to be a function of the opinion of others about him.

I think Islam stronger than the radicals are making it out to be. By making threats whenever someone exercises their right to free speech, the radicals are making Islam seem weak, as though it can’t stand strongly on its own, and must be protected from mere cartoons.

The radicals (and all Islamists actually) need to rest assured that Islam is strong, and it isn’t weakened when some westerner makes a comment or joke. Islam can withstand humor, even misguided humor. Islam can withstand criticism, even ill-informed or harsh criticism. By reacting with threats of violence, the radicals are making Islam seem fragile, making it seem like a weak horse instead of a strong one. Is that really what they want?

Victor Davis Hanson writes brilliantly, as usual, about where we stand, eight years later.

That's how long it has been since we have had a terrorist attack on American soil. Seven years. There was nobody, and I mean nobody, who thought on September 11, 2001 that we would be able to go so long without another attack, myself included.

Victor Davis Hanson, as he so often does, has written a brilliant piece for National Review Online reflecting on last seven years. Some bits:

Years later, we tend to forget all the dimensions of that sinister homicidal bombing of our institutions. Radical Islam brazenly signaled that it need not have missiles or sophisticated bombers to burn 16 acres in the heart of Manhattan and set the Pentagon afire. Instead, it could turn from the inside out our own technology against us, in a manner that we were scarcely aware of — and in an iconic fashion at the heart of our greatest cities, ensuring collective psychological trauma that trumped even the terrible loss in blood and treasure.

...While many rightly point to lapses in the conduct of the Iraq war, faulty intelligence, and wrongheaded emphasis on supposed arsenals of WMDs rather than the casus belli outlined in the 23 writs authorized by the Congress, few can answer a more existential question: Had we not met, defeated, and humiliated tens of thousands of jihadists on the battlefields of Iraq, where else might we have inflicted such a terrible defeat on our enemies — given the nuclear sanctuary of Pakistan, the bellicose governments of Iran and Syria, and the duplicity of the Gulf monarchies? And if we had not killed, captured, scattered, and turned our enemies abroad, how then might we have prevented them from coming back here to attack us at home? And are the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, as in the past, aiding anti-American terrorists, or helping to hunt them down?

...But in years to come it may well be said that the president kept us safe for years when none thought he could, and removed the two most odious regimes in the Middle East and replaced them with the two best — and confronted a confident and ascendant radical Islam and left it demoralized and discredited among its own host Arab and Muslim constituents.

Thank you, President Bush for staying strong in face of unbelievable adversity, and for taking the fight to the enemy.

Thank you, men and women of our military, for your incredible sacrifice for and service to our country.

Thank you, leaders, intelligence agents, and law enforcement personnel of those foreign countries that have joined us in fighting Al Qaeda.

Whoever the next president is, he is going to have a heck of a challenge matching Bush's record against terrorism.

Here are some recent headlines from Iraq:

Iraq Meets 15 of 18 Benchmarks

Uranium Stockpile Removed From Iraq in Secret U.S. Mission (yes, Saddam really was pursuing nuclear weapons)

Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda

Iraq's Al-Maliki Wants Short-Term U.S. Agreement (in preparation of eventual withdrawal)

Taken together, these stories confirm that the liberation of Iraq has succeeded. We are now in the winding-down stage: completing the last few benchmarks, cleaning up any remaining dangerous materials, eliminating straggling Al-Qaeda operatives and, most interesting of all, working out agreement that will pave the way for U.S. withdrawal -- if not completely, then probably to some sort of long-term base, much as the U.S. maintains in Germany, South Korea, etc.

The liberation of Iraq had a brilliant beginning (the invasion and the overthrow and capture of Saddam and his sadistic sons), a brutally tough middle (Iraq became the central front in Al-Qaeda's war on the west), and now, an unglamorous, yet effective and smart conclusion where we not only wore down the insurgents, but also won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens.

Had President Bush listened to the Democrat Doomsayers (sorry for the redundancy), we would have lost. Iraq would be a miasma of Al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni strongmen, Syrian operatives, and Iranian forces, to name but a few of the vultures that would have descended. I hate to think what the price of oil would have become.

Thankfully, President Bush persevered and adjusted. Too slowly? Yes. But mistakes, big and small, are made in every war. You have to have the strength of character to overcome them. You can't wilt and withdraw during the tough times. The Democrats wilted, but Bush didn't wilt, and our armed forces didn't wilt.

We have won. Our armed forces have won. President George W. Bush has won. The Iraqi citizens have won.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T) today joined other liberal media in criticizing the 5-year Iraq war and the Bush administration. As was entirely predictable, the SH-T is relentlessly negative in its editorial, ignoring all accomplishments and signs of real progress. They must be relying on their own paper for their Iraq news.

Let me provide an overview of Iraq and a different perspective.

First, I believe it is more accurate to describe the affair as the Iraq liberation, rather than the Iraq war. After all, liberation of the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy were two of the main goals of the conflict. Here's a status check on all the goals:

1. Overthrow the brutal, murderous, tyrant Saddam Hussein, a man that had supported terrorism, developed and used weapons of mass destruction (against his own people!), and ran torture chambers and rape rooms. Saddam and his two monstrous sons were overthrown and no longer soil the planet. Mission Accomplished.

2. Stop the Saddam's development of WMDs. Imagine if the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had access to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons instead of airplanes. Imagine the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people they could have killed. Imagine the complete chaos it would cause to our economy. After 9/11, we could no longer sit back and hope that Saddam wouldn't give his WMDs to terrorists bent on murdering us.

And everybody thought he had stockpiles of WMDs. The CIA did. The Clinton Administation did. Our allies did. And most importantly to Saddam, Iran did. In fact, although it makes liberals gnash their teeth, we did find WMDs in Iraq. Yes, they were part of an older batch than the one we were looking for (I'm still not sure why that matters), but WMDs were found. Regardless of the quantity or quality of those WMDs, or whether stockpiles were moved to Syria (as the number two man in Saddam's Air Force claims), one thing is certain: WMDs are no longer being developed in Iraq and will not end up in the hands of terrorists. Mission Accomplished.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)Addressing the US SenateOctober 10, 2002

3. Provide a level of security to Iraq while a democratic government is formed. The period of time after the overthrow of Saddam through 2005 was marked by increasing peace and security. Then al Qaeda came up with what was really a smart strategy: spark a civil war, setting Shia against Sunni. With thousand-year-old animosities and rivalries already in place, it was relatively easy to set the factions against each other, but the key moment seemed to be the bombing of the Golden Temple in Sammara. Military and civilian deaths soared as violence became the norm.

It is undeniable that the Bush administration did not foresee the level of terrorism and violence that al Qaeda could generate, but neither did anybody else. In fact, al Qaeda decided to make Iraq its central front in its war against the West. It took way too long for the Bush administration to develop a new strategy to deal with al Qaeda, but it finally did with the Surge, and with changing the way the military interacts with Iraqi citizens and neighborhood.

Thanks to the new strategy, backed by John McCain but decried by liberals, Iraq has since grown more peaceful each month. Terrorism is way down. Civilian deaths are way down, military deaths are way down, and the bond between the Iraqi people and our military has never been stronger. Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda, and we have virtually eliminated them from Iraq. Sure, there are still stragglers and small pockets of trouble, but the bottom line is this: we have defeated al Qaeda in Iraq and have established a level of peace necessary for a democratic Iraqi government to continue to form. Mission Accomplished.

4. Hand over governmental responsibilities to the Iraqi government. This is still a work in progress. The pace has been excruciatingly slow, thanks to old animosities, complex demographic considerations, and the shear scale of the undertaking. This is, I believe, the toughest challenge of the Iraq liberation. While the Iraqi government is functioning (and the Iraqi people give it high marks in polls), it is not yet at a level where we can walk away. The Iraqi people do not want us to leave. How do we speed up the process? I don't know that we can. It will take time. Mission Partially Accomplished.

5. Establish a beachhead of democracy in a region of the world that desperately needs it. Imagine how the liberation of Iraq, the defeat of al Qaeda, and the birth of democracy must be affecting the citizens of, say, Iran or Syria. The example Iraq sets will be the greatest enduring benefit of the Iraq war, but the benefits will likely be realized over the course of years and decades. History, I believe, will be very, very kind to President Bush. Fair-minded historians will see Iraq as turning point in the Middle East and the war on terrorism.

There are signs already that Iraq has turned the tide against terrorism. We have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11/01, an astounding 2,381 days and counting. The London bombings on 7/7/05 were almost three years ago. Al Qaeda has been chased and hounded by the Bush Administration and our numerous allies all over the world, and al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq is a major part of that story. Yes, al Qaeda, WMDs, and terrorist-supporting regimes still exist, and we could suffer an attack tomorrow. But the track record so far is undeniable strong. Mission Partially Accomplished.

Now, consider the cost of the Iraq liberation. As of today, 3,251 members of our military have been killed in action in Iraq. (The media love to quote the higher figure of deaths in Iraq (3,988), but of course, there are accidental deaths all the time in the military, even among those stationed in the U.S. in a time of peace.) While 3,251 deaths is certainly devastating for the friends and family members of those who gave their lives, any clear-eyed assessment must conclude that it is a tiny fraction of both the pre-war estimates of hundreds of thousands of deaths and the number of deaths in previous wars. Compare 3,251 to the 100,000+ dead in WWI. Compare it to the 400,000+ dead in WWII (the Marines lost more than double the number lost in Iraq in just one battle: Iwo Jima). Compare it to the 54,000 dead in Korea or the 58,000 dead in Vietnam. Yes, losing 3,251 of our finest men and women is a heavy cost. But human cost of other wars has been much, much higher.

Financially, Operation Iraqi Freedom has cost a fortune, and continues to do so. Not only does supporting the troops cost billions, but so does all the reconstruction we are doing to stabilize and improve the lives of the Iraqi people. We are up to $500+ billion with a long way to go. Without question, Iraq has been a substantial drain on our national treasury. That's why it is so important to take the long view of Iraq, the Middle East, and the war on terrorism. If we and the Iraqi people are successful, the cost in both lives and money will have been well-spent. If we aren't successful (and the only way it appears we won't be is if we abandon the Iraqi people too soon), the lives lost and billions spent will have been in vain.

Liberals are fully invested in the idea of defeat in Iraq. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (although it initially supported the war, if I recall correctly), like so many liberal organizations, refuses to acknowledge the truth that much good is happening in Iraq and the war against al Qaeda and terrorism. They can't. Any such acknowledgement of progress and positive developments would upset their world-view that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a disaster and the Bush Administration is incompetent, so it must be ignored. To show you the depth of the SH-T's state of denial, they fret in their editorial that the "depth of the American news coverage of the war" has waned. Could it be that the coverage has waned because the news has been good? Not only does good news not sell newspapers, it also destroys firmly held beliefs. Better to ignore it.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I been living a happier life these days by paying less attention to the media. For conservatives, the incessant liberal bias can become too much to swallow. My family just got back from a wonderful ski vacation in Park City, Utah. Naturally, we spent a fair amount of time in the airport waiting for our flights and were therefore subjected to the Clockwork Orange-type indoctrination that is airport CNN. As a regular FoxNews viewer is it always a jarring experience to be subjected to CNN. Still, some of the bias was so blatant, it was laugh-out-loud funny.

I specifically recall a dark intonation that the company that supplies water to our troops in Iraq (along with thousands of other supplies) and which supplied a bad batch sent to some of the troops was formerly run by... Dick Cheney! Oh, no, not Dick Cheney! What an evil company!

Why, oh why, does CNN have a monopoly on airport news? For the love of all that is good and just, would some other news network please outbid them? The idea that millions of Americans (and, I'd guess, millions of non-Americans around the world, in some foreign airports) are subjected to such slanted reported, whether they like it or not, is galling.

I also recall seeing a quick blurb that the Pentagon released a report which, according to CNN, said that there was no link between Saddam Hussien and al Qaeda. That struck me as very odd, since I had read of extensive links in previous reports by the Weekly Standard, among others. Being at the airport at the time, and without an internet connection, I couldn't check out the story for myself, so I dismissed it as probably another example of misleading reporting.

I was right.

Powerline has a nice summary of the situation, based on reading the actual Pentagon report, something the mainstream press either did not do, or chose not to accurately report. Here's part of the report's abstract:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

No link or connection, huh?

Is this senior Al Qaeda theologian marking the beginning of the end?

Senior Qaeda Theologian Urges His Followers To End Their Jihad

It almost seems too much to hope for, although it's hard to see how Al Qaeda terrorists could be pleased with events since 9/11. After being defeated in Iraq and hunted down and killed or arrested throughout the world, what have they gained? Sure, they had a victory in Spain, and they have pulled off other significant attacks (London). And, to give the devil his due, radical Islamists have intimidated weak-kneed multi-culturists in various weak-kneed countries.

Still, as the days, weeks, months, and years pass, Al Qaeda appears less and less of an immediate terrorist threat. Unless, I am wrong, and that's the rub. How do we know they aren't sneaking across the leaky border and plotting another major attack? We don't. Yet, as time passes, it seems more and more unlikely.

Now, the demographic picture is another story. Mohammed is now the second most popular boy's name in Britain. Not just London. All of Britain. Nevertheless, if the senior Al Qaeda theologian sways minds, then we might just have a little less to fear from the Muslim population explosion. Here's hoping.

I haven't posted in awhile, but not because I haven't had anything to say. Rather the opposite: there have been so many crazy events that I sometimes think the world has gone insane.

If it's not 10,000 people traveling by jet to Bali for a global warming conference, it's CNN's utterly embarrassing attempt to host a Republican presidential debate. If it's not the Dem's antics over what appears more and more to be victory in Iraq, it's the reaction to the NIE report about Iran, as though good news about Iran is bad news for Bush (if only the report could be trusted!).

If it's not the madness associated with the college football BCS system (if this year doesn't show the need for a playoff system, nothing ever will), it's insane Islamists calling for imprisonment/lashes/death for an English teacher over a teddy bear. If it's not the welcome surprise of Chavez being denied dictator-for-life status by his own people, it's the significant and growing (and therefore disappointing) flaws in all the presidential candidates.

I will post again with more substance soon, but in the meantime, I'm shaking my head.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
- Mark Twain

Rich Lowry of National Review wrote "Quiet Victory," a piece that dovetails nicely with my last post on Iraq. He points out another reason that the victory will be a quiet one: the media and the rest of the left will never acknowledge it. It goes against their "Iraq is lost and it's Bush's fault" narrative.

It's over. We've won. More importantly, the Iraqi people have won... and Al Qaeda has lost.

At least, that's the way it looks to me, and I'm not alone. I've seen numerous stories over the past several weeks about Iraq (rarely in the mainstream media, of course), all of them indicating the same thing: victory. Violence is down dramatically, the Iraqis have banded together against Al Qaeda, the Bush administration and the U.S. military are on the right track with the surge, and there are hopeful signs everywhere.

Sure, there will still be violence and setbacks, but I am convinced it's over. The naysayers, peaceniks, and defeatists said it couldn't and shouldn't be done. But it's done.

Yes, we've paid a heavy cost in lives and dollars, but the benefits are enormous: the madman and terrorism supporter Saddam Hussein and his monster sons, who had previously used WMDs, killed hundreds of thousands, and operated torture chambers, have been eliminated; democracy has gained a desperate foothold in the heart of the Middle East; and Al Qaeda has been defeated. The war on terrorism continues around the globe, but Iraq was Al Qaeda's focal point.

Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be a singular victory moment, a day where all of America (and the rest of the civilized world, for that matter) can celebrate the return home of our military heroes with ticker-tape parades and grand speeches. This isn't a conventional war where the enemy is finally forced to formally and unconditionally surrender at a court house or upon the deck of a battleship.

So, it's unlikely we'll have that catharsis when the nation collectively rejoices and declares victory. That's okay. If victory gently sinks in, and loved ones return home, and we find ourselves smiling a little more and feeling more secure, it's victory nevertheless.

Now this is the kind of news I like on a Monday morning: the number of soldiers killed in Iraq in September plunged to the lowest level in 14 months. Perhaps even more impressive is that the death toll has dropped four straight months.

So, not only is the surge putting Al Qaeda on the ropes, it is reducing our own fatalities.

"The trend is certainly in the right direction," US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told a press conference in Baghdad.

"The surge unquestionably is what has been the catalyst that has created the opportunity to have more forces operating in more places at the same time and to deny Al-Qaeda and the extremists safe-haven and to take away sanctuaries."

Great news.

I missed President Bush's speech last night, but having read it over this morning, I think he nailed it, in particular this part:

"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success.' The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. ...

... Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together."

He's right, of course. Everybody wants the troops to come home, and his way, "return on success," does make it possible for the right and left to come together. What's missing from his proposal is a simple truth: those on the extreme left do not want success, they want defeat. Returning after success means that Bush has won the war, a totally unacceptable outcome for the left, both politically and, perhaps more interestingly, psychologically.

I don't believe the hard left can mentally handle victory in Iraq. They are so invested in defeat that a successful outcome would completely crash their world view, in which not only the war is wrong, but Bush is wrong, and all his decisions are wrong. They can't allow it. Therefore, they absolutely will not come together with the rest of the nation in embracing "return on success." The only outcome they will embrace is "return on defeat."

Thankfully, despite the mistakes President Bush and his administration have made in tackling the brutally tough situation in Iraq, he, General Petraeus, and Iraq are on the right track. Most of us are pleased.

First, an op-ed in the the New York Times, written by two liberals with the Brookings Institution, declaring:

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

"We were surprised by the gains we saw..."

"Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

There's a lot more, and it matches what other, less liberal media sources like Fox News have been reporting about the significant, substantial improvements in Iraq. However, the big question remains: Will the Democrats, who are completely invested in the idea of defeat in Iraq, embrace the progress or continue their efforts to undermine it? Those Dems have consistently put political gain ahead of, well, everything, so I have my doubts.

The second article I thought I'd never see is this one in the British paper, The Sun. It quotes Prime Minister Gordon Brown:

"America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable."

"We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism."

"I have always been an Atlanticist and a great admirer of the American spirit of enterprise and national purpose and commitment to opportunity to all."

"And as Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with the US."

Wow, that's great to hear.

It must be a terrible day for the defeatists and blame-America crowd, but it's a great day for the rest of us.

Billy Donovan remains a Gator. The sun is a little brighter today, the sky a little clearer, and the world makes sense again.

Scientists invent wireless device that beams electricity through your home. When I was a kid, I used to dream about this kind of thing as I watched the Jetsons.

Rising immigration fuels 26-year fertility high (in the U.K.) and Mohammed is expected soon to be the most popular boy's name. Hmmm, I wonder what ethic group is having all those kids...

Jimmy Carter: Profile in Incompetence. A Ten Part Series on the Worst President in American History. Ten Part? Ouch!

Revolt Against Al Qaeda Spreading. I think the only way the Iraqis, and the allied forces, will find peace is if the revolt keeps spreading.

Finally, I know one thing this guy in Wyoming is not thinking, as he shovels snow on June 7:
"We need to tackle global warming!"

Dr. Tawfik Hamid used to be a member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, and is now a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West. I read an article about him some time ago, then saw him on TV, and was heartened by his attitude toward radical Islam.

Here's a Muslim who gets it. He's not afraid to condemn the violence in the name of Islam, and he sees clearly the problems that Muslims themselves must own up to and face. He wrote an opinion piece for today's Wall Street Journal. I highly recommend it. If the majority of Muslims would adopt his attitude and embrace his solutions, Islamofascism would wither away.

I mentioned before that the threat posed by radical Islam is, I believe, the number one issue in the world today. By "threat," I don't just mean acts of terrorism, although those acts are certainly enough of a threat on their own. I also mean the rise of radical Islam as a dominant theology, one that is spreading rapidly, thanks to a confluence of two trends: demographics and appeasement. I'll discuss appeasement another time -- probably many times, since there are so many examples of it.

Demographics refers to the fact that Islamic women are having many more children than other women, particularly European women. Forget terrorism -- if current trends continue, and it's hard to see why they won't, Islamists (radical or not) will simply take over European countries by shear force of numbers. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. The demographics are what they are. For a fact-based, eye-popping treatment of the situation, read the book America Alone, by Mark Steyn.

Here are a few of quickie statistics from the book. Every western woman in the EU is producing a mere 1.4 children, which does not even cover replacement of the father and mother -- the population is actually shrinking. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. The most popular boy's name in Belgium, Amsterdam, and Malmo, Sweden? Mohammad. The trend has been going on for years, along with unchecked immigration. All those Muslim youths are why we see prolonged, violent riots in France periodically.

The European fertility rate is so low it will have amazing consequences. Consider this (quoting from the book now):

"By 2050, 60 percent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, with papa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta down an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more..."

Years ago, I vaguely recall Turkey being referred to as a moderate Muslim country, a beacon of modernity, a possible member of the European Union. Lately, though, Turkey isn't referred to in those terms very often. The reason? Radical Islam is on the rise. I was delighted to see this story of a push back against that rise by Turkish citizens (and Pakastani too). It's a very rare example of moderate Muslims standing up to their radical counterparts. Hopefully, there's more, much more, where that came from.