by Lance Thompson

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave Barack Obama a boost last week by meeting with the Democrat presidential nominee and endorsing Obama’s plan for a troop pullout in the German magazine Der Spiegel. Such profound gratitude has not been shown since the Brits voted out Winston Churchill after leading his nation safely through World War II.

Now that President Bush and General Petraeus have done the heavy lifting of knocking off Saddam Hussein, putting down insurrection, and fighting al-Qaeda and Iraqi Quds Force terrorists, al-Maliki is evidently anxious to get rid of his country’s saviors. "Here’s your hat–what’s your hurry?" is a phrase that comes to mind.

Maybe President Bush deserves no thanks for freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, despite intense political pressure to cut and run and the abject defeatism embodied by the Democrats. Maybe our armed forces deserve no appreciation for defending Iraqis from their enemies, both foreign and domestic, and rebuilding the country from electrical grids to schools and hospitals. Maybe John McCain deserves no credit for backing a vastly unpopular troop surge last year that resulted in the relatively safe and thriving Iraq that Obama breezed through on his very tardy visit to the central front on terror. But at least al-Maliki could have remained neutral in the American presidential election, rather than hosting and endorsing the plans of the candidate who fought against the Iraq war from the very beginning (until Obama realized we were winning).

Maybe al-Maliki thinks Obama has the election clinched, and wants to buddy up with the new Commander-in-Chief. But the slight was no accident–it was a deliberate slap in the face of the people who made it possible for al-Maliki to rise to his position of leadership of an emerging democracy.

In a similar exhibition of inexcusable ingratitude, the American people seem anxious to see the end of the Bush administration. With approval polls below 30%, Bush is one of the least popular presidents in recent history. Certainly, Bush has made many mistakes. He’s soft on illegal immigration, he championed the immensely expensive prescription drug bill, and he kept his veto pen in the drawer while the Republican congress spent like drunken Democrats.

But in the war against the Islamic jihadists that hit our shores on 11 September 2001, President Bush has been resolute and steadfast. Previously, terrorist attacks were treated as crimes. Bush rightly recognized that it was a war, and set the course of our nation to wage that war and win it. The political will was behind him only briefly, but the Democrats soon turned to opposition as they realized it was going to be a long, hard struggle. Typically, they cast their lot with the other side. As George Bush struggled mightily to bar the door against the terrorists, the Democrats castigated him for using an illegal lock.

Bush paid a heavy political price to prosecute the war, and was almost alone in insisting upon the surge (John McCain was one of a very few who supported it.) Now, we have the upper hand in Iraq, we have an oil-producing democracy in the Middle East for the first time since Carter pulled the rug out on the Shah, and we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01. On the most urgent issue of our time, George Bush has been a stalwart champion. Yet less than 30% of Americans approve.

Gerald Ford was portrayed as a bumbler compared to Jimmy Carter, who served in the nuclear navy. Ronald Reagan was consistently branded simplistic, uninformed, senile and always just "an actor reading lines." Walter Mondale ran on a platform of superior competence against Reagan.

Michael Dukakis proclaimed himself architect of the Massachusetts miracle, while George H. W. Bush was chided for lacking "vision." Bill Clinton, the Rhodes scholar, and Gore were the smartest guys in the room, ready to save the country from recession. Their battle cry, "It’s the economy, stupid," left no doubt who the stupid one was supposed to be. Clinton made Bob Dole look tired and out of touch.

Al Gore and George W. Bush were both Ivy Leaguers, but Bush was portrayed as a dumb, lucky son of privilege compared to the Ivy League-educated Gore (Both were average students, Bush at Yale and Gore at Harvard. Interestingly, Gore’s lowest grade in college was a D in a natural sciences course. This is the man who won the Nobel Prize for his warnings on global warming.)  Finally, John Kerry tried to blame the war, the economy and the weather, on Bush’s stupidity, but the country didn’t buy it.

Consistently, Democrats elevate education and intellect as a vital attribute to a presidential candidate, always pointing out that their choice is smarter than the Republican. But that particular argument isn’t being employed this time around.

Yes, the Obama campaign has sullied John McCain with the "too old, too out of touch" pitch, but none of that seems to stick. People already know John McCain is old, and he seems mostly out of touch to conservatives, and at least partially sympathetic to liberals.

Surprisingly, few Democrats have been making the argument that Obama is the intellectual superior in this race. Perhaps this is because when Republicans, early in the contest, complimented Obama as erudite or intelligent, Democrats quickly claimed that such compliments were thinly veiled racism, damning the black candidate with faint praise. They ridiculed Republicans for being surprised that a black candidate could speak coherently. Actually, we were surprised that any Democrat could speak coherently.

Or maybe the Democrats are saving the "Obama is smarter" argument for later in the race, when they need to bring out the big guns. But usually the intelligence argument has already been made at this stage.

The most likely reason that Democrats haven’t portrayed Obama as smart is because he is so very adept at proving he’s not.

Obama claims his uncle or great uncle (the story changed almost as soon as it hit the internet) was one of the American troops who liberated Auschwitz, when in fact the Nazi concentration camp was liberated by Russians. Obama said he was inspired by seeing civil rights marches in Selma four years before he was born. He credits a Kennedy-Kruschev meeting in 1961 as "helping to end the Cold War," when in fact it emboldened Kruschev to establish missile bases in Cuba. He’s confused about the conflicting political claims on Jerusalem. He believes the physical size of terrorist sponsor states like Iraq, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba make their nuclear ambitions insignificant. His explanations about his associations with Reverend Wright and the terrorist Bill Ayres were inconsistent and dishonest. Obama would be a great motivational speaker, but you wouldn’t want to bet on him in the Jeopardy finals.

If Democrats had a candidate who had demonstrated intelligence or profound insight in any concrete fashion, they would be extolling those virtues constantly, as they have in previous campaigns with other candidates. But this is not the case with Obama. Democrats know their candidate can’t compete in one of their favorite arenas.

In short, Obama can’t claim to be the intellectual candidate because he’s not convincing in the role. He has energized his supporters with promises of change, but he has not backed those promises up with policy. He is young, inexperienced, and easily confounded by unanticipated questions and challenges.

It’s possible that this aspect of Obama doesn’t bother his supporters, who are excited by his youth, freshness and electrifying personality. But you can bet the Democrat campaign managers are thinking about it. They, at least, are demonstrating intelligence by staying silent on the subject.

 

By RosePedenko and TanyaSimon

GeorgeArmstrongCuster lost his luster and got whacked at the Little Big Horn.

Senator JohnMcCain spent five years of his life inside a Viet Nam death camp, was beaten and tortured, and survived to tell about it. He too has lost his luster (with conservatives) and is getting whacked by a previously fawning media.

Custer was vain, arrogant, ambitious, reckless and a risk-taker.

McCain is also vain, arrogant, ambitious, reckless and a risk-taker. But is McCain riding the trail rejecting conservative core principles along the way to become our latter-dayGeneral Custer? We’ll call our pork barrel fighter “Lt. Custard.”

General Custer designed his own extravagant uniforms: polished jackboots, tight-fitting corduroy trousers, his trademark wide-brim hat, a black velveteen hussar jacket with silver piping, and a red cravat on his sailor shirt with silver stars on the collar. He was a natural blond, and wore his hair in long ringlets which he dusted with cinnamon-scented hair oil.

Lt. Custard could use a makeover and some hair but we won’t go there. We’ll leave that up to the media as they break all the rules of propriety and point out every freckle, age spot, bump or suspicious wound on his vast forehead.

General Custer lost his Division’s train as well as his personal luggage to a band of Confederates at the Battle of Trevilian Station.

Lt. Custard carried his own suitcases between planes in airports before, during and after the Primaries. Is this a sign of confidence — or of being lost in the political wilderness?

General Custer loved publicity and often invited journalists to go along with him on his campaigns so that they could report his battlefield panache.

Lt. Custard is a media darling so long as he speaks liberally about Liberals’ pet issues, which he does with disconcerting ease aboard the Straight Talk Express.

General Custer jeopardized his military career when he testified against the abuses and severe ill treatment of Native Americans barricaded inside government reservations.

Lt. Custard jeopardizes our national security and economic stability when he promotes unlocking America’s borders to millions of illegal immigrants and promises to close GITMO if elected.

In 1867, Custer went AWOL to see his wife and was court-martialed. The army suspended his duty for one year.

In 2007, Lt. Custard went AWOL on conservatives. This boosted his chummy relationship with Democrats in Congress and (dramatic organ music) the PRESS.

It could have been the 1860s, but more likely the 1960s when once proud journalists, honor bound to tell the truth, launched an expedition towards the conquest of young American braves.

It continues to this day as they propel their so-called crowning achievement, BarackObama, into the fractured leadership of the Free World. We will call these so-called journalists the “Sue.” Why? Because it’s damn near impossible to instigate legal action against them when they cower behind the stone walls of Fort First Amendment.

Former Sue (and Viet Nam war correspondent), “Sitting Bull-Gore,” has made a stand against the alleged warming of the earth. He has turned this fantasy into a rallying point for the disaffected of every blue state (and raked in millions of dollars with this scam, affording him and Tipper Canoe to live lavishly – and hypocritically – on their energy-hogging Tennessee estate).

In comparison, Lt. Custard’s half-hearted attempt at environmentalism consists of trying to save 1% of the pristine Alaskan tundra. This has been met with mockery by the Sue and their ignoble carbon credit-eating -- Sitting Bull-Gore.

With Democrats on both sides of the continent, and Republicans stuffed like turkey dressing in the middle, the Sue wage a relentless and merciless war with their poison pens on conservative candidates. Every endeavor to keep the Sue in check during the Iraq War has only served to consume precious military resources. Instead, the Sue immediately made a slap-dash prediction that the war would be a rout (naturally not in our favor) even before the first 50-caliber shot was fired.

They then followed up with a relentless volley of “Recession! Recession!!” until they have nearly made it so. They have since become even more aggressive, arming themselves with one-sided fiction delivered at warp-speed via the Internet (which was invented of course by Sitting Bull-Gore). The Sue has become a fierce foe more dreaded and deadly than any past or present European press corps.

Republican candidates, when confronted by members of the Sue tribe should just ask for a blindfold, a cigarette and a quick scalping to spare their family, religious beliefs and personal integrity from being publicly torn to shreds and tossed into the Little Big Horn River.

This is the formidable and unrelenting fighting force that Lt. Custard and the GOP are forced to contend with. The Sue’s bellicose behavior offers no white flags, no treaties or time-outs. In spite of attempts to bribe or mollify them, they remain uncompromising.

The Sue and the Left Wings fear that Lt. Custard might be impetuous with Persia’s…uh...Iran’s leader and plunge us head-on into yet another Great War. Crazy Horse, on the other hand, plans to Pow and Wow known-terrorist leaders. This “Brave’s” naïve effort to smoke the peace pipe has the same fishy tang as the abject ramblings (and catastrophic failures) of demented Ex-Chief “Head-in-the-Clouds” Carter.

Although Lt. Custard courted the Sue over the years, they remain stubbornly single-minded in their support of Crazy Horse. Lt. Custard has been warned by his base to keep watch well out toward his Left as he navigates the campaign trail. He has let us conservative warriors down in so many unexpected ways, such as clamoring for oil drilling while simultaneously shutting down prospecting in the tundra – this in spite of hard assurances the caribou will not be harmed. At the same time, Lt. Custard has yet to notice the abundance of free-range buffalo in Yellowstone.

The heap-big question for Lt. Custard is: Will he make the right choice for his Vice President? If he uses his noggin and chooses a man with the flint to step into the Chief’s shoes at a moment’s notice and with the economic horse sense to prevent our country from sliding into a real recession, the two could soundly whip Crazy Horse and the Sue.

Lt. Custard has sent smoke signals that he wants Townhall-style battles with Crazy Horse, but Just Plain Crazy’s campaign braves know that is an arena in which he will surely be stampeded and trampled, and it will end his attempted siege of The White House.

Like General Custer, Lt. Custard has never fully understood the overwhelming odds against him without his base of support. During this long and tedious campaign he has not fully appreciated the sheer magnitude of Crazy Horse’s Left Wing Sheeple or the audacity of the Sue he once courted. Custard knows how to fight fiercely, but he may lose this battle due to the momentum of the Left Wings’ superior campaign strategy.

by Lance Thompson

The BBC reported on 23 June that Tran Trong Duyet, the former commander of the North Vietnamese Hoa Lo military prison where John McCain spent five and a half years, now considers John McCain a friend and "would vote for him." Mr. Duyet disputes McCain’s account of his captivity, denying that prisoners were beaten, tortured or mistreated. Evidently, Mr. Duyet does not regard the prison’s nickname, "the Hanoi Hilton," as the least bit ironic.

Still, the endorsement of an old enemy is nothing new in politics. After one of the most bruising primary battles in recent presidential history, Hillary Clinton calls Barack Obama a friend, and tells of how proud she was to have competed against him for the nomination. She will work hard, she promises, to reunite the party and see Obama elected. Surely this is no greater turnaround than that of a former North Vietnamese officer endorsing a former American prisoner.

One could ascribe Mr. Duyet’s last-minute endorsement to selective memory or the propensity to idealize the events of one’s past. But we must also consider a more sinister motive, one that eventually tempts all who come in contact with a presidential contender–personal advancement.

It is no secret that McCain and Obama are compiling lists of potential cabinet officers and political appointees. Mr. Duyet, currently retired and keeping fit as an amateur ballroom dancer, must be thinking about a third act in his life–surely he still harbors goals and aspirations. With his military background, he could be angling for Secretary of Defense. As a former officer in a former Soviet client state, he would have knowledge of Communist tactics and technology–both of which are bound to be hot topics with a resurgent Russia and a restive Communist China on the new President’s agenda.

Likewise, the hot seat of the attorney general might be a target. Mr. Duyet’s familiarity with incarceration and--at least according to John McCain--interrogation would put him at the forefront of the controversial Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees. If the liberals on the Big Bench insist on giving terrorist prisoners every possible break, then we should have an attorney general equally insistent on the same. The breaks he gave to his prisoners were more physical in nature than legal, but Mr. Duyet would certainly be a worthwhile advocate against a judiciary that seems at least sympathetic to this country’s enemies.

But Mr. Duyet seems eminently suited for one particular position that would give him a forum to demonstrate his new-found friendship for John McCain and catapult him back into the public eye. The unimaginably challenging job of White House spokesman cries out for a man of Mr. Duyet’s credibility and conviction. This position requires a person who does not mind that his every statement is disbelieved, his every utterance is questioned, his every smile or facial tic assumed to be rehearsed. Mr. Duyet obviously has no trouble at all expressing the most preposterous and laughable ideas with an absolute faith that they will find acceptance from a gullible public.

Writing for the majority in Crockett v. Santa Anna, Chief Justice Joe Arpaio, one-time sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, said, "This case should never have come before the Court. Recent rulings have established that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep, bear, and use firearms to protect themselves, their families, their property, and the sovereignty of the United States." 

Reaction was swift from liberal critics and gun control advocates. Speaker of the House Chelsea Clinton responded so swiftly, in fact, that she issued her statement yesterday. "This is another egregious example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench, and inventing Constitutional rights out of whole cloth."

Conservatives and gun rights activists responded with equal fervor. Bruce Willis, who currently occupies the John Wayne Chair of Weapons Technology and Culture at the University of Idaho, pointed out, "For many years, advancement of the liberal agenda relied upon judicial activism, expanding on rights guaranteed in the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and some rights which had no Constitutional basis at all. Now that there is a strong conservative majority on the Court, that same judicial activism has been applied to the Second Amendment and gun rights have expanded exponentially."

The conservative shift on the Court began in July, 2018, at a mass abortion rights rally in New York’s Central Park. A freak electrical storm generated a powerful lightning strike which destroyed the speakers’ platform where liberal Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter were sitting. The resulting three vacancies gave President David Petraeus a unique opportunity to alter the political balance of the court. With a narrow majority in the Senate, Republicans quickly confirmed three new conservative justices.

In the last two years, following the liberal example of judicial activism set by previous appellate courts, the newly conservative Court has vastly expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. In the first such case, the Supreme Court ruled that Herbert Taylor, an ice cream shop owner, had the right to order out of his store at gunpoint the unruly, abusive and threatening "posse" of hip hop star Rapp Dogg.  Petraeus-appointed Justice Laura Ingraham wrote for the majority, "Obviously, the Founding Fathers would not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms without inferring the right to use arms, particularly for self defense. What other possible purpose would there be? Therefore, the right to responsibly use a gun is clearly implied and understood."

This case was followed by Tucson Wildlife Club vs. Medellin Cartel, in which several gila monster hunters in Arizona were fired upon by armed Mexican drug smugglers making a cross-border delivery. The hunters returned fire, wounding several smugglers, and were convicted on firearms charges in a trial that was carried live on the Spanish language La Raza TV, which dominates the ratings in Los Angeles. The conviction was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court when Justice Ted Nugent wrote for the majority, "The Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state. A militia is an armed citizen force used to repel invaders, which is just what these hunters were doing. Their acts fall well within the penumbras and emanations of the Second Amendment."

Thus, there was ample precedent when Crockett vs. Santa Anna came before the Court this year, but critics remain unconvinced.. Scott McClellan, vice president in charge of parking lots and picnics for Texans for Gun Abolition, a statewide organization whose membership has increased to over a dozen members this year, said in an unprepared statement, "We believe the Second Amendment was flawed by a typographic error, and the pertinent passage was supposed to read, ‘the right of the People to keep and bear farms shall not be infringed..’" Thus far, there has been little support for this position.

 

Though the left considers "Republican" and "conservative" synonymous, those terms have become increasingly distinct since the success of the 1994 Contract With America. It was the last time that conservative principles governed GOP politics.

 

More recently, majorities of Republicans voted to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill, and GOP Senators and Congressmen showed no aversion to earmarks and pork during their years in the majority. President Bush himself has disappointed conservatives with his reluctance to halt illegal immigration and his enthusiasm for the prescription drug program. Conservative voices in the GOP are few, and conservative presidential candidates lost to "moderate" John McCain, who seems sympathetic to at least 50% of the liberal agenda, and was arguably the MSM’s favorite Republican until he decided to actually oppose a Democrat in a national election.

To avail themselves of that characterization, candidates would have to endorse a set of conservative principles, and define their political beliefs. Many conservatives have identified such principles, from Ronald Reagan and former house speaker Newt Gingrich to radio talk show hosts Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity. Certainly such a list would include a strong national defense, energetic prosecution of the war on terror, reducing the size of government and the burden of excessive regulation, lowering taxes, breaking the teachers’ unions’ hammerlock on public education, eliminating welfare, ending judicial activism and legislating from the bench, protecting the sanctity of life, and achieving energy independence.

The most generous support for candidates and campaigns always comes from the ideological extremes of either party. True believers contribute to causes close to their hearts, moderates and middle-of-the-roaders have little at stake ideologically. Certainly this is true of the Democrats, whose campaigns find the greatest financial bounty from the extreme Left, typified by the millions George Soros pours into losing presidential campaigns. The same would be true on the Right, where conservative Republicans would claim the lion’s share of conservative generosity.

This would give other Republicans, by definition the less conservative Republicans, a choice–shun the conservatives or join them. But Republicans who repudiate conservatives would be admitting that they have little in common with the base, and effectively cut themselves off from that source of campaign funds. There is no money from the middle, and they certainly could not expect any from the Left.

Political prognosticators predict massive losses for congressional Republicans in November, which makes GOP candidates timid and leads some to abandon conservative principle. They calculate that appearing less conservative will make them less objectionable, possibly swayed by polls that show voters prefer the generic Democrat candidate for congress to the Republican by double digits.

But Republicans have failed to stand up for conservative principles. They behaved as Democrats did, and were voted out in 2006. When they lost the majority, they became even more timid, and thus further lost their identities as conservatives. As they sidle to the left, renegade Republicans alienate their base, and they don’t increase their appeal to the other side. Democrats won’t vote for Republicans who abandon their principles over Democrats who cling to theirs. The parties vote for candidates who stand for the party principles.

Conservative Republicans won’t be a majority in the new congress, but the GOP has little chance of regaining the majority anyway. And even if Republicans do take back one or both houses of congress, what does that achieve for conservative voters? We gain nothing by electing Republicans who aren’t conservative. Even a minority of conservative Republicans can begin to rebuild the party based on conservative principles.

The Democrats, despite a desperate primary battle, are riding high in the polls, and not because they have rushed to the middle. The more moderate of their two presidential contenders, the one with the greater experience, pedigree and range of political allies, lost to a rival who represents the extreme base of the Democrat party. Democrats in Congress happily cater to their far Left base. They did not reach this position by trying to appear more moderate.

Much has been made of John McCain’s short temper, and how it may affect his chances in November. Most recently, Senate majority leader Harry Reid showed admirable restraint and circumspection when he told a group of broadcast reporters that he would not make McCain’s temper an issue in the campaign. Reid has been reading Richard Nixon’s play book. Whenever Nixon wanted to savage a political rival, he would say something like, "I will not say, as others have, that Senator X is a drunk, a liar and a reprobate." That way, he got credit for honorable conduct while simultaneously dragging his opponent through the mud.

But I digress. McCain’s temper is the topic, and as a conservative who mistrusts McCain on most conservative issues, I can honestly say that a hair trigger temper is one quality that serves him well.

That we live in a dangerous world is a fact recognized by everyone but those without cable and senior members of the Obama campaign. All over the world, young Muslim men who are underemployed and unable to get dates fall under the influence of unholy men who tell them that both problems can be solved by the rite of self-detonation. Rogue states run by totalitarian dwarves (in the case of North Korea), poorly dressed Hitler impersonators (in the case of Iran), or dictators who gorge themselves on banana split republics (in the case of Venezuela) are arming themselves and their client states with the latest weaponry. That weaponry comes from familiar foes from the Cold War, who now deny they lost that conflict, and want a rematch. The poor sap who punches the Oval Office clock next January 20^th is going to be at DefCon Double Digits for the next four years.

For much of recent history, our enemies could rely on the United States acting quite predictably when attacked. Marine barracks in Beirut–withdraw. Mogadishu ambush–pull out. First attack on World Trade Center–make a couple of arrests. Attack American embassies–act indignant at the UN. Blow a hole in the Cole–wave our fists in the air.

The exceptions came under Presidents named Bush. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait–the United States builds a coalition and goes to war. Al Qaeda attacks the WTC and Pentagon–the United States invades Afghanistan to track down the culprits. Saddam Hussein kicks out weapons inspectors–the United States builds another coalition and goes to war.

I realize that the Bush wars are controversial and, in the case of the war in Iraq, no longer widely supported (although it was in the beginning). The point is that even with the "cowboy" Bush in office, both wars had the support of an overwhelming majority of Congress and the American people, at least initially. The road to war followed the required course of Congressional approval and international acquiescence. Our enemies, even the dim ones of the Hussein family, knew that certain procedures would be followed before war was declared. Saddam even thought his oil-for-food payoffs to Security Council members would provide a roadblock to American reaction.

If Obama ends up President, our enemies will be greatly assured (as Hamas leaders have already indicated) that their terrorist activities will be ignored if not tolerated. Obama has already said he would "talk" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with no preconditions. This is a state leader who is supplying weapons and terrorists to a war where Americans are being killed daily. Our enemies have nothing to fear from Obama.

But what if we had a real hot-head in the White House? What if the guy carrying the football was short-tempered, volatile, prone to strike back reflexively? What if all those months of vanilla-flavored campaign speeches about coming together, changing the tone, and reaching across the aisle had built up a Vesuvius of fury, just looking for an excuse to erupt? What if no one could really be sure if all those years of abuse in a North Vietnamese concentration camp had short-circuited his fail-safe switches and left him a little less able to absorb even the slightest provocation?

That is exactly the type of President we need at this critical moment. I want our enemies--whether they’re assembling a roadside bomb on a prayer rug, manipulating the price of premium unleaded by nationalizing their petroleum industries, or plotting our demise under some minaret in Red Square–I want our enemies to be totally unsure what stimulus will make our President snap. I don’t want our enemies to calculate a proportional response, or have the time to send terrorist-made electronic press kits to the MSM, or buy the votes of a few dips in the United Nations. I want them to know that an act of sabotage, an assassination attempt, an attack on Americans anywhere in the world could bring a shrug, a denunciation, or a rain of nuclear warheads, all depending on what kind of mood the President is in when he gets the news. I want our enemies to know that the finger on the trigge