The Democratically controlled Senate in Colorado yesterday killed a bill in committee that would have allowed business owners to exercise their right to defend themselves if confronted with deadly force during the commission of a crime.

Below is a letter to the editor sent to the Colorado Springs Gazette by ClearCommentary.com:

That guns are a kind of cultural kryptonite for liberals is axiomatic, but their misinformed prejudices aside, the right of self-defense is truly America’s ‘first right’ (“Shot Down:  Democrats revert to criminal-friendly form,” Feb. 28, Our View).  The bill in question would have extended the “make my day” law that currently covers homeowners to include business owners as well.

We can be assured that the Denver-Boulder Senate consortium that breathes the rarefied air of liberalism will always vote in lockstep with their brethren at the federal level whose understanding of guns is the product of recycled anecdotes that make up in emotional appeal what they lack in fact.

In truth, the 38 states that have allowed concealed carry laws saw an average reduction in violent crime of 8 percent within the first year.  Further, researchers John Lott and Gary Kleck have persuasively argued that guns are used 3.2 million times a year to prevent serious crimes, and, that a woman trained in the use of firearms is far less likely to be assaulted.

Denver Democratic Senator Peter Groff’s concerns that “store owners could end up shooting teenagers they were fearful of just because they were talking too loud, wearing their baseball hat backwards, or listening to the rapper Snoop Dog,” faithfully reflects the hyperbole we commonly get from elected liberals, as well as our biased media.  It’s predicated on a fundamental mistrust of the common man and his ability to exercise good judgment and restraint, and, as such, it is as cynical and as it is insulting.

This Senate vote is a clarion call for Republicans and like-minded Democrats and Independents to work hard to elect people who respect our right to self-defense so we can take our state back from the liberal Denver-Boulder cartel.

 Minimizing the magnitude of a problem raises stupidity to the level of a virtue, yet that is precisely what many Americans are doing when they subscribe to the Democrats' plan to draw down our troops or to redraft the authorization for military action. 

Although they bristle when they are labeled appeasers, it's a name that fits them like a tailored suit.  As Ed Koch correctly argues, appeasement has never advanced the security of any nation.  He reviews recent attempts by Spain and Great Britain to telegraph to the Islamic extremists that unlike the U.S. they are cultural sophisticates who willingly embrace Muslims, for which they have only seen an increase in domestic terrorism.

Somehow, the lens through which the liberal sensibility perceives the world translates blatant threats into a language of victimology where compassion and understanding are the operative words rather than confrontation.  Indeed, the Democrats inhabit a world where evil is a fiction fabricated by Republicans for political gain, which leads them to advance the case for withdrawal from Iraq without regard to events on the ground.

It used to be the case that battle fatigue was reserved to troops in harm's way.  Now it's the purview of Congress and many Americans who profess to being exhausted by the daily death and mayhem in Iraq.  Like a nightmare they can't control, they just want to end it.  Their argument is emotionally compelling and if it had been posited by an adolescent it would be entirely plausible. 

 That is, in its most succinct form, the crux of the matter:  The Islamic terrorists are as serious in their declaration of death to their enemy as was Hitler.  As Senator Joseph Lieberman wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

 

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism.  However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in  Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Yet many otherwise sensible Democrats are blind to this reality, and are more focused on criticizing President Bush's policy than in achieving stability in Iraq.  They are on a political trajectory that will lead to a major confrontation with the president and Republicans in Congress, the result of which will tell the world where America stands.  But the process itself is unseemly and communicates to our enemy that we are divided nation, one with deep misgivings and insecurities, and, perhaps more profoundly, one where moral confusion appears to reign.

Indeed, when we fundamentally question whether or not advancing the cause of freedom is wise, we are sowing the international landscape with the message that America has lost its bearing, that rogue nations run by despots have disproportionate power over us, and that they can prevail through a campaign of attrition, wearing us down over time. 

Mr. Lieberman has recently stated that he won't rule out becoming a Republican.  Indeed, if it appears as though the Democrats are able to push through legislation that limits the president's ability to conduct the war in the manner he sees fit, he might well join those who are champions of freedom and for whom defeat is simply not acceptable.

When enough time has lapsed to provide a measure of objectivity, this chapter in our nation's history will be written and it will be unequivocally clear that the Democrats were responsible for undermining our national security.  It's a legacy they are working hard to achieve.

 There is a cultural echo that can be heard issuing from Europe these days and it faithfully captures their icy embrace of secularism and smug dismissiveness of religion.  Writing in today's London Times, William Rees-Mogg plumbs the depths of modernism's failure to advance our moral certitude, and, in fact, the corrosive effect it has had across the spectrum.

He begins with an example of the civic squeamishness of the left as they witness people taking comfort and moral direction from Christianity.  He quotes Michael Portillo who observed Tory leader David Cameron going to church:

...men of power who who take instruction from unseen forces are essentially fanatics...I would be more reassured to hear that the Tory leader goes to church because that is what it takes to get a child into the best of state schools, not because he is a believer.

Mr. Rees-Mogg discusses the fact that not all religions are benign, referencing Islam, which opposes all other religions.  But he fails to address the fact that Mr. Portillo's attack was directed against the most vulnerable target--Christianity--and not the most deserving, Islam. 

That, of course, is what Christians have come to expect, because cultural cowards such as Portillo are also victims of their life-long membership in the noxious school of political correctness, which precludes caustic attacks on everything save Western traditions, be they cultural, civic, or religious.

Beyond that, as Mr. Rees-Mogg argues, morality is best communicated through the structured and time-tested lens of religion.  Indeed, a cursory review of the 20th century's attempt to supplant religion with Marxism or Social Darwinism resulted not only in the deaths of millions but the depreciation of the moral gains that Christianity had fought so hard to establish in the previous century.

Those who argue that the Golden Rule is sufficient to guide them through life's moral challenges typically use the most morally simplistic examples to support their assertion.  That is, it's wrong to murder or steal.  But, momentarily forgiving the fact that those commandments were codified centuries before, they are less convincing when confronted with modern issues such as embryonic stem cell research.  At that point, a callous and solipisitic polity of perverse bio-ethics emerges, which is merely eugenics in drag.

We must question, therefore, why so many on the left reject traditional Christianity, and in particular, Catholisicm?  The most obvious answer is the most timeless, and that is that humans instinctively rail against being told how to behave, in particular when the guidelines are presented in terms of absolutes.  In truth, they are pre-emptively parsing such codes and finding unacceptable dicta that would prevent them from indulging the moral lassitude du jour. 

In conjunction with modern liberalism's infamous capitulation concerning aberrant adolescent behavior--i.e., "They're going to have sex anyway, we should at least give them condoms," or "They're going to drink anyway, we parents should supply the booze so we can at least control where they're drinking."--it is a wholesale rejection of the argument that human behavior will rise or fall in direct relation to established expectations.  That is, humans are truly moral beings and revealed religions such as Catholicism offer a supremely refined moral framework which enjoins them to avoid sin and evil and to serve their fellow man.

 That is a message that should resonate with all people, yet so many in Europe and America recoil against it, preferring the cold comfort of modern secularism.

If we merely examine his voting record, Senator John McCain appears to be a stalwart and loyal Republican.  But there are gaping policy fissures in his platform, from his vote against President Bush's tax cuts to his misguided participation in the abridgment of our First Amendment rights (cf., McCain-Feingold).  Add to that questionable party constancy an emotional fuse that is best measured in nanoseconds and you have the makings of a man destined to never inhabit the White House.

One wonders by what leap of illogical thought someone of his otherwise conservative instincts believes it's acceptable to restrict the flow of money in support of political candidates.  Looking beneath the surface we would find a mistrust of the freedom that is the bulwark of an open system with full, transparent disclosure, and that, in effect, is a distrust of the common man. 

Beltway cognoscenti will tell you that money doesn't purchase votes, only access.  That means that during campaigns or legislative sessions money is a faithful reflection of the rich mosaic of voices, from millions of individuals expressing themselves individually or through groups that represent their interests.  Isn't that the democratic process in action?

With respect to taxes, Mr. McCain appears to be similarly out of step with the contemporary Republican sensibility, which means he hasn't taken to heart the hard-fought lessons of supply-side economics.  The so-called 'rich' in America, those in the top 5 percent of income earners, currently pay 55 percent of all federal income taxes; the bottom 50 percent pay about 4 percent.  For all but the socialists among us that is a sufficiently progressive tax structure, but not apparently for Mr. McCain who felt that tax relief for those who produce the jobs and take the risks wasn't 'fair.'

Against that background we are obliged to examine his temperament, which is not dissimilar to that of Sonny Corleone, the Don's 'hotheaded' son whose control over his temper is, to put it charitably, inconsistent.  The reason Americans across the political spectrum loved Ronald Reagan is that he was a likable man with a perennially sunny disposition.  The classic photographs of Mr. Reagan always featured his infectious smile and his love of and trust in the common man was central to his political philosophy.  One is hard-pressed to say that about Mr. McCain.

Finally, not unlike Mr. Gore, McCain has been here before.  He's had his chance, and even if you argue that for 'McCain I' the political stars weren't in alignment, all the rough edges and brusque, unsmiling retorts, swirl back into our collective memories, and they don't paint a favorable picture.

Choosing the nominee for president of either party involves a curious kind of political divination wherein we look for characteristics we find comforting and policies to which we ascribe.  And, although studies have shown that many Americans don't take the time to thoroughly examine the candidates' backgrounds and voting records, most have a keen if intuitive understanding that whomever is elected is, in effect, the leader of the free world.

With that comes a profound and solemn sense of the burden inherent in the office, knowing, as we must, that our security and the future of our Republic hangs in the balance.  In light of the gravity of that, it's clear Mr. McCain is not, to borrow a phrase from yesteryear, 'presidential timber.'

If our nation and the free world weren't confronted with the barbarity of Islamic terrorism, the analysis of the presumed quandary within the Republican Party by Steven Greenhut would be more credible.

Mr. Greenhut makes the argument that the problem for Republicans backing Rudy Guiliani isn't his liberal positions on social issues, but rather, between

libertarian-oriented Republicans who believe in the Reaganite admonition that 'government is not the solution but the problem' and law-and-order Republicans who believe that 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide from the government.'

Although he concedes that 9/11 led to a transformation concerning the role of government in our lives, implicit in his analysis is that it's wholly unwarranted.  From the alleged encroachment of our civil liberties--a charge entirely lacking evidence--to fighting foreign wars, Mr. Greenhut appears to be arguing from a pre-9/11 perspective, or else he minimizes the post-9/11 threat.

Either way, the argument belies his assertion that he would loathe a Hillary presidency because it has far more in common with moderate--not just liberal--Democrats than with Republicans. 

Indeed, the fact that our nation has not been attacked since 9/11 has clearly led to a tacit, if erroneous consensus that the threat has diminished, which, in turn, has provided Democrats with enough polemical daylight to argue with straight faces against the the NSA's electronic surveillance program.  It has also provided the political backdrop for their argument that a modest increase in troops in Iraq is categorically ill-advised.  That, in turn, has led to an ingenious if cynical approach to strangling President Bush's troop surge initiative in the cradle.

The question that Mr. Greenhut and those of his ilk conveniently avoid is precisely what they would do in place of our pre-emptive efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as our more aggressive attempts to discover terrorist plots before they are executed. 

They also, of course, ignore history, which is replete with examples of pre-emptive military action, most recently President Truman's bombing of Japan, which precluded the need for a land invasion.  It also avoids the fact that President Lincoln temporarily suspended habeas corpus and President Roosevelt instituted a variety of limitations on civil liberties.

The difference between those actions and President Bush's initiatives is that in the case of the former we knew the enemy and agreed that the peril of inaction was far greater.  Today, we face a shadowy, stateless, but omnipresent enemy, one not interested in territorial acquisition but in a grim fight to ideologically dominate by effecting the decimation of the West.

Former Governor Mitt Romney would be an excellent president but unless early indications are incorrect, he faces the same impediments that dogged Jack Kennedy.  That, in our presumably enlightened age, is an indictment of our narrow mindedness and ideological inflexibility.

Under these circumstances, the most electable Republican candidate is Rudy Guiliani.  But, we've miles to go before we vote, and much will likely change.

Because of the gravity of the office, candidates at the presidential level have an inherently more fragile, which is to say, tenuous, relationship with voters.  Even at this implausibly early stage of the race, with the omnipresence of media outlets, the electorate will have the tone of every utterance and nuance of every glance microanalyzed and delivered to their televisions, computers, or handhelds.

It's therefore axiomatic that any revelation that reflects unequivocal unpredictability in temperament or a predisposition toward political misjudgment will become fodder for one's opposition.  Howard Fineman provides the background and details of Senator Hillary Clinton's acerbic miscalculation in yesterday's exchange with Senator Barack Obama.

As Mr. Fineman notes, after calling the Clintons--yes, plural--liars, Hollywood mega-mogul, David Geffen leveled the most damning broadside possible, asserting that the 'Clinton show' was "boring."

The art of not allowing someone under your skin is not universally shared by politicians and revanchist politics for the Clintons renders that phrase effectively redundant.  Being keenly aware of her high negative polling, one might think that Mrs. Clinton would not succumb to the 'ready, fire, aim' approach that resulted in her husband being the only sitting president to be impeached.

But to amend a legacy that retrospectively projects decades is a task only a political Titan could accomplish and Mrs. Clinton's savviness aside, her apparent mastery of incremental calculation betrays a remarkable inability to let long-term goals subvert the reflexive instinct to counter-attack.  Indeed, this round clearly went to Senator Obama because he correctly understood that Americans are viscerally averse to caustic political responses, which Mrs. Clinton's faithfully embodied.

Underlying all of this is the fact that Senator Clinton is irritated that she finds herself in the position of having her heir apparent hold on the nomination in such obvious jeopardy.  But, she would better serve herself by recognizing that the electorate is seeing things in Senator Obama that are lacking in her--candor, warmth, genuine versus calibrated conviction.

Recall that Pandora, the perfect, first woman in Greek mythology, was fated to open the box that housed all of man's miseries.  Avarice and envy were key among them.  As that lesson has so convincingly instructed, an overweening desire for something is almost guaranteed to cloud our judgment, which, in the most classical definition of irony, is instantly apparent to other players--not to mention the audience.

An editorial by John Hughes, writing in The Christian Science Monitor, provides the framework for our analysis of our progress with respect to the much maligned Axis of Evil, as articulated by President Bush in his 2002 State of the Union Address.

North Korea: 

Mr. Hughes 'damns with faint praise' the recently reached agreement with this Stalinist nation and only glancingly references the key difference between President Clinton's naive "Agreed Framework" and that of President Bush.  In the 1990s, whether due to a misperception of the geopolitical landscape or residual post-Cold War hubris, Mr. Clinton entered negotiations bilaterally with North Korea.  Although other nations weighed in, they were not formal signatories to the Agreement.

In stark contrast, and, ironically, heeding the Democrats' incessant calls for multilateral talks, Mr. Bush saw in the thicket of incentives and disincentives that China held the proverbial knife to cut this Gordian knot.  Add to that mix the Japanese, who, since Kim Jong Il lobbed missiles into the Sea of Japan, has been contemplating a revision of its defensive posture, to, at least in theory, include offensive nuclear weapons.

The result is that although there is every reason to be keenly skeptical, and although we have argued that a far more aggressive approach would have abridged the process, this is clearly the most conservative solution the U.S. might have reached and one worth our effort.

Iraq:

Again, Mr. Hughes skims timorously across the surface of America's situation in Iraq.  The 'troop surge' that President Bush has initiated is beginning to see modest results, however, if this strategic realignment continues to bear fruit by keeping the warring parties apart, the political solution may have a chance.

Recall that the Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites have lived in the region in relative peace for centuries, and, for that matter, the analog of this quandary, Bosnia, is a farmore contentious mix of ethnically diverse peoples, and they lived in relative calm until WWI.

The obvious flaws of President Bush's unitive in Iraq is the failure to appreciate that our stellar three-week military campaign only lit the fuse of the ethnic hatreds that Saddam's iron-fisted rule kept in check.  If the current Iraqi leadership can leverage its political power to provide strong and credible incentives as well as meaningful disincentives to the Sunnis and Shiites, the chance for nominal peace moves into the realm of the possible.

Iran:

We are often counseled by Democrats, and even a few Republicans, that there is nothing more dangerous than invading Iran.  President Bush's plan, which appears to be diplomatically slow-walking President Ahmadinejad, seems to be achieving results.  By tightening Iran's external financial resources, whether it's in banking or through trade, and with our carrier groups near by, we are expressing the will of the otherwise feckless free world, in terms that are unambiguous, if not overly threatening.

The strategic conundrum we face is that in each evolving circumstance we can never know the consequences of the failure to act.  Indeed, at every step of the way as the conflagration of WWII was ignited, military historians speculated on how different the ultimate outcome might have been had the allies acted, from the first real opportunity in 1936 when Hitler moved his army into the Rhineland.  Had that happened there would have been a reasonable chance that war would not have been sparked.  The difference is best measured by the 40 million souls who would not have been killed.

In our overheated debate concerning Iran we find the same hand-wringing and stern admonitions concerning any suggestion that the U.S. and its allies might be forced to take military action.  Indeed, the political realities we face have effectively precluded even obliquely telegraphing that 'all options are on the table.'

Ironically, the same crowd shrinks into the fetal position when the issue of a full gamut of sanctions is raised, in particular, making it clear to Russia that their continued work at the Bushehr reactor will have adverse consequences to its relationship with the U.S.  Concurrently, Western Europe is Iran's largest trading partner and we must also inform them that support for a known terrorist regime will cause them indirect economic pain.

There are in all three of these situations real opportunities to mitigate the long-term fallout and damage to all parties concerned.  But the studied reticence that is currently being exhibited by the U.S. and its allies will only guarantee that the problems will slowly be compounded, and solutions that don't involve all-out military action more elusive, which may, inadvertently demand such action.

When exercised by Democrats, strategic cunning is lauded as a brilliant defense of their core values.  However, when it's practiced by Republicans, it is derided as "divisive partisanship."  Enter E.J. Dionne, who artfully--that is, with Machiavellian verve--argues the case for Congressional opposition to President Bush's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq.

Mr. Dionne argues that the effort should begin by the Democrats making this about Bush,

not themselves, and to make clear that the president has rebuffed all efforts to bipartisan path out of Iraq.

It doesn't take a political code breaker to parse the unavoidable message in that assertion which is that the president's willful intransigence amounts to nothing more than a self-serving determination to 'stay the course,' effectively throwing good political money after bad.

More fundamentally, it's an oblique but undeniable endorsement of the Democrats' intent to exit the war, events on the ground notwithstanding, and this, despite the fact that no one on the left has advanced a credible plan.  But their only hope is to peel away wavering or weak-kneed Republicans.  As is their wont, Mr. Dionne quotes a member of nominal enemy camp to make his case, Senator Jack Reed (R-RI) on Meet the Press:

Republican influence on the president might be more decisive than Democratic voices.

That remark at once reflects the quintessence of Republican cowardice and a profound misunderstanding of our predicament in Iraq as well as our more lethal war against Islamic extremism.  To illustrate that point, imagine if we flipped that statement, with all its components:  It's now a Democrat referencing a fellow Democratic president:  "Democratic influence on the president might be more decisive than Republican voices."

Does the word 'quisling' come to mind?  Indeed, only in our age when moderation is a considered a badge of presumptive courage--although wholly undeserved--would a Republican musing aloud on a news show about how best to subvert the agenda of his colleague, a sitting president, be deemed laudatory.

Mr. Dionne finishes his tribute to Chamberlain by reference to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who believes the Iraq Study Group's proposals should be reanimated from the political dead letter box.  This, of course, is the left's reflexive nod to 'regional diplomacy,' which means talking to Iran and Syria. which would make negotiations with Cold War double agents akin to an undergraduate exercize.

As we have come to expect, Mr. Van Hollen chides the president for his 'refusal to listen,' which, in our over-heated, self-serious political environment is synonymous with an open-handed slap in the face:

The refusal of this administration to try to work with others to resolve this in a responsible manner has created a very polarized atmosphere.  They've refused to listen to anyone else.

The Maryland liberal has unwittingly provided a useful lesson in our democratic process:  Although his choice of words is itself intentionally polarizing, 'polarization' inherently presumes the presence of two entities, and, in politics there are no guarantees that one entity is correct.

Therefore, the question that must be asked is whether, on balance, our chances to bring stability to Iraq--and thereby security to the region--are enhanced or undermined by the Democrats' plan of establishing a withdrawal date?  If not, then we should be pleased that President Bush is not listening to the Democrats, because it's abundantly evident they have nothing to say.

 In this age when the tides of secularism are rising, invoking the name of God to intercede in events both personal and public seems at once quaint and vain.  Although they don't delve into the philosophical underpinnings of God, Michael Novak and Dana Novak mark president's day by examining God's role in the life of President Washington.  After leading the reader through a brief history of the animated and intimate relationship between God and the president, they conclude that it was His influence that made Washington's many accomplishments possible.

What is it about belief in God that so many people attest is the very cornerstone of their lives, that leads them to choose good over evil, to see in the ultrasound of a fetus the full magnificence of a human being?  It is the sense that even during our darkest hours, when hope has dimmed and the outcome of our travails appears uncertain, that we are not, in fact, alone, that there is something with us that is beyond our understanding but nonetheless present in every fiber of our being--and that is God.

President Washington, as noted by these writers, entreated God at numerous points during his perilous journey, both as a military officer and president.  It wasn't a conceit or trope, it wasn't merely to rally his troops or the nation, rather, it sprung from the depths of his being, his soul, and it was then, as it is now, an act of the will predicated on faith.

 Continuing in that vein, President Bush invokes the Almighty in his writing, speeches, and daily life.  Along with President Washington, he too believes that God prefers liberty and justice and so wishes that America will prevail as the world's pre-eminent beacon for goodness. 

However, as you know, there is something in our contemporary culture that is working against that sentiment, something that makes us question the historically comforting notion that God is with us.  We are told by many liberals that if there is a God, He no more favors America than any other nation, that there is nothing special about our country, and, in fact, that our history is replete with foibles and flaws.

Whether it's an inbred sense of self-conscious inhibition to see in America those special values and principles--call it American exceptionalism--or whether they are merely convinced that our post-modern sensibilities provide no justification to project our will on others, there is in the modern liberal polity a reticence to even be on the world stage, much less dominate it.

And so they fervently believe we should check our values at the edge of the stage and demonstrate our humility by genuflecting at the altar of political correctness where nations across the entire moral spectrum are considered equals.

Well, neither President Washington nor Bush would do that and it's a very good thing they wouldn't, because the challenges the former faced and those of the latter, while starkly different in nature, are of equal importance.  Indeed, as much or more hangs in the balance today as did when Washington made that fateful decision to cross the Delaware.

The people who lived through those trials could not have known the fragility of their future and how much depended upon their perseverance and patience and that of their leaders.  That same cloud of unknowing hangs over us today, and his mortal flaws notwithstanding, we should give thanks the President Bush does know what is at stake.

Although more evidence of the unreflective primacy of the self is hardly necessary in our narcissistic age, we offer this brief expose of Richard Engle, NBC's premier Middle East reporter, who was interviewed today on Meet the Press.

Mr. Russert queried Mr. Engle concerning the war in Iraq over the years he covered it. Although he did concede that our invasion toppled a despot, his focus didn't appear to be on the 25 million Iraqis who now enjoy freedom of speech, can start businesses without fear of government reprisal, and associate with whom they wish.

Rather, viewers were treated to an apparently endless litany of ways in which the war impacted Mr. Engle, his wife, his family, friends, colleagues, and the challenges of reporting from such a long distance.  Every sentence began with our culturally incestuous word "I" and drew us into the travails of this thirty-something man's world.  It was, indeed, the very antithesis of what reporting is presumably about; using one of the industry's gold standards, Edward R. Murrow, it's the uncanny capacity to disappear from the story such that the reporting is animated by information and nuance faithfully communicated.

Beyond that, Mr. Engle's biased view of our progress in Iraq was unambiguous.  Mr. Russert asked:

Criticism that the American press corps ignore the good news and only covers the bad news...

Mr. Engle:

I've heard that criticism a lot and I think we're going to hear it a lot and I think we're going to hear it a lot more over the next year, because there's a tremendous incentive for both the U.S. administration and the Iraqi government to declare a lot of success.  It's clear that the Iraqis want the--this war to start winding down.  The American people seem to want that as well, so the easiest way is to just declare success...It makes everyone feel good and it seems like you're having a lot of progress...But if you read and look back at the record that the media has put forward of the war over the past four years, I think it's ben fairly accurate.

Mr. Russert's question was a perfect opportunity for Mr. Engle to make the generous observation that the mainstream media has, in fact, studiously avoided stories of success in Iraq, that, in truth, they remain faithful to the cynical adage, "If it bleeds it leads."

Indeed, Mr. Engle's response reflects the intellectually incestuous nature of liberal media bias because they a priori dismiss any real chance for progress in Iraq.  Perhaps more damning is that Mr. Russert, who is occasionally obliged to deny that his Democratic colors are more transparent than he would like to believe, merely confirmed his own bias by not challenging his response.

This observation can be taken further without losing its legitimacy.  Indeed, it is that very instinct, that self-referential focus, that, by extrapolation, demonstrates that the Democrats' effort to undermine President Bush's troop surge in Iraq is further evidence of the willingness to sacrifice victory for political purchase.  Which is to say, it's all about them.

Otherwise, why is it that every Democrat who testified in the House and Senate in support of the resolution against the president's plan failed to state their hope that we would win?  Because it's not part of their plan to burnish their self-aggrandizing image in the minds of the electorate. 

 Although he's not a household name, Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), accurately reflects much of the sentiment underlying the Democrats' staunch if misinformed support for their resolution against President Bush's troop surge in Iraq.

His statement before Congress during the debate dismisses the president's recommended troop escalation, but takes the argument further:

The Congress will shortly vote on a bold, clear resolution repudiating the administration's failed policy in Iraq, a fiasco which has weakened our security, threatened our military readiness, cost thousands of lives and wasted billions of dollars.

After some further broadsides such as charging the administration with "stubborn arrogance and incompetence," stock phrases that have been recycled so many times that they are wearing thin even in liberal circles, he suggests we should "Replace the military surge with a diplomatic one," to engage the entire Middle East.  Of course his lecture couldn't be complete without arguing that our troops be redeployed "in the region to give pause to our foes." 

For the left, diplomacy is the most reliable antidote to war because it keeps any hint of confrontation at a comfortable distance.  Whether such negotiations have any possibility of even nominal success--which, for the Middle East, is simply not the case--is immaterial.  For the liberal, the mere exercise of 'talking,' of 'listening,' has such cathartic potency as to constitute progress, only, of course, when measured by their quixotic calculus.

Those following today's Senate vote heard almost carbon-copy recommendations, with Majority Leader Sen. Reid enumerating his usual list of blistering criticisms, but, as always, avoiding any mention of 'victory' or 'winning' in Iraq.  Rather, he champions the feminized approach which Speaker Pelosi--our queen of nonconfrontation--popularized by insisting our goal in Iraq isn't winning, but a 'process" to complete. 

It should be noted that Senate Democrats today lost their bid to debate the Iraq resolution, 56-34, with seven shameless Republicans voting to support it.

A good friend of ours, a retired Marine officer with a service career that spanned 33 years, has a bumper sticker that reads, "Give War A Chance."  Although it's a sardonic and brazen statement obviously calculated to irritate liberals, it has a glimmer of irrepressible truth that is so politically incorrect that it is missed by all but those with an understanding of military history.

As Michael Medved argued some weeks ago, unlike gravity, peace isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon.  Therefore, those who lionize pacifists and argue that they have advanced the cause of peace are supremely deluded.  In truth, history's true agents of peace are men such as Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and the numerous generals, officers, and enlisted men who decimated our enemies.

That is a fact the contemporary liberal sensibility simply doesn't understand, and the shocking spectacle of certain so-called Republicans standing arm-in-arm with them is a testimony of how successful the left has been in seeding our cultural landscape with their moral confusion.

Although it will require the perspective of lapsed time to fully appreciate just how misguided the Democrats are, there are moderate voices in their party that are already fearful that a policy predicated on retreat and that studiously avoids any credible counterproposal to achieve victory in Iraq will create a political penumbra that will follow them right up to the 2008 elections.

If so, it will be evidence that political justice, not unlike its cousin, poetic justice, does naturally occur in our world, and sleeplessly surveys the world in pursuit of its next victim.

One of the most reliable signs of political sincerity is the willingness to see past one's prejudices and recognize principled behavior.  A surprising column by David Broder brings a fresh perspective to President Bush's recent efforts to argue for his strategic realignment in Iraq.

Mr. Broder outlines the president's tactical ingenuity as well as his willingness to provide more media access.  To be candid, the Democrats' approach to countering Mr. Bush's initiative for a troop surge has most political analysts scratching their heads.  It's axiomatic of political warfare that to win one must propose a positive agenda that is at once credible and convincing.  One can always criticize the opposition, but people will instinctively look for your alternative plan and when it's absent or less than convincing it's as obvious as steer at a dog show.

Underlying the Democrats' problems is the fact that the president's plan does, in fact, constitute a bona fide change in strategy.  It is not, as they argue, more of the same.  It reflects the fact that a political solution must begin with a nominal cessation of violence which starts with bringing to Iraq a modicum of security.

It is also not the case that the Iraqi military is incapable of one day standing on its own, but it is incontestable that they aren't ready now.  The Democrats' plan, to the extent one can parse it from the broad spectrum of opinion being expressed, would telegraph a date certain by which the U.S. military would vacate the country.  Although people cheered when they heard al-Sadr fled to Iran, reports now indicate he is merely planning on a time out until the U.S. leaves, which he and his henchmen are convinced is only a matter of months.

The House debate on CSPAN this morning began with Rep. Emmanuel arguing that the president's plan is hopelessly misguided and will only lead to the death of more troops; Rep. John Lewis brought an impassioned but flawed argument, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, which seemed particularly inapt.  Absent from theirs and their colleagues' remarks was a positive plan that might convince a skeptical electorate that they stood for something other than retreat.

In contrast, a variety of Republicans used vivid historical comparisons of our nations military conflicts, emphasizing that in the most devastating wars, such as WWI and WWII, our nation wasn't attacked, but that we rose to action because our sacred principle of freedom was under attack, and the lives of millions were at stake.

Political generosity is another hallmark of someone confident of his convictions, and President Bush and many Republicans in Congress have recognized that their opponents do care about our nation and want victory in Iraq--it is rare to see a Democrat reciprocate that sentiment.  But, to make their case, Republicans do emphasize the legitimate fact that the Democrats have failed to make a persuasive argument that their approach is superior, because it clearly isn't.

Winning, when so much is at risk, is truly everything, and that is why Americans who are listening with an open mind may begin to distinguish the obvious difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Conservative Republicans will be faced with a deadly serious decision in upcoming presidential nomination process.  The field features an unusual mix of candidates, some with strong foreign policy credentials, most with fiscally conservative instincts, and a particularly strong candidate with serious social policy imperfections.

Ironically, in our contemporary political environment, that individual is best positioned to win the nomination.  Debra Saunders, a conservative voice in socialist San Francisco, cogently makes the case that Rudy Guiliani is a rare presidential candidate because he doesn't use poll-tested positions and speaks with such stark candor that there is no question as to whether he is mincing words or being evasive.

Count us among those conservatives who would prefer to build the perfect presidential candidate from scratch, one with impeccable credentials across the board, unquestioned honesty, and a reliable broker of the conservative social agenda, but with the heartfelt candor and perfect political pitch to win moderates and independents.

Alas, that candidate doesn't exist.  But, the more profound, which is to say truthful, observation is that America is moving towards the soft center.  Although, on balance, more people will continue to call themselves conservative than liberal, strong positions on both sides of the equation are becoming far more challenging to defend, which means candidates championing those positions in the general election will see a fraying of support.

But if we stipulate that social issues such as abortion won't be solved--which is to say Constitutionally reversed--at the federal level, that places them in the hands of state legislatures, which is where they always belonged.  Related issues such as gun control have become politically immunized from further encroachment at the federal level, so a candidate such as Mr. Guiliani with a record of favoring tighter controls at the municipal level but who firmly supports 2nd Amendment rights, would not be a threat to those freedoms.

On the most critical issue of our day--the threat of Islamic terrorism--we would have in Mr. Guiliani a president who not only has a firm and compelling grasp of the proper approach to degrading the threat, but a willingness to continue President Bush's attempts to acquit American exceptionalism on the world stage. 

To be sure, the other Republican candidates share that sense of American greatness and could be relied upon to make that case in international circles.  But, unlike Mr. Guiliani, they would cede broad portions of the electorate to the Democratic candidate who would more nearly reflect moderate American social values.

Therefore, as noted at the outset, conservatives must perform the unpleasant task of political soul searching and deal with the crucial issue of electability.  That means confronting the equally disturbing fact that the electorate is evolving towards moderate positions, thanks to their lockstep response to the siren song of our culture which is at once indifferent to moral precepts and the noxious consequences of its collective behavior.

In short, Mr. Guiliani is a made to order presidential foil for the very best the Democrats can muster, one who will be an unflinching supporter of strict constructionist judges, a robust and unapologetic intelligence apparatus, and who would continue President Bush's policy of pre-emption for states that support terrorism.

Unlike almost any other moment in our nation's history, this decision may truly come down to a matter of survival.  Simply stated, none of the Democratic nominees is predisposed to support such vital functions as the NSA's electronic surveillance program, much less even consider a pre-emptive strike against a rogue regime to prevent the acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

That is truly what is at stake.

 With his usual blend of mandarin eloquence and unpredictable polemics, Willliam F. Buckley leads us on a pecular analysis of Senator Hillary Clinton's political predicament, complete with her baggage, shortcomings, and, what he discomfitingly calls "a lovely face, and piquant sense of destiny."

Mr. Buckley also explores the obviously enticing political differences between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, with the latter having a disarming charm and candor conspicuous by its absence in the former.  After examinng her relationship to former President Clinton and the commonly obfuscated issue of whether the nation is ready for a woman in the White House. 

A sea of ink has been expended on Mr. Clinton, his sexual malfeasances, amorality, and studied mendacity, but the more interesting question concerns the gender politics that will inevitably be an issue.  Mr. Buckley frames the issue with predictable delicacy and restraint:

"...it is better not to run the risk of electing a chief executive who goes to sleep at night while armed legions responsible for our safety feel the uncertainty of having a woman leader."

It is also an apt observation that the feminists charge that a woman CEO is, by nature, a more adroit manager, a savier, more intuitive (their favorite shibboleth) executive, simply has no foundation in reality.  In fact, the argument can be made that the fairer sex's predisposition to 'process' problems versus solve them may lend itself to the charge of indecision and an unhelpful concern with an adversary's response to a foreign policy decision, which might inhibit or condition the ability stare down a flinty adversary such as Iran.

When President Bush assumed the presidency there was every reason to believe he would bring to our foreign relations a new and vigorous approach that reflected the unique challenges of our nuclearized age.  Specifically, our world has reached the point where belligerent and rogue regimes can no longer be tolerated because our best intentions notwithstanding, nuclear weapons will find their way into their hands.

Enter North Korea and the news of a major 'diplomatic breakthrough' with respect to their nascent nuclear weapons program.  We'll call it 'Phyrric Diplomacy,' and by visual reference above, invite readers to recall the results of the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade.  For an inkling of how complex, ambiguous, and ill-conceived diplomacy can lead to war, read about the prelude to the Crimean War, which ultimately led to&nb