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.

Regarding the Obama Administration’s and the Democrats’ proposed 2,000 page legislation that would reshape the financial system, one of the chief architects, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) said, “This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives.”

Every single aspect of our lives? Does that scare you as much as scares me? Do we really need the government involved in every single aspect of our lives?

But wait, but it gets even more alarming. Sen. Dodd also said about the legislation, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

What? They’re going to ram a 2,000 page piece of legislation down our throats that “deals with every single aspect of our lives,” but “no one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”

Are you kidding me? Please, please tell me this is all just a nightmare from which we’ll awake.

Watch this shockingly bizarre video and ask yourself if Representative Etheridge from Georgia is fit be in office.

The physical assault is alarming enough for me to question his sanity, but the way he keeps asking, “Who are you?” over and over again seals the deal.

I hate to admit it, but if someone grabbed my wrist like that and held on, it would have gotten ugly quickly. That student showed remarkable restraint.

Being a conservative (with libertarian leanings), there are times when I simply cannot understand the left’s world view. When it comes to certain issues, like fiscal policy, I can’t fathom the liberal viewpoint since it seems so blatantly incorrect. Yes, I am not simply saying I have a different opinion, I am saying that their views are often plain wrong.

To be certain, there are a number of issues (primarily social) where I can understand, appreciate, and respect the left’s point of view, if not agree with it. Capital punishment and gay marriage are examples. Likewise, I am sure we can have a reasonable discussion about immigration policy. On fiscal/tax/spending matters, however, I wonder what color the sky is in their world, since it’s certainly not blue.

Today, reading the Wall Street Journal, I had an “Ah-Haa!” moment that clarified matters. Mr. Daniel Klein wrote a piece entitled, “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.” The title is a little snarky, but the piece describes the results of an economic survey that he and Zogby International performed to test people about basic economics and correlate the results with political views.

Read the article for the full explanation, but the result is that those on the left are, on average, woefully ignorant of fundamental economics. I’m no genius, but I can say that, with a moment or two to reflect, I believe I would have gotten all the answers correct. We’re talking easy stuff like, “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable,” and you choose an answer ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Overall, those identifying themselves as a some shade of conservative missed, on average, about 1.5 questions out of eight. Moderates missed 3.7. Liberals missed 4.7, and “very liberals” missed a whopping 5.3 out of eight.

Wow. That explains a lot. No wonder the left cannot understand the Tea Party movement.

Bear in mind that these results have nothing to do with intelligence. Instead, this has to do with knowledge about the way the world actually works. Economics is a science that describes markets, human behavior, and decision-making. Without some basic understanding of it, I can see how it would it would lead the left to believe that massive government spending and regulation are better for the economy than lowering taxes and minimizing government intervention.

I think it goes back to the right’s love of a reasoned arguments backed up by empirical data. That’s the reason right-wing talk radio succeeds so well: it’s based on being able to express reasoned arguments and defend them at length.

One of my left-leaning friends told me once that she believed the most important trait of a political leader was intelligence. I believe most people on the right, myself included, would choose honesty as the number one, followed closely by wisdom. Intelligence, without knowledge and wisdom of how the world works, is lame -- dangerous even. I’d rather have a leader who has an average IQ, but has common sense and a well-reasoned viewpoint.

By the way, there is one area in which the right, in my opinion, abandons the concept of a reasoned philosophy backed up by empirical data, and that’s religion. That’s a topic for another day.

My wife, kids, and I decided to watch a movie a couple of nights ago and found The Bad News Bears for free on PPV (I guess that would make it FPV). I had fond memories of the movie from when I was 11 and playing Little League Baseball. Walter Matthau is excellent, and I recall having a crush on Tatum O’Neal.

A graphic appeared at the beginning of the movie that said, “MA-L,” a mature audience rating due to language. My wife and I looked at each other in puzzlement, and I shook my head and said, “It’s probably just one or two bad words.”

Boy, was I wrong. My wife and I were both cringing as one swear word after the next jumped out of the screen and into the ears of our eight- and ten-year olds. I think just about everything but the F-bomb was said. They seem to have check all the rest off the list, including the N word for blacks and the S word for hispanics! And much of the offensive language was spoken by the kids in the movie!

Which brings up the second problem: disrespect. It’s astounding how rude and disrespectful the kids are toward each other and adults. It’s one insult after another. Then, at the end, having won second place in the league, the Bears throw the trophy at the hated first-place Yankees and tell them off, even the though the Yankees had just offered an apology (of sorts) for some of their previous behavior. It was disheartening to see the Bears react with such poor sportsmanship.

Look, my boys have undoubtably heard most, if not all, the bad words in the movie. I realize that they will say those words with their friends, or perhaps even in an angry moment with their parents. I’m not naive, but I don’t want to see bad words, rude behavior, and poor sportsmanship, not to mention youth smoking, modeled for my kids. Remember, the Bears are the heroes of the movie.

I loved the movie as a kid, and concede that it’s well-made in some respects, but I see it in a new light now. The Bad News Bears is supposedly a classic kid’s movie, but I cannot recommend it to anyone but adults or late teens. Keep young ones away.