The DNC has placed a new attack add against presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz).  Not only does the add shamelessly show footage of American troops being killed in an IED attack in Iraq (which is why the add won't be shown here), but it is fundamentally dishonest as well.  They're claiming that John McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq.  Here's what McCain actually said to a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on January 3, 2008:

Make it a hundred... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

"As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed?"  That doesn't sound like 100 years of war to me...

When Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) questions the probable Democrat nominee Sen. Barack Obama's connections to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, his campaign only responds by attacking McCain for "smear politics," but does not refute the Illinois Senator's friendliness with Ayers.  He then went on to smear McCain for his positions on the economy and Iraq.  (Ironic?)

In fact, the only defense offered by Sen. Obama regarding his relationship with Ayers was during the recent debate in Pennsylvania:

“The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.”

I wonder if the American people will find Sen. Obama's association with a sitting United States Senator just as palatable as his friendship with Ayers; a man who told the New York Times in 2001, regarding his terrorist activities during the 1970's and '80's which took the lives of numerous police officers and civilians, "I don't regret setting bombs.  I feel we didn't do enough."

I'd say Obama needs to work on his moral equivalents.  Ayers is not a guy who simply made a controversial statement.  In fact, we're not concerned about his rhetoric at all!  Ayers blew up cops!

Boy... Muslims sure do get angry and violent when people accuse them of being... well... angry and violent.  They're already calling for the death of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for his fifteen-minute documentary "Fitna," which chronicles Islamic violence around the world...

Here are some disturbing results from a recent study:

In the YouGov survey, nearly half of all Arabs in the Gulf, Levant, and North Africa said that they have met someone who holds extreme religious views.  Asked under what conditions violence is permissible, more than 60% cited Western interference in a Muslim country, while 55% said offensive words or behaviour was a trigger.

Troubling?  Well the U.N. - always on the lookout for the newest, most cutting edge way to appease extremists - is trying to eliminate such "offensive words" from the world!

Arab and Muslim countries defended Tuesday a resolution they pushed through at the United Nations to have the body's expert on free speech police individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.

The United States, Canada and some European countries criticized the role reversal for Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo, who has reported to the global body on measures by dictatorships and repressive governments to restrict free speech.

The U.S. and other Western nations warned that the Muslim-backed resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes block dissenting views.

Socialist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez said Tuesday that relations between his country and the U.S. could worsen if Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) wins the White House.

Remember when Democrats pretended to be incensed when Chavez called Bush "the Devil" at the U.N. podium and then "an alcoholic and a sick man" when he appeared with liberal actor Danny Glover in Harlem (granted, their "anger" was delayed a day so that they had enough time to run a couple of focus groups to find out if they should actually be mad)?  I wonder if they will be equally strong in rejecting Chavez's endorsement of their candidates.

The United States has finally allocated $23 million to build a border fence.  The only problem is that it is going up between Egypt and Gaza. 

Remember when Berkeley City Councilwoman Dona Spring told us she was voting to grant special privileges to anti-war group Code Pink so that they could hold a protest outside the local military recruiting station?  She said that she would never grant such privileges to Conservative protesters because “this is different than abortion because we’re not saying anybody can’t go in there, we’re just trying to give them the other side of the story, so to speak.”

I've already posted one update showing this statement to be an outright lie.  Here's another.  To use Councilwoman Spring's logic, can you imagine if something like this happened at an abortion clinic?

Kusmiss said CodePink and a group called The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime began rallying at the center about noon Friday.

At one point in the rally, Marine Capt. Richard Lund returned to the center, where protesters had affixed signs and stickers on the windows. When Lund began removing them, protesters tried to stop him, police said.

Someone slapped a sticker on Lund's back.

When a police officer forced one of the protesters back from Lund, the protester challenged the officer, police said. Tensions rose but Lund did not want to pursue prosecution, police said.

Later at about 3 p.m. the women entered the recruiting center and sat down on the floor, blocking the door, Kusmiss said. Police warned them several times and tried to negotiate with them but they refused to leave, Kusmiss said.

That's the claim that is being made by Lawrence Gostin, a law professor (that's like a music professor sounding the alarm about "global warming," but I digress).  He truly believes that obesity is a greater danger to our world than terrorism because the diseases that result account for "60 percent of the world's deaths."  What a joke...

People should eat less and exercise more.  It's common sense.  But, if I'm fat and get heart disease or diabetes, it's my problem.  I could've and should've taken better care of my body.  I don't need a bloated government bureaucracy telling me how to live my life and I certainly don't want that government getting even bigger, and taking more of my money in taxes so that they can tell other people how to live theirs.

There are consequences to the decisions we make... yes, perhaps even dying a few years younger than we might have otherwise.  That doesn't make it a greater threat than terrorism.  It is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from a suicide bomber.

Continuing to use the comparison used by liberal Berkeley Councilwoman Dona Spring (who said she would give special protesting privileges to anti-war groups that she would never confer on pro-life groups), can you imagine if protesters did this at an abortion clinic?

At the peak of the second "Funk the War" dance party/protest, the entire [Students for a Democratic Society] group swarmed the military recruiter at 14th st, with about half the group getting inside and the rest securing the entry and plastering windows with stickers...

After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby. 

(Here's a 3-minute audio link of a protester describing the scene: dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/audio/4/sds_storms_recruiter_f15.mp3).

Again I ask, what would happen if abortion opponents stormed a clinic, destroyed literature, and posted hundreds of "abortion stops a beating heart" stickers on all of the walls and furniture (Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating that behavior).  Such an event would be reported by every news outlet in America and protesters would go to prison.

Just so you know what we're dealing with here, I thought I might share a reader's comment with me about Baghdad's per capita murder rate being less than Detroit, Michigan.  "mdking" writes:

JLG, you are manipulating facts to suit your ideology! Just muster the humility for one brief moment to think that you might be wrong. You say, “That’s a murder rate that is comparable to some major American cities.”

That’s a murder rate comparable to NO American city. 5 dead a day times one year equals 1825.

New York had less than 500 murders in 2007. The LAPD reported 379 people had been killed in Los Angeles as of December 15, 2007.

You are either making your numbers up or quoting Fox News (which has said what you say). In either scenario, your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate.

"mdking" is obviously having trouble with the "PER CAPITA" part, so let's stick with the Detroit example.  Per capita refers to the number of murders per person living in a city.  Baghdad has a population of about 7,000,000 people.  Detroit has 900,000.  So of course, Detroit has lower absolute crime rates.  That’s like saying there is less crime in Boise, Idaho than in New York City.  Thank you Captain Obvious!

The question is “PER CAPITA,” or how many murders are there PER PERSON in the city?  That’s not "manipulating facts," as "mdking" charges.  It’s just how adults compare crime in cities that are vastly different in size.

At five per day, Bagdad would have (as "mdking" correctly calculated) 1,825 murders in a year.  PER CAPITA, that's one murder for every 3,835 citizens.

Now Detroit (again only about 1/7 the population of Baghdad) had 354 murders in 2006.  PER CAPITA, that’s one murder for only every 2,542 citizens or about out 1/3 higher than that of Baghdad.

"mdking" accused me of making up numbers and told me, "your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate."  Again, Liberals love to proclaim victory and try to silence their opponents before they've made a coherent argument.  It helps mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about.

But I’m not making anything up.  The new York Times quoted five murders per day in Baghdad (and Reuters now is reporting only four per day) and city populations and crime rates are public record.  Maybe "mdking" could try a little research before accusing me “making up [my] numbers.”  Ever use a Google search?

Again... not enough integrity to admit that our troops are doing great work on behalf of this country and not enough intellect to even explain their argument (other than quoting MoveOn.org).

"Dan (Fitness)" just won't give it up!  He responded to the New York Times article by completely ignoring the descriptions of Baghdad residents going about normal life, and instead focusing exclusively on the five murders per day, and asking "in what twisted world is that livable?" 

Well, the "twisted world" of the United States, actually.  Per capita, that's a murder rate that is only slightly higher than Los Angeles, California and is less than Detroit, Michigan.  Will he argue that those cities are "not livable" then?  I doubt it.

Yes, I believe the Surge was intended to clean up our mess.  Iraq was not livable for a couple of years there.  But our troops have done admirable work during the Surge, and thus, we don't need more surges "ad nauseum."  It's just a shame that "Dan" is just another Liberal who does not have enough integrity to give credit to our troops for their tremendous sacrifice.

I've responded to "Dan's" every accusation with documented fact and he can only come back with some emotional appeal.  Still the only supporting "evidence" he has offered is a MoveOn.org-funded study that was debunked approximately five minutes after it was released.  I won't continue to bore our readers with that sort of "debate." 

Here another, more recent refutation of the claim by "Dan (fitness)" that "Iraq is not livable again," and his accusation that I'm merely viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."  This article comes from the Associated Press as reported on the Seattle Times Website:

BAGHDAD — A year ago in Baghdad: Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents owned entire neighborhoods and key areas beyond. Iraq's government was adrift, and U.S. commanders weighed the real possibility of being trapped in a full-scale civil war.

In response, on Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard, Washington launched an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer.

A year later — through a mix of military might, new allies and some fortunate timing — Iraq looks very different.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is still struggling to get firm footing but has recently tried to push through some of the U.S.-demanded political reforms for reconciliation.

The U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaida in Iraq, which is trying to regroup in northern parts of the country.

After a sharp initial spike in military and civilian casualties, the numbers make a strong case that the surge generally accomplished its main goal.

I told you yesterday about an interesting exchange that has been taking place between myself and another blogger.  He has not yet responded to my post but I thought I would address a couple other parts of his argument about Iraq.  He said, "the country is not livable again," and then accused me of viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."

Well, here's an article from the New York Times, regarding the actual situation in Iraq:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country...