Arnaud de Borchgrave’s too-pessimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq today suggests that increasing troop strength in Iraq would necessitate Charlie Rangel’s draft (which he ironically states would be killed by the Democrat Congress, as if Republicans never — much less routinely — voted down Rangel’s bill in years past).  This is just wrong.  But perhaps more to the point, the Administration is wrong not to do it, and here’s why.

The President is exactly right, militarily speaking, to follow his generals’ advice, and that advice calls for current troop strength.  The last thing we need is a President picking bombing targets on an Oval Office map ala LBJ.  Nevertheless, the White House has obviously been tone-deaf regarding the fact that this war — like Vietnam — is being mostly decided at home.  Military victory isn’t worth much in a democracy if the folks back home don’t believe it’s happening.

And of course, that victory is a shifting thing anyway, much as real life always is.  The defeat of Saddam’s regime was absolute, total, and fast.  The mopping-up operation against insurgents has now taken fewer years than it took in Germany after World War II, but more years than the all-negative-all-the-time media of today can bear.  The U.S. death rate is still half that of U.S. training deaths over the past three and a half decades, but no one knows or understands this.  And the whole thing has been greatly complicated by the thousands of outsiders who have poured into the country under the banner of al Qaeda (why anyone would ever want to leave Iraq to al Qaeda defies imagination).

Hence, we need to send more troops.  Not because we need them militarily (although I’m sure we could find plenty for them to do), but because we need to make clear — to our enemies and our public — that we’re not leaving, and that we’re going to see this through to victory.  Without that certainty, former supporters at home despair and current enemies abroad are emboldened.  Kissinger is wrong, as he was in 1973:  this war can be won; and Kissinger’s prescriptions are no better today than then.  And for every Democrat who has called for withdrawal, there’s a Democrat who’s criticized the President for not sending more troops:  this move could fracture their caucus and buy enough time to finish the job.

I made these points on our weekly White House leadership call this Monday.  I have thought carefully about making them public.  But it’s time.  The President is doing a fine job as Commander-in-Chief.  We must not let him undermine that by failing as Chief Communicator.

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced today that he will not be a candidate for President in 2008.

This is a blessing. Frist is a great guy and was a serious improvement over Trent Lott in his current position (Lott is far better suited for the Whip role he just won). However, his ability to fire up a crowd is, er, limited; and perhaps more to the point, his recent support of embryonic stem cell research — which requires the killing of phenomenal numbers of innocent babies — made him a sure target of the party’s pro-lifers (i.e., most of our voters). Frist’s only likely role in the race would have been to help John McCain, as he would have helped fracture conservatives without actually having any reasonable chance to win.

It is certainly not clear whether he realizes that, but it is clear that he’s not running, and we can genuinely wish him well in retirement and thank him for an almost-entirely outstanding career.

Frist’s news release after the jump. (continue reading post »)

Under intense pressure from all sides, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi today dropped her bid to make impeached (for bribery!) federal judge turned Congressman Alcee Hastings chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Hastings — one of only three federal judges to be impeached and removed from office in the entire 20th century, and that by his fellow Democrats (including Pelosi) — was Pelosi’s top pick for the post, which oversees all of the nation’s top secrets and plays a key role in directing U.S. intelligence efforts and the war on terror.

This makes Pelosi’s second high profile loss since the November 7 elections.  Earlier, she had tried to impose ABSCAM unindicted co-conspirator John Murtha on her caucus as the new House Majority Leader, over the more senior (and as it turns out, vastly more popular) Steny Hoyer.  ABSCAM was a 1979-1980 FBI sting operation against Congressmen seeking bribes from Arab sheiks.

The very fact that these men remain in public life is a scandal.  Pelosi’s commitment to them demonstrates clearly what her idea of an “ethical Congress” is:  leaders on the take, where possible from our enemies.  There’s a reason these people want to cut-and-run.  It isn’t an honorable one.

One has to note though:  to the immense credit of the House Democrats, they have now rejected not one but two attempts by Nancy Pelosi to establish Tammany Hall on Capitol Hill.  This is good news for America.  It would be better news to be able two years from now to send these corrupt collaborationists packing.

(Oh, one more thing:  can you imagine the hue and cry in the media — both this month and in two years and every point in between — had George Bush or Mitch McConnell tried something like this?   Watch closely to see how quickly this incident is forgotten, to the minimal degree it’s being covered at all.)

We have added extensively to the Theology & Religion, Children’s Books, and Marriage & Family sections of TheVanguard.Org Bookstore.  Take a look around!

Last night, my friend Dr. James Dobson appeared on Larry King Live and explained how, from his perspective, the Republican leadership blew it in 2006.

But he didn’t stop there.  As reported in a story at NewsMax.com, Dobson also addresses the allegations of former White House aide David Kuo, who claims in his recent book Tempting Faith that President Bush and his aides used and abused the Christian Right.  “The man doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Dobson says, explaining why and setting things straight.

Even so, as the headline implies, this is not to say that Dobson is happy with things as they are.  He particularly singles out former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (now Chairman of FreedomWorks), who has recently raised ire by calling Dobson and his followers “thugs”.  “Dick Armey is an economic conservative, he’s is not a social conservative. He doesn’t like to talk about marriage and about the unborn child, the sanctity of life and things like that. He wants to talk about smaller government. We believe in smaller government, too. We’re economic conservatives, too, but we’re also social conservatives, and he’s not.”

In short, Armey likes the benefits of social conservatives’ presence, but doesn’t want to have to count them an equal part of the overall conservative coalition.  This is idiotic (all the more so out of such a brilliant man): without social conservatives a Republican majority would be impossible, and indeed, this year that fact became all too clear yet again, as millions of social conservatives who voted in 2000, 2002 and 2004 stayed home.  It is even more short-sighted still considering that the vast majority of Evangelicals are not merely social conservatives but economic, defense and gun-rights conservatives as well.

Jim Dobson, even in his apolitical days, has done more for conservatism than a thousand David Kuos or Dick Armeys.  His points are dead-on, and illustrate one of our key reasons for being:  America needs a new, better conservative movement, and a renewed, reinvigorated Republican Party.  Evangelical Christians are absolutely essential to that.  They can make a difference, but a positive one only if they show up.  And if they’re smart when they show up, they can run the table, to their own and all their allies’ benefit.

We mean to make it happen.

Time Magazine offers its assessment of the foolishness (and consequences) of incoming Speaker Pelosi’s desire to name impeached federal judge and current Miami Congressman Alcee Hastings to the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee.  Hastings, as you know, was one of only three federal judges impeached and removed from office in the entire 20th century.  Among those Democrat Congressional leaders voting against him were incoming majority leader Steny Hoyer, Senator Edward Kennedy, and incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury to pervert justice.  Now, Pelosi wants to entrust all of America’s deepest secrets — and control over the funding and operations of all America’s secret-gatherers — to a man in serious debt who might tomorrow (or might now) feel a similar need to take bribes from our enemies.  It’s just insane.

It’s also a very bad start for the woman who says she’s going to run the most ethical House in history, particularly after her effort last week to elevate Rep. John Murtha — the ABSCAM unindicted co-conspirator whose 1980 discussions with men he thought to be Arab sheiks are available on YouTube — to the Majority Leader role.  Time calls this a bad stumble.  We call it something else.

Just in time for Christmas, the latest economic reports show that over the past 12 months real wages have grown at a rate of just over 4 percent, faster than inflation and the best growth rate in almost ten years.

Wage growth — or the lack thereof — has been a constant complaint of the left since the Clinton bubble/recession of 2000-2002.  Conservative economists have consistently noted that wage growth is a lagging indicator, which is to say, it normally only shows up after an economic recovery is well-established, before which time it would merely indicate inflation.

There’s no danger of that now.  In fact, the inflation non-story is such that the Fed may well cut rates next year.  The wage growth is real, and significant.

But the bigger point all of us have been making now for years is that wages — like unemployment claims — are a terrible indicator of how average Americans are doing, because they measure an America that hasn’t existed for decades.  Most Americans work for small businesses or for themselves:  that trend grows by the day.  The Labor Department’s payroll survey measures this, and has shown radically better numbers for most Americans — both in employment and compensation — for the past four years.  But liberals hate this better, post-union economy, and the media parrots their line.

Anyway, lest anyone doubt, the economy is now officially great by anyone’s measure.  Just don’t hold your breath to hear Katie Couric say so.

We’ll be gone for a couple days:  Sherri has consultations with her doctors in Birmingham.  Chemo has ended well, although her blood counts remain down, and she should be able to start radiation after Thanksgiving.  Please keep us in prayer as we travel, and her in prayer as she continues to heal.  God continues to bless in all things, something for which we can all be very grateful this week.

The Washington Post reports this morning that Democrats have already thrown out one of their most-repeated campaign promises:  to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.  Key sources on the Hill report that that idea is an absolute dead letter, more than a month before the new Democrat majority even takes office.

Don’t get us wrong: we’re not enamored of all of the Commission’s recommendations either.  Much of the Commission’s work was distinctly flawed.

It’s just that Democrats spent the past three years beating George Bush to death with the Commission’s report, condemning him as “incompetent” and even unconcerned about the War on Terror because he (and Republican Congressional leaders) would not immediately do every single thing the Commission suggested.  Indeed, as the Post states:

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…. “The Democrats pledged to implement all the remaining 9/11 reforms, not some of them,” said former representative Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), who served on the commission.

It will be interesting to see whether the media — not to mention certain extremely liberal 9/11 widows we’ve come to know and love — take up this hue and cry with the same vehemence they did against Bush.  Don’t hold your breath.

But this much is certain:  the Democrats who ran on a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-church message this year to get elected are already throwing out promises their promises before taking office.  Anyone hoping that their new messages would survive the transition was smoking (and maybe inhaling) the same stuff they are.

Remember the lie the MoveOn crowd told against George W. Bush all through the 2004 campaign, that he had a secret plan to bring back the draft?  This saturated the internet for a good solid year, and of course was propaganda to the core.

Now comes the ultimate irony (and one that close observers knew all about at the time): one of the first policy initiatives of the new Democrat Congress is to — you guessed it — reinstate the draft.  Incoming House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel said today that he will push to draft Americans between the ages of 18 and 42; and unlike previous years when he pushed his idea on an unwilling Republican Congress, times have clearly changed.

President Bush, virtually all Republicans and a generation of military leaders and experts contend strongly that an all-volunteer service is better for America: more Constitutional, higher quality, better educated, and entirely composed of people who want to be there.

Rangel says he wants a draft to discourage future wars; yet there’s no evidence from history that a draft has ever accomplished any such thing, and moreover, the vast majority of 20th Century conflicts were entered into by Democrat presidents.  What Rangel really wants is a less effective military which — as in Vietnam — can be better used as a propaganda tool.  The heroic volunteers of our current forces are not nearly so good a club to beat America with: Rangel wants to “fix” that.

And so it begins.  The only question is how long the DailyKos crowd will take to blame Rangel’s actions on Bush.