I have firmly believed since 9/11/2001 that World War 3 is nearly inevitable. The Islamofascists want this war and will do everything they can to force it upon us.
In a post earlier today, Hugh Hewitt quoted from President Lincoln's second Inaugural address:

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Just as they did 141 years ago Lincoln's words cut to the very heart of truth. No matter what we do the Islamofascist's ultimate goal is war.

Today's events in Israel bring us to another critical moment in history. Israel responded swiftly, but this is just the beginning.

I called Hugh's show earlier today after he stated Israel should bomb Damascus (one of Hezbollah's puppet masters) tonight. My gut agrees but the question is and the one I asked Hugh is what then?

Will an air raid on Damascus be the preface for a larger war in the middle east?

How would Syria respond, or their allies and Hezbollah's patriarch Iran?

Hugh answered they would do nothing. That the Syrians know they would loose a war with Israel. That sounds far too simple to me.

We are continuously told that our hands are tied with Iran and their nuclear ambitions because we are already occupied with Iraq, and Afghanistan and that the Iranian army would be a much tougher fight than Saddam's Baathists. These concerns come from not only from the usual doves but some active duty and retired generals as well.

If Iran chooes to enter this war, and their president has been nothing but bellicose since his pseudo election, the US will certainly be drawn into it as well. An Israeli attack on Damascus would be seen by Achmadinawhackjob as a perfect moment to walk the walk.

As with all power mad, and delusional tyrants he has far more bravado than brains. Carelessly starting a world war is exactly what his kind are prone to. He would view the death of millions of Iranians as a glorious and noble moment in history, not the horrific and needless waste of life that it will be.

I am not arguing against US involvement. We must certainly support our ally Israel when and if they call for help. My only question is the timing. Do we want this war now?

Are we ready for this war now?

I fear too many Americans are not. A greater war in the middle east would undoubtedly be blamed on George Bush by the world and by many on the left here at home. The naked provocations of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Iranian theocracy all but forgotten.

There is little doubt the islamofascists will continue to provoke both the United States and Israel until they eventually get the war they are seeking. Regardless we may have to wait for another 9/11 before Americans are united in their resolve to face the threat of islamofascism and crush it once and for all.

War may come tonight or it may be delayed for several months or even years but sooner or later War Will Come.

I hope and pray I am wrong.

Anyone who has been reading the blog for a while knows that I consider my friend George at GM's Corner my "blogfather". George has had a lot of stuff going on lately; being diagnosed with Cancer several months back, A successful surgery, and on-going Chemotherapy (only 4 more treatments!), then the launching of his new Radio show on Wide Awakes Radio.

So I was very pleasantly surprised when George hit me with two proposals. First he asked if I would like to post on his blog from time to time and offered to contribute some content here on occasion. I of course said yes. Expect to see something from George soon.

Then he really blew me away when he asked me if I would like to be his guest on his Inaugural  radio program. WHOAH! I am flattered and looking forward to joining George next Thursday from 7 to 8pm PST on Wide Awakes Radio.

Please tune in next week and please welcome George Roper the newest contributor to The Real Ugly American.

Iranian born, pro-democracy activist Amil Imani has a must read article titled Is Islam Misrepresented: HT/ to Hyscience

Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas.

A case in point is the media’s portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits—the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is a religion of peace, in spite of the fact that Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, “Islam is religion of peace” is repeated so often that it has become an undisputable statement of fact in the mind of many.

Even a cursory examination of Islam’s history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite of peacefulness. Islam was and continues to be a movement of unbridled violence.

The Arabs who sallied out of the Arabian deserts did not fan out to the outside world with the Quran in one hand and flowers in the other, preaching love and peace from street corner to street corner, thereby capturing the hearts and minds of the people. Islam was forced on every people at the point of the sword and the imposition of backbreaking jazyyeh (special taxes) levied on those who were spared death and allowed to retain their religious beliefs. In spite of paying heavy Jazyyeh, the non-Muslims were treated, at best, as second class citizens in their own homelands.

The abominable persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is a standard operating procedure. In many Islamic countries non-Muslim marriages are not recognized as legal unions and the children of the couples are stigmatized as bastards. Never mind Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism, even Egypt, the more civilized Islamic country and recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. aid, treats non-Muslims as second class citizens and deprives them of their legitimate human rights.

Please read the whole thing.

Richard at Hyscience asks the 64 million dollar question:

Sour grapes from a disenchanted Muslim, or dire warnings from "an insider" that needs more attention?

and has much more. including this:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made peace treaties with some pagan tribes and others. He also did the same with the Jews of Madinah and the Christians of Najran. However, he did this for the sake of Islam and Muslims.

Therefore, befriending non-Muslims and building political alliances is not forbidden per se; they are based on the goal and the possible consequences.

Iraq has to continue its efforts to disarm and disband Shi'ite militias such as the Mahdi Army and its spinoffs. They present an acute problem as today has proven; bombs hit three Sunni mosques and one Sunni cleric has been abducted, and Shi'ite militias are the logical suspects. As long as these kinds of activities continue to occur, it will present a rationalization for the Sunnis to reject political engagement in a federal system and to rely on the native insurgencies for tit-for-tat protection that could produce a civil war.

Chronically, these militias will undermine the authority of the federal government. No government that hopes to survive can allow armed gangs to impose their own will on citizens without the citizens losing faith in the government and the system that put it in place. While Nouri al-Maliki presses for an end to the Sunni-based insurgencies, he has to also work towards an end to the Shi'ite militias, else the Sunnis will see this as a biased approach to governance and reject it. Maliki has to establish a monopoly on organized force in Iraq in order to bring security and stability to the nation.

The Iraqis made a good start of it today. If they can continue this effort, they will go a long way towards establishing credibility as a government dedicated to protecting all of their citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

I agree completely. In order for this government to succeed it has to represent all Iraqis. al-Maliki continues to impress me as a man of action who is committed to a stable and peaceful Iraq.

The Islamofascists sure don't. Read this story at the New York Daily News.

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Counterterrorism officials are alarmed by the "lone wolf" terror plot because they allegedly got a pledge of financial and tactical support from Jordanian associates of top terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before he was killed in Iraq, a counterterrorism source told The News.

It's good to see somebody at the FBI is on the case:

The FBI discovered the plot by monitoring Internet chat rooms, where the aspiring terrorists discussed striking the U.S. economy, rather than causing mass casualties, a source said.

"They're hell-bent on destroying the economy in the U.S.," a counterterrorism source said.

others blogging:

Ranting Profs point out something I was thinking when reading the story:

But given that this is an on-going investigation it would have been better if this hadn't come out.

Captain Ed point out how critical it is to penetrate terrorists communications networks before they strike:

this shows the value in having national-security agencies involved in tracking international communications. While many bemoan the idea of "Big Brother", and for some good reason, our safety demands that we catch these terrorists before they strike. Just as in any war, that means we have to penetrate their communications. The terrorists, not having the centralized government of an actual state, use decentralized communications and exploit Western openness on our own systems instead. In this case, we found out about the plot by eavesdropping on Internet chat rooms, but we can certainly bet that once we found this, we started tracing and tracking all kinds of communications to identify the perpetrator and any contacts he made.

The Strata-Sphere says this story is proof of the damage the NYT Swift story caused:

That means the NY Times stories exposing our anti-terrorism defences did threaten this ongoing investigation. We have the NSA monitoring the overseas communications (and probably and overseas chat room), and then we have the FBI following the leads to the jihadists here. And there was financial tracking from elements in Jordan. How is the NY Times going to dismiss the fact this investigation was definitely at risk of being lost through their carelessness and cavalier attitudes?

When I first read the headline "President Has a Smooth Ride on Larry King Live" I thought hmmm can it be the Times doing a friendly story on the President?

Not really. Here is how the article begins:

Two kinds of celebrities go on "Larry King Live" on CNN: those with something to sell and those with something to hide.

Al Gore and Brandon Routh, the young star of the newly released "Superman Returns," recently appeared on the show to promote their new movies. The second category includes guests like Star Jones Reynolds, Mary Kay Letourneau, and, right after his indictment in 2004, Kenneth L. Lay of Enron. "Larry King Live" is the first stop in any damage control operation — a chance to explain oneself to the least contentious journalist in the land.

And that is why President Bush invited the CNN talk show host to the White House on his 60th birthday. The standoff with North Korea over its missile tests, the war in Iraq and ever-sliding ratings in the polls have given the president little reason to celebrate. Mr. King gave the president a chance to defend his policies without risk of interruption or follow-up.

At times, Mr. King even provided the president with answers. "You've always had a lot of compassion for the Mexican people," the interviewer interjected in a discussion of the president's immigration bill. Mr. Bush seemed a little surprised, but grateful. "Yes, sir!" he replied.

Honestly this newspaper is a piece of crap and Allesandra Stanley who wrote the article is the poster child for agenda journalists. Maybe thats why she writes in the "TV Watch" section.

Outside the Beltway has a transcript of the interview.

Alexandra doesn't like Allesandra much either.

One of the most blatantly disgusting front page editorials from Alessandra Stanley at the Washington bureau of the treacherous New York Times this morning, shamelessly and openly placing the President in the same category as the convicted and now deceased Kenneth Lay of Enron.

Newsbusters points out her report is factually incorrect.

Bush fans would look silly to describe Bush's poll ratings as good. But they have been creeping upward since the killing of Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The PollingReport.com summary shows that several polls have him up a bit since a low point in early May:

Here's a lefty throwing a temper tantrum over the interview.

LOL Hugh Hewitt Skewers Ms. Stanley and her boss, the cowardly Bill Keller:

Ms. Stanley, would you ask Mr. Lichtblau or Mr. Keller to return my calls, or those of my producer, or just e-mail me at hugh@hughhewitt.com? The audience on the radio program and Townhall.com is quite large, and the questions calm and respectful.

It is the answers, I think, that Keller is afraid to provide.

I don't know anything about this guy except what I read in his latest post. Here are a few excerpts:

all of us who want a comparatively quick end (six months at a maximum) to the madness and murder in Iraq will lose. All of us who want the thuggish, anti-Constitutional Bush administration to be reined it, at least a little bit, will lose. The United States will lose. The Iraqis will lose. And the world will lose.

Ok we disagree from the start. next:

The Democrats dare not say that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were immoral and completely unjustified at their core. They dare not because many of them supported it, and they now have to explain away their earlier position by various strategems that convince no one.

They dare not say it because it will ensure exactly what you say you fear a huge Democratic defeat.

It hardly takes a genius to realize that the Bush gang of war criminals is now setting up Iran in the same precise manner they set up Iraq. It appears that this scenario is intended to reach its climax in the fall -- just in time for the elections.

I really hate getting into personal attacks especially with people I don't know but this just sounds insane to me.

We do agree on one thing:

THE DEMOCRATS ARE ENTIRELY UNPREPARED. THEY HAVE NO ANSWER.

Then its back to incomprehensive rambling.

Any military attack by the United States on Iran within the foreseeable future -- even an attack using only conventional weapons -- would be profoundly immoral, and eternally unforgivable.

(his emphasis not mine)

Huh? There is no context here. Are you saying there are no conditions that would justify American military action? What if they bombed Israel? What if they were caught red handed attacking Americans in Iraq?, or supporting terrorists planning or succeeding in attacking the United States? Would that change your outlook?

The next sentence is just plain untrue:

Remember the critical facts: all experts agree that Iran is approximately five to ten years away from having a nuclear weapon

Here are some who disagree, here, and here

How close is Iran to getting a nuclear bomb?

Somewhere between two and 10 years. But the answer to that question depends upon whom you ask

It's late and I have to get to bed. I will come back to this post tomorrow but I would like to know who Arthur Silber is and how we can both have access to the same set of facts yet have two entirely different views of the world.

Morton Kondracke has a must read at Roll Call (subscription required). It seems moderate GOP Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, has created something called the Suburban Agenda. The GOP leadership has bought into it and its working.

Kirk, who represents North-suburban Chicago, told me, “I noticed that the Republican Party was led by mostly Southern and rural Members, starting with [Speaker] Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) from the cornfields of Illinois. And the Democratic Party is led by Members representing the central urban cores. [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is from central San Francisco. The American people live in between.

“Washington may think this is small-bore. It’s not the war on terror. But this is an agenda that people care about in their everyday lives — their kids’ safety, health care, their ability to send their kids to college.”

wait you mean politicans are doing something about issues voters care about? This is exactly why the GOP keeps winning majorities and why the Dems are still out in the wilderness.

There is more. This is just the beginning for Kirk:

Kirk is already working on a “second wave” of suburban bills, including one sponsored by Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) that would allow workers who lose their jobs to keep their health insurance for life, not just 18 months, as provided under current COBRA law.

Another bill would give teachers permission to search students for dangerous weapons without fear of litigation.

Can anyone tell me what the last good idea was coming from anyone in the Democratic Party?