After trashing the United States in front of a receptive audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland John Kerry signed autographs for former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

(AP) DAVOS, Switzerland Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become �??a sort of international pariah.�?�

�??When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don�??t advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy,�?� Kerry said.

�??So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East �?? in the world, really. I�??ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.�?�

Kerry said the government needs to use diplomacy to improve national security.

�??We need to do a better job of protecting our interests, because after all, that�??s what diplomacy is about,�?� he said. �??But you have to do it in a context of the reality, not your lens but the reality of those other cultures and histories.�?�

Kerry criticized what he called the �??unfortunate habit�?� of Americans to see the world �??exclusively through an American lens.�?�

Hot Air has the video.

Matt at Blackfive isn’t too happy.

Captain Ed points out some of the hypocrisy,

Once again, we have the spectre of Kyoto haunting the Bush administration, when it was the Clinton administration that refused to submit the treaty to the Senate — and the Senate that unanimously passed a resolution saying they’d never ratify it. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution in 1997 made it clear that the US would not allow itself to be bound by the treaty as long as it exempted India, China, and other developing nations. That’s the same position as the Bush Administration has taken — and the same position that John Kerry himself took in 1997 when he voted in favor of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

That’s yet another example of the hypocrisy of John Kerry — but there’s more.

Instapundit says that Kerry is following the Carter model,

Like Jimmy Carter, he’ll never forgive America for rejecting him, and he’ll console himself with the approval of America’s enemies.

Michael has a terrific new dispatch, Desolate Roads Part 1 of 2.

John Noonan of Op-For has an email from Michael which says the following,

[It's] getting pretty kinetic here. During my first 5 days we lost 6 KIA Americans and 1 terp, so that was 7, plus quite a few others who were really messed up. Serious business, but ISF making serious progress in Mosul. This place is dicey, though. I need to downgrade my initial assessment. The ISF is much better, but this “deal is not sealed” as it were. At this point I would say we are probably actually losing the war, but I really think this can be turned around. Petraeus is just the man who can do it. He’s brilliant and is ready to slam those militias. We need to kill Sadr. We will lose a lot of people taking on the militias, but we should either take them on or pack up and go home. I vote for killing them.

Michael also had this to say in a separate email,

My request to extend the embed with the 2/7 Cavalry has been approved and I am looking forward to being able to observe and report on the dynamic situation on the ground here. Already, two of my camera lenses, my ballistic goggles and other expensive gear have been damaged beyond repair. The support of readers will determine how much longer I will be able to continue this work.

If you are willing and able, support Michael’s work here.

When Mitt Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 he said that while he personally opposed abortion, he would �??protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts�?�Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government�??s.�?�

This raises an important question as to whether a person can be personally �??pro-life�?� and supportive of a �??women�??s right to choose�?� simultaneously as suggested by Mitt.

In short the answer is a resounding, no.

If you are �??pro-life�?� it means that you support legal protection for living human beings inside their mother�??s womb regardless of the stage of development.

Those who call themselves �??pro-choice�?� support the legal �??right�?� to abort their developing baby in the mother�??s womb. The term �??pro-choice�?� is actually a misnomer since the baby who is killed during an abortion �??procedure�?� never gets a �??choice�?� in the matter. Thus, people who don�??t support legal protection for developing babies in the womb are pro-abortion.

I would also like to ask Governor Romney if the 750,000 female babies in the womb who are killed every year in the US should have a �??choice�?� in the matter.

So, you can only be one or the other. It�??s understandable that politicians such as Romney, Kerry, and Clinton all say they personally �??oppose abortion�?� but don�??t believe they have a �??right to impose their beliefs on somebody else.�?� After all, they are attempting to appeal to both sides of the debate by staking out some �??moderate�?� more �??middle of the road�?� position.

As I write in my book �??Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies�?�

�??The bottom line is that those who call themselves �??pro-choice�?� oppose legal protection for the unborn and condone the murder of other developing babies. Indeed, one can�??t be pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously. The statement that �??I believe that abortion is murder and am personally opposed to murder but support a women�??s right to choose murder�?� is an irreconcilable, confused, and utterly absurd notion that is totally inane.�?�

It�??s like saying: �??I oppose slavery and would never own one personally, but don�??t think I have a right to impose my beliefs on others. It�??s a choice people have to make individually.�?�

Memo to Governor Romney: When you are elected to public office, your job is to advance the ideas and values you believe in and ran on and to codify them into law. So, in a way, as an elected representative of the people, your job is to impose your beliefs- which are ostensibly the shared beliefs of those who elected you to office- and to enshrine them into law. What do you think governors and presidents do, just let the people decided matters by the dictates of their own �??beliefs?�?� That a presidential candidate-especially a self-described conservative would hold such an opinion is fairly unsettling.

With regards to Romney�??s comment that, �??Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government�??s�?�- this too is totally inane and demonstrates to me that this is not the type of brain power we want occupying the White House. By his line of reasoning, government should not restrict abortion in any way even �??partial birth abortion�?� since it might conflict with a �??women�??s personal beliefs.�?� I wonder how Governor Romney would reconcile that incongruous position if questioned?

If the Republican party now feels that men such as Giuliani and Romney- liberal country club Republicans through and through-are qualified to lead the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, then we will have abandoned what Thomas Jefferson considered government�??s primary role- the protection of innocent human life. And when and if we take that step, that will be the beginning of the end for the Republican Party and, I believe, America.

Another amazing photo essay series from Michael Yon.

Part one, part two and now here’s part three. Enjoy.

As always, if you find this type of citizen journalism valuable, and can afford to support his work, please consider doing so here.

Gene Lalor of the always entertaining Citizen Journal has a great interview with Gregg which you can read in full right here.

One could make a strong case that the Bush administration has been negligent in its handling of post-Invasion Iraq, as well as its handling of the domestic insurgency here at home. It becomes more clear everyday that the Democrats are guilty not of negligence, but of criminal ignorance when it comes to Iraq and the war.

Take the new chair of the House Intelligence Committee (please) Silvestre “I Don’t Know Shiite” Reyes. “Chairman” Reyes was recently asked some basic Al Qaeda 101 questions by a reporter for Congressional Quarterly and he flunked badly,

A reporter recently directed the questions about Islam to Texas Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes. Reyes failed, which would perhaps not be a big deal if Reyes were an ordinary congressman.

But he�??s not. Come January, Reyes will chair the House Intelligence Committee, which oversees all U.S. intelligence activity, a good portion of which is directed toward the war on terror.
Reyes could not tell Congressional Quarterly�??s national security editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was made up of Sunnis or Shiites. From Stein�??s scathing column on the exchange:

�??Al Qaeda, they have both,�?� Reyes said. �??You�??re talking about predominately?�?�
�??Sure,�?� I said, not knowing what else to say.
�??Predominantly �?? probably Shiite,�?� he ventured.�?�

Now today we get word from ABC News, that noted member of the vast right wing conspiracy, that Al Qaeda in Iraq was not only behind attacks all across that country, but planning attacks in this country.

Details Emerge About Possible Terror Threat
Suspects, Reportedly Tied to Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sought Student Visas

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 �?? Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago “revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S.”

Has anyone asked Nancy Pelosi about this? After all, she told us recently that Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq and she knew so because of the 9/11 Commission. Seriously, that’s what she said.

November 28, 2006,

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is “sad” that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

“My thoughts on the president’s representations are well-known,” Pelosi said. “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.”

Never mind the fact that the 9/11 Commission in no way addressed the issue of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This women, the newly elected Speaker of the House, is on record as saying Al Qaeda is not operating in Iraq.

That very weekend, Tim Russert of Meet the Press, demonstrated his grasp of Democrat talking points by repeating Pelosi’s assertion to Stephen Hadley, the National Security Adviser. Russert’s questioning, and Hadley’s responses, are very illuminating,

Tim Russert asked National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to explain why President George W. Bush keeps harping on al Qaeda while discussing the insurgency in Iraq.

“Whenever the administration seems to be having trouble with Iraq, in terms of its message, al Qaeda comes front and center,” said Russert, before showing a clip of President Bush blaming insurgent violence on al Qaeda at a press conference during his visit to Estonia last week.

“Because it’s true, Tim,” Hadley responded.

Russert then asked, “It’s true, what?”

“It’s true,” Hadley insisted. “If you look at what Zarqawi said, who was the lead al Qaeda operative in Iraq, he articulated very early on a strategy for provoking sectarian violence by attacking Shi’a so they, in turn, would attack Sunni. This was part of their strategy to sow chaos, to thwart the advance of democracy and make Iraq a safe haven for terror.”

Hadley explained that despite the fact that Qaeda attacks comprised the “small[est] fraction of the total of incidents…they are responsible for some of most heinous incidents — the car bombings and other things that result in the massive — the large civilian casualties, and it is those casualties and those incidents that have provoked the reprisals that the president has talked about.”

“It’s very important for the American people to understand that there is a key al Qaeda piece in all of this, and that is why one of the principal responsibilities we have, the challenges we have, is to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq,” Hadley said.

Hadley added that Qaeda in Iraq was as much as a threat as Shiite death squads.

Four years in and the Democrats haven’t a clue who we are fighting or why. They only thing they have proven is that they have ZERO interest in fighting any longer. I feel safer already.

Matthew Currier Burden, author of Blog of War and proprietor of Blackfive joined us once again for Someone You Should Know, our weekly collaboration to bring the inspirational, true stories of the men and women fighting for us around the world to the radio.

This week, Matt told us the incredible story of Specialist Daniel Unger.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader

Tonight we had the pleasure of welcoming Claudia Rosett to Pundit Review Radio.

Her reporting on the UN Oil for Food scandal led to Congressional hearings and criminal indictments.

We discussed the UN Culture of Corruption and how it hurts our interests; the greatest hits of the Kofi Annan administration; the sacking of John Bolton; former President Jimmy Carter and would-be President Hillary Clinton.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Hailed as “Groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Leader.

I had the distinct honor of speaking with Alan Nathan and Tony Blankley on Alan’s nationally synidated talk show “The Alan Nathan Show” about the Democrats’ continued usurpation of exective powers with regard to funding the war.

Full audio here. (You can forward to the second half of the audio to listen to our discussion.

While I disagree with Joe Lieberman on virtually every one of his positions on social and economic issues, I have always agreed with his positions on the War on Islamic Totolitarianism. Perhaps his being Jewish and having relatives in the Holocaust has something to do with the fact that he clearly recognizes that totalitarian ideologies prey on weakness and can only be defeated with brute force.

He say down with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall St. Journal (subs req) this weekend to talk about Iraq, the president’s new plan, and his party. I know many of you don’t subscribe to the Wall St. Journal online so I will provide you with as many of the key excerpts as I can.

I only wish the answers he gave to the questions posed were positions shared by his fellow Democrats. It is obvious Lieberman was the last Truman-FDR-JFK Democrat left in the Senate before he officially became an Independent (he considers himself an “independent Democrat”). It’s too bad, because we need more men with the moral clarity and conviction of Senator Lieberman.

According to the Senator:

Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq-sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East. . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?” asks Mr. Lieberman. If only Livy had his quill today.

He goes on to say:

In 2003 “we did something that was right and courageous, which was to overthrow Saddam Hussein,” says Mr. Lieberman. “He was a genocidal dictator, he tried to assassinate a former American president, he used chemical weapons [on his] . . . own people . . . He was a hater of the United States.” Saddam was a danger, not to mention a barrier to creating a democratic Middle East that ceases to be a threat to the U.S.

On Bush’s Mistakes:

Mr. Lieberman, who returned from his latest visit to Iraq in December, freely acknowledges what he believes were “the series of mistakes that were made after Saddam Hussein was overthrown,” from the disbanding of the Iraqi army to our reluctance to send more troops (something he has advocated since the fall of 2003). Still, “we were getting to a point where we were making some significant progress–and it is important not to overlook this. There were three elections held. Those were a powerful demonstration of what no one is able to deny, even those who now want to turn away and give up on Iraq. Which is that the majority of the Iraqi people want a better life for themselves and their families. The majority is not involved in sectarian violence and clearly not involved in terrorism.”

And what about critics asking whether there are any guarantees the plan will work?

“None of us can be certain [the president's plan] is going to work; all the choices we have in Iraq right now are difficult. But by far, the one that is the worst, and would have disastrous consequences, is to pick up and leave, in small steps or in one large step, for all the reasons we know,” he replies, emphatically. He also wants to speak beyond the proposal itself, to its author. “I have admiration for the president, because I believe he gets it. He understands the challenge of our time, which is from Islamic extremism. . . . And he knows what he’s doing is not popular. But he’s doing it because he thinks it is right for the country.”

Democrat’s opposition?

Some feel let down because the WMDs were never found; others are “affected in a political context by the loss of public support.” But he ends up back at a baser truth, conceding that “some people, I just think have been partisan about this–and that, to me, is the worst reason.”

The dangers posed by the Democrat resolution to cut funding:

Mr. Lieberman is also frustrated that those supporting the resolution are dodging the tough questions. “The resolution that is being talked about, in one sense I’d say it is offensive, because it is only cosmetic. . . . It won’t affect the implementation of a new plan to succeed, to win in Iraq. But at the same time it will send a mixed message to those who are fighting for us in Iraq, and those who are fighting against us in Iraq. It will be a very graphic example . . . that we are divided.”

His challenge to fellow Dems:

“Part of the case would be, look, if you are really against the war and you are really against what the president is proposing, have the nerve to do what Congress under the Constitution is authorized to do: Move to cut off the funding and then let’s have a real head-to-head debate.”

Are there any alternatives?

The other alternative, of course, is to simply admit defeat. Some in Congress are working up the courage to say as much, and to further suggest that abandoning Iraq wouldn’t be all that bad. “People say this is just like Vietnam, we could leave, and that would be that. That won’t be that. We’re in a war which has it origins in this part of the world, in the Middle East, in the conflict within Islam. If we pull out and essentially surrender to the extremists and terrorists, they are naturally going to follow us right back to our shores.

“If we leave the place collapses. And it’s more than civil war, it’s ethnic cleansing. The Iranians come in and dominate a good chunk of the country. Al Qaeda takes over a good part and uses it as a base. The Kurds [can sustain themselves] but it gets very ominous. . . . And then the same group of people who attacked us on 9/11, they achieve a victory, and they will use that victory to strike at us again.”

And that is the very essence of the problem for Democrats. They have become the isolationist-anti-war McGovernite party who have not even begun to ask what would happen if we “redeployed” out of Iraq back home. Thankfully, Senator Lieberman has reminded them in addition to Republicans such as Snowe, Smith, and Hagel.

I hope they are listening.