Monday, December 11, 2006

We Will Never Forgive Ourselves...

Fellow Christian blogger FaultlineUSA has a really good post about the ISG and War on Terrorism. It's called "The Pinheaded “Art” of Retreat and Surrender".

Here's a portion:

“God will never forgive us if we break faith with our dead again.”

The above phrase is not a theological reflection, but the angst of a fictional mother who has lost husband and son to two World Wars. She sees that war will come again and again to those who fail to heed history’s lessons. It is not God who will never forgive us. It is we who will never forgive ourselves.

Unlike the propaganda films of an earlier era designed to build national unity, America chose instead to imbed reporters who often showed more sympathy for the terrorists than for our own soldiers. Instead of nation building works of fiction we served ourselves helping after helping of enemy generated fiction and disguised it as truth. Instead of holding some of our citizens accountable for acts of treason in time of war, we turned them into celebrities. Those of us who have remained silent are as guilty as the perpetrators.

The question today is, do we break faith with our dead soldiers by staying the course in Iraq, or by cutting and running? Or are there other options beyond the widely criticized Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report? I propose that there is only one viable option and that it's to show the world that we do have a center – a moral core – National unity – and the will to win!

Some good comments over there, too.

Here is a copy of my comment:

Wow! Powerful post FaultlineUSA!

I'm currently doing a post about Committing to God all that we do. It's interesting to apply the idea of "leaning on the arms of God" to this current ideological struggle between traditional culture warriors and secular-progressives (S-P's) in this country. When we lean on God, we can either lean forwards or backwards. Facing the fact that this war is unlike any other we have previously faced means that we cannot just "lean backwards" and let it fester unchallenged. That is what S-P's would want to do. Withdraw from Iraq and hope the terrorists don't follow us back here. They fail to see the big picture which means that we need to lean forward and work pre-emptively against our enemies.

The majority of our brave service men and women realize what is at stake in Iraq, in particular; as well as what is at stake in the general global war on terrorism. They have the attitude of claiming a goal and standard...that whatever they do, they live it out with 100% of all they've got for the sake of serving God, our nation, and our people!

It seems to me that in past wars, more civilian patriots in our nation agreed with such statements and mindset and thus we had more unity when it came to fighting and defeating the enemies against our nation.

[Added here: I am deeply saddened knowing that it was people of my "baby-boom" generation of the 60's that led us out of such patriotism and into the anti-war, anti-God, free sex, drugs and "flowers in your hair" type of licientious liberalism that was mainly responsible for America's first military defeat in Vietnam. We had the likes of the following since then (Hat tip to Atlas Shrugs):

Senator John Kerry

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by John Kerry with helping him achieve victory. Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S.

Bill Clinton

Pardoning terrorists, discussing troop movements while being pleasured by an intern, running an obstruction-of-justice operation out of the Oval Office and suborning and committing perjury.........

In acts of official perfidy that may be unparalleled in our nation’s history, Clinton accepted bribes from Red China in the form of illegal political contributions, and in exchange made policy decisions that undermined our national security.

• The Red Chinese military (the so-called People’s Liberation Army, or PLA) is now able to deploy much more accurate nuclear-armed missiles pointed at the United States, in large measure because of policy decisions by President Clinton

• President Clinton signed national security waivers to allow four U.S. commercial satellites to be launched in China, despite evidence that China was exporting nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan and Iran.

"How did it come about that highly sensitive technical information was given to the Chinese? Why did the president ignore the national security experts who counseled against this deal? What damage has been done to our national security?" Goss asked.

Clinton's terror failures are too numerous and damaging to recount here but Bill Clinton was the quintessential dhimmi. He allowed AL QAEDA CELLS - INCLUDING THE 9/11 CELL to OPERATE IN THE USA ignored the World Trade Center bombings of '93, ignored the Cole, the embassy bombings and handed Israel over to the most barbaric terrorist of the late twentieth century, Yassar Arafat.

and that's just for starters...........

Clinton-era policies ignored Able Danger (Mohammed Atta et al)

Get all the facts, Click here for the latest News and Streaming Video on Able Danger

More Clinton Damage

As if the botched 1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea, whereby the Clinton administration provided Pyongyang with materials for building a nuclear reactor, wasn’t enough, allegations are now being made that the Clinton administration may have also provided Iran with blueprints to build a nuclear weapon.

Jimmy Carter

The Carter White House during the disasters of the Sandinista takeover of Nicaragua, the energy crisis and stagflation, the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, and the invasion of Afghanistan. Not backing the Shah of Iran in 1979, our close ally in the Middle East, resulted in the take over by Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini which brings us to where we are today with Iran.

Time magazine columnist wrote that some of Carter's "Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason"

Carter befriended North Korea during the Clinton administration, appeasing the communist regime and giving it cover for its nuclear weapons program.

[Note: And how did the worst president, an inexperienced peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter come into office?]

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two leftwing cub/pitbull reporters at the Wahington Post, intent on bringing down President Nixon.

And they did. After being exposed for covering for his people (not guilty of the break-in, mind you), Nixon resigned. Imagine if Nixon had been a democrat. Would that ever have happened? The shenanigans of Democrat Presidents going back to JFK's stolen election are wildly known (don't even get me started on Bill).

What made this left wing assault on America so damaging is the subsequent road America went down. Had it not been for Watergate, America- leery and distrusting of the GOP after Nixon's resignation - would never have elected a Democrat, an unknown peanut farmer to the office of the President. A man so out of his league, a man so incapable of the office of the President, that we are still suffering from his ineptitude. Imagine if Reagan had been President when the leader of one of our greatest allies in the Middle East, Iran, called upon the President for help. Imagine the course of history, if you will, if we had backed the Shah of Iran. Imagine what a different world this would be.

According to many Iranians, Carter practically pushed out the Shah and gave Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini (much the way he relinquished control of the Panama Canal).

Ward Churchill

In a treatise titled, "Some People Push Back," written after the attacks, Churchill asserted the 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center worked for "the mighty engine of profit" but chose to ignore their role.

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break."

Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II.

There are several more listings of the damage that S-P's have done to America at Atlas Shrugs sidebar.

Prepare yourself for an education!

Decided to add one more link. See the page on:

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs ]

Back to my comment:

Today, we have, as you touched on in your post, those who desire appeasement rather than victory; "peace at any expense" rather than national unity for the safety and security of our people; horrible name-calling against people who work hard for us in our government rather than showing just the basic respect for their position(s) that they deserve; the anti-war crowd who don't care that what they say and do can demoralize, injure and even kill our soldiers who are in harms way during this war. How ironic it is that our military personnel risk their lives every day for such people who turn around and use their "free speech rights" in a way that gives aid, comfort, and emboldens our enemies! S-P's are of the superfluous mindset that all worldviews should be viewed as equal and we don't have the right to "judge" others for their actions.

Could you imagine if we had to fight WWII with the current liberal left loonie cultural mindset that is present in the secular-progressive leftist worldview? What would it have been like if they were around back then, intent on spouting their negative propaganda rhetoric like they do today?

Yet this is what we face now, during our WWIII fight with Islamo-fascism being incorrectly labeled "freedom fighters" by the likes of Cindy Sheehan and her ilk... Someone ought to show her and her groupies the Obsession: Radical Islam's War With the West documentary so she could see how utterly stupid her worldview is!

Great post! Keep up the good work!


limpy99 said...

"Could you imagine if we had to fight WWII with the current liberal left loonie cultural mindset that is present in the secular-progressive leftist worldview?"

Yeah, I can imagine that. Know why? BECAUSE IT HAPPENED!!!!

During WWII President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the very picture of an eastern seaborad elite liberal, was president, (except briefly towards the end when Truman took over after FDR's death), and had, I think substantial majorities in Congress as well for most of it.

In short, not only can I imagine this, anyone with access to a history book can do the very same thing.

ebsfwan said...

Hehehe..oh dear. I was thinking the same thing. :)

Christinewjc said...


If you want to label Roosevelt a "liberal left loonie" that is your prerogative. In my book, not all Democrats rank as LLL's.

The current leftist LLL Democrats are a far cry from the Democrats in the era in which I grew up (e.g. JFK). Thus, I would imagine that they are an even further cry from the era of, and likes of FDR.

It seems to me that you are trying to take some credit where it is obviously not due.

But then...I'm not as well versed in history as you and ebsfwan apparently are.

I find it strange that neither one of you even mentioned or addressed the damage done that I listed by Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Churchill etc. Hmmm...wonder why that is?

Should have included Sandy Berger and his pants stuffing episode in with the Able Danger links. I'll have to get busy and find some...should be easy enough!

Hehehe...Oh dear!

limpy99 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
limpy99 said...

Whoops, that didn't work. That was my comment. I just deleted it. I'm a moron.

Let's see:

1) I didn't call FDR a left-wing loonie. But he was a Democrat, and he did lead a very liberal agenda, and he did get hammered by the right-wing of the country for doing it. I'd agree that JFK was certainly more conservative than the Democrats you attack these days. If you have read "The Best & The Brightest" by David Halberstam, there are some surprising/scary similarities between our early involvement in SE Asia and our current involvement in the Middle East.

2) I didn't address your allegations about Clinton, et al because frankly, I've seen that "Atlas Shrugs"site you cited as your source for the Gen. Giap quot, (couldn't find it there), and that woman is a LUNATIC. If she told me the sun rose in the east I'd put sunglasses on and look west!

3) What the heck. First, and I'm going to swear here, Ward Churchill is an asshole. That's all there is to it. No argument from me for old Ward there. He's on his own little island of assholes as far as I'm concerned. Couldn't dislike him more f I tried. I find with people like that, the best thing to do is ignore them. If you pay attention to them, they grow bigger. If you ignore them, they shrink.

C/mon, Sandy Berger was joking! No one could be that stupid, could they? Could they? OK, he's an idiot. I have no excuse for him.

Clinton didn't ignore the '93 WTC bombing. The people around it were arrested, tried and convicted. Today they rot in jail cells. The world is a better place. No wars were started to bring them to justice. Regarding North Korea, I know Clinton gets blamed for this, but it's not clear to me that anyhtinghe did or didn't do would've made any difference. It's a closed society with help from China and Pakistan's little renegade scientist. Certainly Bush hasn't done any better. Now they have missles, although apparently none that can do much more than go around the block once or twice before the rubber band breaks. I don't even begin to know what you mean by Clinto handing Israel over to Arafat. Arafat's dead, his party is out of power even in Gaza, and Israel is still around.

Jimmy Carter certainly won't go down as one of the best-loved presients, but let's not forget the whole Camp David Accrods and the fact that Israel and Egypt have been at peace since.

Faultline USA said...


I’m honored that you chose to excerpt from Faultline USA blog in your blog today. I’m glad you took the time to list those licentious liberals and their favorite leaders, some of whom like Carter, have become far more leftist with each passing year.

If you haven’t had a chance to go back to read the additional comments on Faultline USA today, I left you this response:

Christinewjc: I look forward to reading your post about Committing to God and leaning on the arms of God. With regard to the S-Ps, I believe that we need to understand that many of them see the big picture but don’t care because they have another agenda. They hail from the deconstructive school of anarchistic knowledge. In other words, they believe that to fix this country they have to tear it apart completely and then rebuild a glorious socialistic nation from the remaining ashes. The rest of the S-P’s are newbie dupes.

I still believe that the great majority of American citizens believe as we do, but have become cowed by the noise from the left. Additionally, we’ve become a nation, as Anonymous #1 said, that is far too used to instant gratification.

You are right there is a great irony in the free-speech rights that our soldiers fight and die to defend that ends up hurting our efforts. I’ve always believed in universal truths and one UT that I’ve noticed is that if you go too far in any good direction, you usually end up in a very bad place.

It’s interesting to look at the loonie left in pre WWII times. Not surprisingly they consisted of the university “intelligentcia,” artists types, and Hollywood. Fortunately, they didn’t have 60+ years to take control of the media and hone their devilish trade. Today, we have an uphill struggle!

Keep up the fantastic work!!!

Christinewjc said...


There are some conservative Democrats, but few and far between. Plus, the liberal left secular-progressives (LLS-P's for short)are so controlling that they wouldn't let a blue-dog Democrat speak at their convention if he/she was pro-life!! You see, they are for "free speech" as long as they agree with your free speech ideology!

Look at what they put Sen. Joe Lieberman through, just because he agrees with President Bush on the Iraq war. They practically, (strike that...)actually kicked him out of the party in the 2006 election!! Now, they're trying to woo him back into their ravenous wolf fold. If I were Joe, I'd become a Republican just to spite them all!

So, if you think Atlas Shrugs is a lunatic, do you think the same about me? Our blogs display very similar ideological positions.

Ward Churchill is done. Good riddance! His legacy is at the top of the pile of dung in the trash heap of history.

About Clinton. I think that his mistake (as well as most Democrat's mistakes) was thinking that the judicial system in our country was the only "tool" that we needed to use against the terrorism threat here. Therefore, he did nothing to beef up our national security (plus the worst attorney general in history, Janet Reno and her co-hort Jamie Gorelick didn't help with their stupid laws on the books that prevented various agencies from talking with eachother about security issues, threats, and finds)so that perpetrators like Youseff and the blind sheik could be flagged, monitored and caught before doing damage to our nation.

I could be incorrect about this, but isn't Hamas a division of the PLO? Or were they rivals? I'm not sure about that. But at the time that Arafat was in power, the do-nothing Clinton admin treated Arafat like a Palestinian "diplomat" when he was actually more like a terrorist thug.

Jimmy Carter has failed in so many ways I can't even keep count anymore. You read the excerpt. Any good he did was far outweighed by the bad, IMO.

ebsfwan said...

I think the liberals of the past are the conservatives of today. And that is the way that it always is really.

The liberals always win eventually. Look at how our society has changed over time. We no longer have slavery, we have equal rights for all races, we have equal rights for women and so forth. Conservatives in earlier generations fought against these things. Liberals of the day fought for them.

Same today - gay marriage etc. will happen. It's become a fact in many parts of the world already. It's only a matter of time. Ten years, twenty years, it doesn't really matter. It will happen.

And then even conservatives will defend it. ;) It's happened before, it will happen again.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Faultline,

I tried to post a comment at your blog today and for some odd reason, was not able to do so. Here it is:

Hi Faultline,

Thanks for your kind and informative response! I think you are so right about conservatives and Christians being afraid to counter the social licientiousness
and political socialist mindset of the left.

At a recent Bible study closing meeting, I was asked to review what I learned from God on the subject of righteousness. During my presentation, one of the
leaders cut me off (using the time excuse) when I brought up some social issues (homosexuality, abortion, Hollywood insanity etc.) that are currently reeking
havoc in our nation! It appeared to me that she only wanted me to share the "fluff" of the subject and none of the reality that is going on today!

Too many Christians want to put their heads in the sand and hope that it just all "goes away."

That's not my style. I will fight against these social and political issues that are damaging to our country until the day I die!

In fact, I am motivated to write a book about my encounters with people on various issues (both those who agree and disagree with the Biblical worldview).

I realize that not every Christian is equipped and gifted to be a "culture warrior." But those that would do absolutely nothing to combat the ACLU
and their ilk are going to find that evil organization running roughshod all over their rights! (i.e. freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of association etc.)

Sorry for ranting but it is just the subject that I am so driven to discuss and combat. I bring up such issues continually at my blog.

I've been really busy lately and haven't finished that post about "Committing to God" yet. I should have the time later this afternoon or this evening. It consists of notes I took on Sunday during Dr. David Jeremiah's "Turning Point" sermon and it's really good! It speaks directly to our efforts as Christians, despite the secular agenda which would want to halt us, to advance the kingdom of Christ.

Keep up your great work here Faultline! Us "culture warriors" need to stick


limpy99 said...

"Atlas Shrugs" appears to be mostly concerned with Israel above all else. The tone of her blog, to me, seems more akin to Dani's than yours, if concerend with different topics. No, I do not put you two in the same categories. People with similar political view points have different ways of expressing them. You are open to conversation. I don't get that sense from Geller.

I live in CT and voted against Lieberman. He remains a Democrat. In fact, he never resigned from the party, even while running as an independent. I think that the war was the reason he lost the primary certainly, but for me the issues went deeper. I don't trust him and I think is first thought is always how any particular issue helps him, and that's how he'll act. I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me, but I've just never liked the guy. In fact I voted for at least one Republican candidate for Senate, although not the child-molesting mayor from 2000.

However, you are correct, Iraq was definitely a litmus test for candidates this year, and I think the results of the election, overall, speak to what the country thinks on the subject. In terms of "blue-dog" Democrats being barred from speaking, I'd be surprised to see that happen again, because an awful lot of them got elected this year. They will have significant clout.

See, I think that this war, the one on terror, needs to be fought primarly with the courts and other assets that can cut the terrorists off from funding and other support systems. I don't think fighting an amorphous enemy that doesn't respect borders or civilians with an overwhelming military will do any good, and in fact will backfire. There is, of course, a place for the military in this fight and to that end I wholeheartedly support developing a greater number of special-operations type forces that can be quickly deployed as circumstances warrant to take out confirmed targets. And, in a stance I suspect you'll agree with, if we, for example, locate Bin Laden in, say Uzbekistan, I really don't expect us to go asking the Uzbeks for permission before we shoot him. If we announce ahead of time that these are our targets, here's our proof, and if he's in your country, well, you might want to duck, you will never hear a peep out of me.

Hamas and the PLO are rivals. The PLO might be opertaing under a different name now, I think Fatah, but they were the ones who set up a governement under the Gaza treaty, then Hamas won the elections, and now they both hate each other and pretty soon there should be quite the armed conflict going on in Gaza.

Clinton's treatment of Arafat goes back to our primary difference. You won't deal with a "terrorist thug" for any reasons, for which I can't say I blame you, but you also won't get anything done. Arafat was the only game in town when dealing with the Palestinians. I'd hold my nose, (literally in his case), and do what needed to be done to try to bring peace about.

Christinewjc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christinewjc said...


(Let's try that again. I had way to many typos in the first post!)

Why do you think that Lieberman won the election? Are there more conservatives than liberals in CT? Do you think it might be the fact that he wasn't a "flip-flopper" like Kerry on the Iraq war? Maybe you don't trust him, but apparently a lot of voters in CT do.

I appreciate your saying that I'm open to conversation about issues. Many people probably wouldn't agree with your assessment. They consider me closed minded. Oh well...can't please everyone.

I had a brain freeze! I knew that Hamas was a rival of the PLO. That's why they won the election. The people were tired of the nonsense (and inaction to get life in the Palestinian territores improved) of the PLO. I guess when Arafat died, so did the dominance of his party.

You might barf when I say this, but I think that Donald Rumsfeld is a very smart man who transformed our military for the 21st century terror war that we are now facing. He didn't do it fast enough. He made some mistakes. But overall, I think that he was right regarding the threat of terrorism that globally exists.

You said, "See, I think that this war, the one on terror, needs to be fought primarly with the courts and other assets that can cut the terrorists off from funding and other support systems. I don't think fighting an amorphous enemy that doesn't respect borders or civilians with an overwhelming military will do any good, and in fact will backfire. There is, of course, a place for the military in this fight and to that end I wholeheartedly support developing a greater number of special-operations type forces that can be quickly deployed as circumstances warrant to take out confirmed targets."

I can agree with some of what you said. This is a different kind of war that does need to be fought on several fronts. I think that we are doing that. We just don't hear about it all the time (which is good because when we do hear about such tactics it gets back to the terrorists and they change their strategies).

But I do think that the Iraq war is pivotal in this fight. We cannot allow a safe haven for terrorists to develop there.

The "rival tribe" violence that is going on right now is awful, but was inevitable because of years of hatred between Sunnis and Shias.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the fact that there is 50% unemployment in Iraq doesn't help things, either. Since it's a young democratic government, they aren't going to be able to solve such issues overnight. But I do think that we can't stay there forever and police the situation. Maliki needs to speed up the transition from our soldiers to the Iraqi soldiers and police.

You said, "You won't deal with a "terrorist thug" for any reasons, for which I can't say I blame you, but you also won't get anything done. Arafat was the only game in town when dealing with the Palestinians. I'd hold my nose, (literally in his case), and do what needed to be done to try to bring peace about."

The reason I wouldn't deal with a "terrorist thug" (like Arafat when he was alive) is because they say what we, here in America, want to hear in English on our T.V. news, then in Arabic behind closed doors they chant "death to America" and "death to Israel."

Have you seen the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West? It's not to be missed! I think that if you saw it you might reconsider any motivation to be willing to deal with such people. They are so radicalized that nothing would deter them from their goals. And they start turning them into terrorists at such young ages! I was so deeply saddened to see young boys and girls spouting such awful terrorist rhetoric!

I saw the documentary online via YouTube (until it was taken off by google), and I just received the DVD in the mail today. I plan to watch it again tomorrow. I even bought a second DVD to give to some liberal relatives back east! :-O

Anyway, thanks for your pleasant way of "differing" with me. I'm used to the likes of GMpilot who usually calls me names! ha!

Saltnlight said...

Hi Christine:

Has anyone here ever gone to the site Christian Action Network?

Go read some of the stuff over there.

Saltnlight said...

Hatred is bigger than you think;
(AFP) Iran has pressed on with a controversial Holocaust conference as international outrage mounted over its hosting of "revisionist" historians who cast doubt on the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.

(Homeland Security News) The risk from terrorists in the Christmas period is "very high indeed" and the struggle against Muslim terrorism will last at least 30 years, John Reid, the Home Secretary, said yesterday.

Mr Reid echoed the view of MI5 that there are around 30 major terrorist plots under way and the terrorists only "have to be lucky once".

(AP) VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI expressed his admiration for Muslims and Islam on Wednesday, and called for freedom of religion and faith that rejects all forms of violence.

All across America, mosques are preaching violent hatred of Americans to young Muslim converts.

They are teaching them how to STRIKE, WITH VIOLENCE, RIGHT IN OUR BACKYARDS!

And here’s another bloodcurdling fact you may not be aware of:

Radical Muslim leaders have even been holding conventions in American cities, American hotels and American civic centers...

...preaching terrorism against Americans.

These meetings have taken place in Detroit, Kansas City, Chicago, Oklahoma City and more

For example, a Muslim convention in Oklahoma City distributed a coloring book for children called, "How to Kill an Infidel." Yes! A murderous coloring book for Muslim children on how to kill infidels!

But there's more.

There have been training sessions on how to build and plant car bombs and how to handle explosives and grenades.

This occurred at a Ramada Inn of all places!

There are even videos on how to interrogate and execute "collaborators."

So, my question is this. How will we ever know who it is that is not lying? How will we ever know who is radical and who is not. For one thing we have just about destroyed our children with divorce and the like. They carry a great load of bitterness with them. What better candidate for being in Jihad??

Saltnlight said...

One thing is certain. We are going exactly in the direction told us in the Word of God. Things are getting worse and worse, men are lovers of self and no longer can stand sound doctrine but want their ears tickled.

People flock to the false teachers and bow down to them. A pretty name and a good book on how you can do it yourself is what it takes now. No more hell and brimstone.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Saltnlight!

Nice to see you back here commenting!

Take a look at these two articles about Jimmy Carter's controversial (a.k.a. STUPID!) statements regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Stein said: "Does that mean killing Jews is legitimate? Did I misread this? I don't think so. If he wrote it, he is endorsing violence, which is not the original purpose of the Carter Center.

Of course, the mainstream media won't cover this like the Web and blogs do!!

Carter to Leno: Treatment of Palestinians 'horrible'
Jimmy fails to mention onslaught of terrorist attacks against Israelis

Christinewjc said...

Whoa!! Here's a scary scenario:

Zucker takes on the Iraq Study Group