The New York Times reports that “President Bush has decided to name Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the top American military commander in Iraq, part of a broad revamping of the military team that will carry out the administration’s new Iraq strategy, administration officials said Thursday.” The NYT states that “In addition to the promotion of Lt. General Petraeus, who will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the choice to succeed Gen. John P. Abizaid as the head of the Central Command is expected to be Adm. William J. Fallon, who is the top American military officer in the Pacific, officials said.”

This announcement should make Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive absolutely ecstatic. A few weeks ago, Blackfive called for the promotion of General Petraeus upon hearing rumors of the retirement of General Abizaid.  Although Petraeus is replacing General Casey in Iraq rather then Abizaid in CentCom, Uncle Jimbo should be happy with the news. Praising General David Petraeus, the Blackfive blog stated:

Reacting to the official news, Tigerhawk interprets the announcement of Lt. General Petraeus’ promotion as “evidence that the Bush administration is going to get imaginative in Iraq.” Tigerhawk touts Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus credentials:

New York Post columnist and retired Army Intelligence Officer Ralph Peters entitled his recent article “King David Returns: Gen. Petraeus’ New Iraq Test.” Peters is upbeat concerning the news, but not without some obvious concern. He writes:

In other words, Peters does not see the move, as encouraging as it may be, as a guarantee of success in Iraq. As he puts it:

Clearly, placing the burden of winning Iraq on the shoulders of one or two Generals is expecting too much. The burden of winning this war should really be in the hearts and minds of every American – including every citizen and every elected American official. It is surely heartening to see President Bush turning to great military leaders such as Petraeus, but until our politicians decide they choose victory rather than defeat, I will continue to worry.

News reports stated yesterday that “Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told reporters Wednesday that he had taken the first step toward a bid for president of the United States in 2008.” Governor Romney declared: “We've filed exploratory papers today, so the process is moving forward on that front.”

The liberal media has been doing its best to prevent Romney’s candidacy from going forward. The most recent issue of The New Republic contains the latest liberal hit piece on Romney’s Mormonism. Written by Damon Linker, Taking Mormonism Seriously: The Big Test (subscription required), warns the world about Romney’s “politically perilous, religion.”

Already, there has been a flurry of responses from historians, religionists, political pundits, lawyers, and bloggers skewering Linker’s secular diatribe as ill-informed liberal prejudice. One of the first to respond was National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. His brief post on The Corner took aim at Linker’s “secularist hysteria.” To underscore his point, Ponnuru quotes this from Linker:

Ponnuru then exclaims:

Rich Lowry of National Review later added his reaction to the Linker article calling it “shabby.” Lowry goes on to say:

The New Republic Online carries a devastating response to Damon Linker’s article from Richard Lyman Bushman, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History Emeritus at Columbia University. Bushman recently authored what some tout as the best biography of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. TRE also includes Linker’s rather weak and defensive reaction to Bushman. For Bushman’s part, he sees Linker’s view of Romney and Mormonism skewed by a typical liberal fascination with fanaticism. Bushman’s entire response is well worth reading, but he does not take long to get to his main criticism of Linker’s article:

One of the most interesting criticisms of Damon Linker’s article is by Lowell C. Brown of The Article Six Blog. Brown’s article is too extensive to quote in full and contains quite a number of additional links to other reviews of Linker’s piece. Lowell Brown, a lawyer, and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, includes a few points, however, that ought to be carefully noted.

Lowell Brown agrees with Ramesh Ponnuru (linked above) that Linker’s piece is “alarmist” and full of “secularist hysteria.” This criticism in some way echoes that offered by the historian Richard Bushman, who warns:

Brown also notes that Linker's article reminds him of one of his personal rules:  “Be skeptical when someone who does not belong to a particular church tries to explain its deepest nuances to you.  Trust me, Linker doesn't do a very good job of that.” In this same spirit, Brown warns his readers not to be deceived “when the TNR piece refers to Linker as ‘the former editor of First Things,’ Richard John Neuhaus's journal.” Brown quips:

Brown also suggests that “Romney will suffer his true outrages at the hands of left-of-center critics, not conservative Evangelicals.” He warns:

Finally, Brown reminds his readers that “Mormons are no monolithic voting bloc when it comes to Romney.”  Brown states:

Iraqis are lining up by the hundreds to execute Saddam Hussein. News reports indicate that “requests have been emailed from around the world to the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.” Even Maliki has been “directly petitioned by government officials who want to place the noose around Saddam's neck.” Although “many Justice Ministry employees are too terrified to carry out the execution, fearing reprisals,” plenty of volunteers are on hand to do the work. An article in Australia’s Herald Sun suggests: “It is likely those who are volunteering to act as the executioner have lost family members to violence in the post-Saddam era or had a relative killed by Saddam's regime.”

The Orange County Register reports that “Local Iraqis await Saddam's execution.” From the statements included in the story, it seems that the Iraqis are more than simply “awaiting” – they are anticipating and thrilled that Saddam is soon to be executed. Most of the statements included in the article read like this one: “This is a great victory for the freedom, democracy and judiciary system process in Iraq. This will give a closure to many families where they lost a loved one during Saddam's days of ruling the Iraqis by iron fist.”

Some Iraqis, however, do not favor execution right now. They’d rather have him hang after he is held accountable for ALL his atrocities. This statement, for example, is representative of this point of view: “The Kurdish people believe that Saddam must not hang until his court days in the Anfal operations are completed. This is very important that the court find Saddam and his gang ordered and carried out the Anfal operations (genocide) against the Kurdish people (in which) more than 182,000 children, women and elderly died.”

The New York Times facilitates a warning from former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, one of Saddam’s attorneys, assailing the United States for pushing for Hussein’s execution. He claims that there will be an increase in violence as a result.  Agreeing with Clark, the Baathist Party issued a similar prediction of “Grave consequences if Hussein's hanged.”

The Deutsche Welle headline reads: “Saddam Death Verdict Gets Frown from European Governments.” But the headline does little justice to substance of the story. The essence of the article is best caught with this statement: “European governments expressed their opposition to the death penalty, but respected Iraq's sovereignty in dealing with Saddam.” In other words, much of Europe did not have the guts to pull this off, but thank goodness someone stood up to this tyrant.

The Vatican, usually ignored by the world’s press, gets its own headline in the case of Saddam Hussein’s execution. “Don't kill Saddam, Vatican urges.” The secular press is obviously pulling out all stops in their quest to promote their liberal “justice.”

Here’s another shocker: The Australian reports the “UN raises doubts over Saddam trial.” The paper quotes Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as stating:

The appeal judgment is a lengthy and complex decision that requires careful study.… There were a number of concerns as to the fairness of the original trial, and there needs to be assurance that these issues have been comprehensively addressed… I call, therefore, on the Iraqi authorities not to act precipitately.

UN scandals such as the “oil for food program” were left unmentioned. Nor was there any comment made by Ms. Arbour of any of the other corruption involving the UN helping to keep Hussein in power for so many years even while he slaughtered and tortured his own countrymen.

The New York Times editorializes that “toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.” Of course, if the New York Times had their way, the dictator would still be in power which would be a much better option – except for triviality of mounting genocide, Iraqi suffering, and an increasing threat against the United States.

Calling Saddam's trial “a missed opportunity for the government to respect human rights,” the left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian denounced “Iraq’s Shallow Justice.”  The Guardian’s article admits that “for 15 years Human Rights Watch and other organizations documented rights violations committed by the former government;” and “there is no question that Saddam and his cohort were responsible for horrific practices.” “But,” The Guardian says, “by ratifying the execution order the tribunal's appeals chamber has compounded the serious errors committed at trial and further undermined the credibility of the process.” The article goes on to argue against any verdict that could include a death sentence, because the “death sentence is a further step away from respect for human rights. The death penalty, regardless of the crimes involved, is tantamount to cruel and inhuman punishment.” Too bad Saddam’s millions of past and potential victims are never figured into this liberal equation.  

Captain Ed, from Captain’s Quarters, responds appropriately to the New York Times editorial. His response should be read in full, but these paragraphs capture the spirit of his argument:

A little more than three years after Saddam Hussein meekly came out of his spider hole, the Iraqis have finally removed the last obstacle to his execution. Saddam attempted, with some success, to transform his trial into a political showpiece, using it to rail against the American occupation and to inspire the Ba'athist remnants to terrorist attacks. Despite having several members of the court assasinated or attacked, the tribunal convicted Saddam for crimes consistent with the evidence. And yet, this is not enough for the New York Times…

[Captain Ed quotes several paragraphs from the NYT.]

So let's get this straight. What is really important isn't the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam had killed on his whim. It isn't lengthy public record of his "vile atrocities". It isn't the long string of living victims that had to bear witness under difficult circumstances to those who could not appear in court. What really matters, the Times insists, is that the process did not "nurture hope".…

…In any case, the Times proves itself laughable once again by proclaiming a three-year process towards Saddam's execution as a "rush" and complaining about a verdict and sentence that even they admit were completely justified by the evidence at hand. Perhaps next time, the editorial board should not be in such a "rush" to opine. (via It Shines For All)

Captain Ed’s link at the end of the above paragraph is to New York Sun’s pointed response to the New York Times editorial. That full article is also worth reading.

An excellent article to study and ponder after reviewing the liberal pleas for Saddam to be spared is on today’s American Thinker. It is by Patrick Poole and entitled: “Why Saddam Must Hang.” He concludes his thought-provoking piece with these words:

Those condemning Saddam Hussein's sentence of death but still deploring his actions, rather than seeing how closely his depravity is to theirs, would rather identify him as a monster (excepting those 9/11 Truthers who believe that he never committed the crimes he was accused of) to avoid looking into the moral mirror. In that case, what blame can be attached to an animal that is merely acting according to its nature? As Elton John tells us, it's the Circle of Life! What kind of society is possible when men are allowed to indulge and gratify their basest desires? Doesn't it look very much like the utter chaos and grotesque brutality found everyday on the streets of Baghdad? Say whatever you will about the presence of American troops in Iraq, but make no mistake that it is solely the presence of those troops that is preventing a bloodbath the world hasn't seen since Rwanda.

And it is Saddam's regime that has bred this culture of inhumanity in Iraq. Saddam himself embodied the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment and he should be held to account. What better statement can we offer to those who have spent most of their lives under his jackboot brutality that as a man, he is responsible for his crimes? What better testament can we offer to international justice than to demonstrate to the people of Iraq that the untold misery and death of Saddam's victims demands his life be forfeit for his actions? To do anything less than hang Saddam Hussein is to engage in double-speak and to undermine the very principles of human rights we were told that we invaded Iraq to instill.

It is interesting to note that those complaining about Saddam's death sentence do so in the safety knowing that they will probably never have to live in the culture he helped create, nor will they ever have Saddam Hussein as a neighbor. If Saddam were allowed to live, Iraqis who suffered under his regime would not have those same assurances. Many of those critics are saying that the death of Saddam Hussein will not serve as a deterrent to other tyrants. But making deterrence, rather than desert, the basis of justice is to revert to the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment. What we can assure the Iraqi people of on the day when Saddam dances at the end of a rope is that he will deterred forever from ever resuming his reign of terror.

The conclusion of the article gives a heads up on what to expect, but the thought-provoking fun is in the details.

An enjoyable bit of pondering comes only after sifting the article thoroughly. Without a doubt, Wretchard raises important issues, and serious questions. The comments that follow the essay reveal the potency of the concerns addressed. For some of us, the questions raised can also be personal and less dramatic. For example, for newbie or “wanna-be” bloggers, the question may be whether one’s niche is as a finder, thinker, or linker (or some combination of each). In any case, you’ll want to taste and then savor this delicious brain-candy.

This interview should be read completely because there are so many instructive comments. One section, for example, quotes General Mattis indicating that the MSM often provides “an unwitting passing of the enemy’s message.” The exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Joe Rago is particularly informative concerning their two different world views.

Again, the entire interview should be read, and even studied, by those who want to be part of the blogosphere. Rago’s original article, cited and linked above, should also be read in full. Blogs and blogging certainly includes inherent weaknesses, as well as strengths. This exchange between Hewitt and Rago effectively demonstrates both the power, as well as the flaws of the blogosphere. Even more informative, however, are the flimsy and impotent arguments against the new media offered by MSM apologists like Joseph Rago.

Oh sure, the article mentions corrupt Democrat Representative William Jefferson, but only in the mix of five names associated with scandal and the Republican Party. Most of the article examines Mark Foley, Tom DeLay (actually a pseudo-scandal in my), Duke Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff (his ties to the Democrats are conveniently sublimated). Finally, in the last two sections of the article, mention is made of Democrats Patrick Kennedy and Harry Reid (noting that he was cleared of charges by the Senate Ethics Committee).

No mention is made in the Fox News article of Lauren Weiner, Senator Schumer’s aide caught “doing opposition research” and convicted of illegally obtaining Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's credit report. No mention is made of the fact that Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton's fundraising operation was fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission in January 2006 for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in contributions to Clinton's Senate 2000 campaign. No mention is made of Sandy Berger, former National Security Advisor to President Clinton, for stealing and destroying highly sensitive documents from the National Archives even though a report detailing his weird and illegal antics was issued this past month by the Inspector General of the National Archives. No mention is made of Democrat Cynthia McKinney assault of a Capitol Hill police officer in April 2006 after refusing to go through a metal detector. No mention is made in this report of a lot of illegal and corrupt activities by our more liberal and therefore media-protected politicians.

Hopefully, but not likely, alarms are tripped in the minds of alert readers of this Fox News article when they see how much its author relies on Melanie Sloan for material and insight. Sloan is executive director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Just in case the reader missed it – that’s CREW, which Fox News simply refers to a watchdog group. (Wow, is that ever a misnomer!) Further research, however, notes that Sloan is Joe Wilson’s (as in Valerie Plame's husband) attorney and has been on the payroll of several very liberal congressmen, including Rep. John Conyers and Senators Charles Schumer and Joe Biden. CREW is the furthest thing from an evenhanded “watchdog” group – spending almost all of their time and resources on attacking conservative leaders.

If Fox News wants to remain known as being somewhat objective and unbiased it is my suggestion that they rely less on the trash submitted by CREW and do more of their own research and analysis. If time and resources prohibits such an endeavor, the least they could do is balance their reporting by taking a look at Judicial Watch, which just released their own list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2006.

Is Christmastime a little more

Than all the lights we see?

A little more than “Ho, Ho, Ho,”

And presents near the tree?

We find it hard to stop and think

While running here and there.

Make the cookies. Buy the gifts.

And decorate with care.

We hope the preparations

Bring the spirit of the season.

But sometimes do they get between

Us and the real reason...

For that which happened long ago,

A gift of precious worth,

The one God gave to you and me,

The child, of sacred birth?

Each year on His special day

We give to all we know.

To family, friends, and strangers too.

We share with hearts aglow.

But what to Him? What offering?

Amid this festive mirth,

Do we give the Savior, child,

To celebrate his birth?

Now looking back, in each year past

Before I shopped for toys,

I wished I first had picked a gift

For Mary's baby boy.

A special gift, that He and I

Might only understand,

But something He, himself, would choose

If He could use my hands.

Maybe just a little help,

A small or simple deed,

A way for Him to put his arm

Around someone in need.

A loaf of bread, or toys for tots.

Those little gifts delight.

But when the sparkly lights are gone.

Will their days be bright?

I do believe He wishes

Each was happy every day.

He says to bring them lasting joy

Just help them find their way.

I think he'd seek the ones he's lost

He'd look for those that roam.

To share the gospel true and clear

And bring their hearts back home.

Oh... There are so many souls

The ones that he would touch