I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012

The GOP race for the nomination for President has been whittled down to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. I am definitively no supporter of Romney and Paul.

That leaves me with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

I like Santorum’s Social Conservatism.

I like Newt’s debating skills and the Conservative credentials that brought the Republican majority to the House for the first time in a quarter century when he became Speaker.

Newt has a checkered morals history in his personal life and some questionable choices in encouraging the thoughts of pseudo-Marxist Futurist Alvin Toffler. I have pretty much gotten over Gingrich’s past issues and believe in his present stands at his word.

Former Senator Santorum is big to claim he is the true Conservative. I am uncertain of the “true Conservative” claim as much as he is a better candidate than Romney claim (and everyone is better than Ron Paul because of an American anti-Exceptionalism stand in Foreign Policy). If the GOP race comes down to a choice between Romney and Santorum then I choose Santorum. At this point if the race involves Newt Gingrich I am still leaning toward Newt.

I am going to cross post a Townhall.com article by Rachel Alexander that sheds a light on Santorum’s Conservatism. The article is decidedly anti-Santorum; however if you look at the numbers you will notice that Newt’s numbers are better. Also I am guessing if one compares Santorum’s numbers to Romney’s gubernatorial numbers on Conservatism Santorum wins there. I think it is a good guess that even though Romney’s negative-Romney ads show Santorum is not as Conservative as the campaign claim, that Santorum still outshines Romney.

After the Townhall.com article I am posting a Newsmax ad email from Winning our Future Super PAC which is not Gingrich ran but is pro-Gingrich.

JRH 3/2/12

**************************

Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?

By Rachel Alexander

Mar 01, 2012

Townhall.com

The anyone-but-Romney conservatives have currently latched onto Rick Santorum as their candidate du jour, providing him with a surge shortly into the Republican primary elections. But is he really that conservative? Santorum is known for taking strong stands on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. As a result of his outspokenness on the sanctity of marriage, he has been the target of a cruel gay activist.

Up until his surge, most people took his conservative claims for granted without closely scrutinizing his record in Congress. But his record is sketchy. Santorum’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is only 88. Newt Gingrich’s lifetime rating is 90. Santorum’s record was even worse in the past; during his first two years in Congress he received ratings of 83 and 81, which dipped to a low of 70 in 1993.

Santorum really hurt his conservative record in 2004 by backing abortion-rights supporter Arlen Specter for Senate over conservative challenger Pat Toomey, deciding that Toomey was unelectable. Specter narrowly won. Toomey went on to win the next election, as Specter switched parties and lost in the Democratic primary.

Santorum is not necessarily the best candidate for the Tea Party either, considering he expressed his distaste for the Tea Party a couple of years ago, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party…to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”

Liberty Counsel Action put together a list of not 10, not 50, but 100 of Santorum’s disappointing votes on major issues over his 16 years in office. His record on social issues does not entirely live up to his rhetoric. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood as part of an appropriations bill that provided money for Title X family planning. He voted three years in a row against bills to end the National Endowment for the Arts, famous for funding artwork like a cross in urine.

The fiscal watchdog organization Club for Growth describes his performance in Congress as merely “above average.” Santorum voted for union-backed legislation that restricts steel imports. He opposed repeated attempts to reimpose the "pay-go" rules that would hold down spending increases and tax giveaways. He voted against the National Right to Work Act and voted for Fed Ex unionization. He supported a bill by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) increasing the minimum wage. He voted for practically every "emergency supplemental" spending bill sought by the Bush administration, which added tens of billions to the deficit. He voted to increase the debt ceiling and voted against a flat tax. He voted against reforming welfare programs numerous times.

He requested billions of dollars of earmarks for his home state of Pennsylvania, and defends this practice by claiming that “there are good earmarks and bad earmarks.” He was one of only 25 Senators who voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, part of the $284 billion 2005 highway bill known for its bloated earmarks.

Santorum does not appear strongly principled, since he now admits some of his past votes were mistakes. He voted for the expensive Medicare Part D prescription-drug program, the largest entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson, which is expected to cost $68 billion this year. He said after the fact that his vote was a mistake since the program did not have funding. During last week’s presidential debate in Arizona he admitted that voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, which expanded the federal government’s role in education, was a mistake and he “took one for the team.”

There is a reason why presidential candidates rarely come from Congress. Their records are more extensive and visible than governors or non-politicians. The nature of being a member of Congress means voting for bills that include items you don’t agree with in order to get your own agenda passed. This kind of compromise will translate into compromising as president, since the president will need to sign bills in order to get anything accomplished. The question is whether a president will stand firm and compromise on very little, like Ronald Reagan, or whether a president will compromise their principles more often like both presidents Bush.

What may ultimately turn conservatives away from Santorum are the robocalls he ran in Michigan this past week attacking Mitt Romney. They were directed into Democratic households, urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary against Romney since Romney opposed the auto bailouts. The calls sounded like they were coming from Democrats until the very end when the Santorum campaign was identified. This kind of dirty campaigning, which tricks opponents into voting for you, crosses the line, especially since Santorum also opposed the auto bailouts.

Santorum may be reasonably conservative, but he is not clearly the most conservative candidate in the race. To claim that he is the best choice for conservatives is debatable. Gingrich’s record is slightly better, and it is difficult to compare Santorum with Romney since Romney’s experience as governor was different and brief. Ron Paul has the most conservative record when it comes to fiscal issues, but the least conservative record on foreign policy and defense. Perhaps conservatives who claim Santorum is the best candidate are basing their preferences on criteria other than his record in office.

_________________________________

Important Letter - Our Next President

Sent by Newsmax

By Becky Burkett

From: Winning our Future Super PAC

Sent: Mar 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM

"Is The Idea of Mitt Romney Being the Voice and Face of the Conservative Movement for Possibly the Next Eight Years Keeping You Up at Night?"

Don’t Let the Establishment Fool You!

The GOP Presidential Nomination Fight Ain't Over. Here’s Why…

Dear Fellow Conservative,

In 2008, many conservatives secretly thought to themselves that while electing Barack Obama would be the worst thing that could happen to the country (and it was), electing John McCain would be the worst thing that could happen to the conservative movement (and it would have been).

Well, as Yogi Berra said, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Clearly, re-electing Barack Obama would be disastrous for our nation. It’d be the end of our country as we know it…and I say that without an ounce of hyperbole.

And electing Mitt Romney would inevitably force Republicans and conservatives to defend the same kinds of government-expanding programs John McCain would have pushed - such as his anti-free speech McCain-Feingold law.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However…

It’s not too late this time.

Indeed, conservatives still have an opportunity to have our cake and eat it, too. We can both defeat Barack Obama next November…AND…do it with a Reagan conservative, not a Massachusetts moderate.

We can nominate Newt Gingrich.

While the elite media is desperately pushing the idea that "Newt can’t win," it's simply not so.

·         I'll remind you that that’s the same thing the media said about Newt leading Republicans to a majority in Congress in 1994.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign "dead" last summer.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt’s campaign "dead" after Iowa.

·         And I'll remind you that the elite media declared Newt's campaign "dead" after Florida.

But like Rocky Balboa, no matter what they've thrown at Newt; no matter how hard or how low they've hit him…he’s still standing…and he's still fighting.

And again, quoting the immortal Yogi Berra, it ain’t over 'til it's over.

Now here's why it's not over…

While the Romney campaign - aided and abetted by the mainstream media – continue to talk about winning "states" in this year's GOP nomination process, the rules this time around have been radically changed.

In the "old days," if you won a state you won ALL of the states delegates. However, under new rules for this year’s contests, very few states which go to the polls before the end of March – including on Super Tuesday next week - are "winner take all."

Which means candidates coming in second, third and even fourth can rack up delegates.

For example: In the February 4 Nevada caucus – which Mitt Romney "won" – he was awarded 14 delegates. However, Newt picked up 6 delegates, Ron Paul got 5 delegates and Rick Santorum got 3.

Which makes it increasingly less likely that any candidate left in this race is going to wrap up the nomination anytime soon!

So like "Rocky Balboa," we don’t need to knock Mitt Romney out in the fifth round on Super Tuesday. We only need to still be standing.

We just need to slowly and methodically continue to rack up enough delegates to get us to the 12th round at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

And if we do…all bets are off.

And those in the elite media - who are today saying "it can't be done" - will watch Newt Gingrich do the "impossible" once again.

And two months later…we’ll pull the plug on the Obama presidency!

·         We’ll repeal ObamaCare.

·         We’ll fire all the czars.

·         We’ll stop apologizing to terrorists and dictators.

·         We’ll stop spending our grandchildren into bankruptcy.

·         We’ll cut the cost of gasoline by drilling here, drilling now.

·         We’ll stop suing states for trying to enforce our immigration laws.

·         We’ll put America back to work.

·         We’ll put small businesses back in business.

With Newt Gingrich in the White House – along with Republican control of the House and Senate – we will finally realize the promise of 1994’s Contract with America, including a dramatically smaller and dramatically restructured government.

But none of those bold changes for America will happen if Republicans nominate a "pale pastel" Massachusetts moderate to go head-to-head with Obama's "Chicago Machine" in November – the same machine that rolled over, chewed up and spit out John McCain in 2008.

Indeed, before we get a shot at Obama, we need to win the GOP nomination.

Now is not the time to "go wobbly."

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Gerald Ford on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another Bob Dole on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing another John McCain on us.

·         Now is the time to step up and stop the Republican establishment from forcing Mitt Romney on us.

Will you step up?

Can I count on you to help us help Newt stay in the fight all the way to Tampa?

I urgently need your help today. Super Tuesday is less than a week away. Please follow this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more to help us help Newt…and give conservatives a true conservative nominee who can win!

Sincerely yours,

Becky Burkett
President
Winning Our Future Super PAC

P.S. In 1976, they gave us Gerald Ford. We got Jimmy Carter. In 1996, they gave us Bob Dole. We got Bill Clinton. In 2008, they gave us John McCain. We got Barak Obama. Now they're trying [to] sell us Mitt Romney. Don't let them. Not this time. Click this link right now to make a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250 or more…before we all wake up with a bad case of "buyer’s remorse" once again.

__________________________

I am Still Leaning Toward Gingrich

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2012

_______________________

Is Rick Santorum Really the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate?

Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________

Important Letter - Our Next President

Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

This email was sent by: Newsmax.com4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43

Andrew Breitbart has died. I am stunned!

JRH 3/1/12

**************************

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43

By FoxNews.com

Published March 01, 2012

Widely read conservative Internet publisher Andrew Breitbart, whose flare for battle with politicians and the mainstream media earned him a reputation as one of the nation's most influential commentators, died Thursday.

The websites he founded ran a statement Thursday morning announcing that Breitbart, 43, died "unexpectedly from natural causes" in Los Angeles shortly after midnight. His attorney and editor-in-chief of those sites confirmed his death to Fox News.

"We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior," the statement said. "Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love."

·         Full Coverage: Andrew Breitbart

Breitbart was a prolific commentator who founded several websites devoted to covering politics, entertainment and everything in-between. Earlier in his career, he worked for the Drudge Report before breaking off to start his own outlets -- including Big Government, Big Hollywood and Breitbart.tv.

The statement on his sites quoted the concluding passage from his book, Righteous Indignation.

"I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and -- famously -- I enjoy making enemies. Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I've lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I've gained hundreds, thousands -- who knows? -- of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night," Breitbart wrote.

The statement ended: "Andrew is at rest, yet the happy warrior lives on, in each of us."

The Los Angeles coroner's office said the preliminary evidence suggests a "cardiac event" led to his death. An autopsy is set for Friday.

Breitbart was walking near his house in the Brentwood neighborhood shortly after midnight Thursday when he collapsed, his father-in-law Orson Bean said.

Someone saw him fall and called paramedics, who tried to revive him. They rushed him to the emergency room at UCLA Medical Center, Bean said. Breitbart had suffered heart problems a year earlier, but Bean said he could not pinpoint what happened.

"I don't know what to say. It's devastating," Bean told The Associated Press.

Those who knew and worked with him described Breitbart almost uniformly as "fearless," sharply intelligent, witty and devoted to his work.

"He was the modern conservative iteration of a 1960's radical," conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg told Fox News, minutes after Breitbart's death was reported.

"When I say he was the most fearless guy I ever knew, it really is true. I mean, he truly loved the fight," he said.

Breitbart considered his charge to expose corruption, hypocrisy and media bias, and leveraged his network of websites to reach for that goal.

He was on the forefront of reporting several controversies, notably the salacious tweets former Rep. Anthony Weiner had sent to young women before his resignation.

Breitbart became embroiled in a controversy of his own, though, for his reporting on a web video of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod. The edited video appeared to show Sherrod making a racist comment, but the full tape later put the remark in context and made clear that Sherrod was actually talking about bridging racial differences. Sherrod was fired after the edited video surfaced, and later filed suit against Breitbart.

Breitbart, though, went on to report on one of the biggest congressional scandals of 2011 -- the tweets sent by Weiner to young women he met online. The former New York congressman, who is married, adamantly denied the reports at first, before admitting to them in a tearful press conference and resigning.

One of Breitbart's most memorable moments came when he commandeered the podium before Weiner's final New York conference, holding court with reporters and demanding an apology from Weiner -- while Weiner waited to attend his own press conference.

Goldberg recalled how one of Breitbart's favorite pastimes was to retweet the nasty things other people said about him. "He considered it a badge of honor," Goldberg said.

Breitbart's final tweet, posted shortly before he was reported to have died, typified the combative and blunt tone he took with his online debaters. "I called you a putz cause I thought you were being intentionally disingenuous. If not I apologize," he wrote to the individual he had been arguing with.

That individual, Lamar White, told FoxNews.com in an email that Breitbart was committed to the First Amendment and the "open and free exchange of ideas."

"Although I disagreed with him profoundly on politics and policy, I will always respect and admire his tenacious wit and his willingness to engage others in provocative conversation," White said.

News of Breitbart's death reverberated on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail. Rick Santorum said he was "crestfallen."

"What a powerful force," Santorum said. "What a huge loss, in my opinion, for our country and certainly for the conservative movement."

Breitbart is survived by his wife Susannah Bean Breitbart, 41, and four children.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

____________________________

Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart dead at 43

By Alex Dobuzinskis

LOS ANGELES | Thu Mar 1, 2012 1:58pm EST

Reuters

(Reuters) - Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart, an influential voice in U.S. Republican politics known for his attacks on liberals and Democrats, died unexpectedly of natural causes in Los Angeles early on Thursday, his family said. He was 43.

Breitbart was walking last night near his Los Angeles home when he collapsed, said his father-in-law, actor Orson Bean.

"He collapsed on the sidewalk and the paramedics were there very quickly and they couldn't revive him," Bean told Reuters in a phone interview.

A friend of Breitbart told Reuters he had a history of heart problems and is believed to have suffered a heart attack.

The brash and outspoken blogger and commentator, who published politically inspired photos and undercover videos, was the center of several major news websites, including www.Breitbart.tv, www.breitbart.com and www.biggovernment.com.

Breitbart was a lightning rod who relished a role he cast for himself as an embattled conservative on the margins of the mainstream media he called "the Complex." Even so, he gained fans as a frequent guest on television news shows.

His work helped spark a number of prominent news stories in recent years. Those included undercover videos posted on his website about ACORN, a grass-roots group that offered housing assistance and other aid to the poor, and his role in bringing to public attention a sexually suggestive photo that Democratic U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner of New York posted through his Twitter page. That scandal eventually led to Weiner's resignation last year.

BROUGHT DOWN ACORN

In targeting ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Breitbart posted videos in 2009 by conservative activists who secretly taped employees of the group giving tax advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute. The controversy led Congress to deny federal housing funds to ACORN, which disbanded in 2010. The former head of ACORN did not respond to an email seeking comment on Breitbart's death.

Breitbart faced widespread criticism when in 2010 his website posted a heavily edited version of a speech by U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod that led to her forced resignation.

Sherrod, who is black, said her bosses at USDA pushed her to resign after Breitbart posted portions of a video in which she seemed to say she had discriminated against a white farmer. But in the full video of the speech that Sherrod gave, she had in fact said race should not matter.

Breitbart mentioned the Sherrod controversy last night in one of his last Twitter messages, in response to a back-and-forth discussion with Web users in which one person suggested he should apologize to Sherrod. "Apologize for WHAT?" Breitbart wrote back.

Breitbart cut his teeth in the freewheeling world of online media as an editor of the Drudge Report, working in Los Angeles far from the Beltway of Washington, D.C. He also worked with blogger Arianna Huffington, playing an early role at the Huffington Post, which was founded in 2005.

Matt Drudge, founder of the Drudge Report, said in a message on his website on Thursday that he remembered Breitbart as "a constant source of energy, passion and commitment."

"I still see him in my mind's eye in Venice Beach (in Los Angeles), the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today," Drudge wrote.

MEDICAL ISSUES

Amid suggestions that Breitbart had suffered a heart attack, Bean said he did not know Breitbart had any cardiac problems and the editor-in-chief of Breitbart.com declined to discuss any details about his health.

Breitbart was transported to a hospital where he was pronounced dead at 12:19 a.m. on Thursday, said Ed Winter, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Department of Coroner. An autopsy is tentatively scheduled for Friday. Winter declined to discuss any possible heart problems Breitbart might have suffered. "He had some medical issues, hadn't seen a doctor in over a year and we don't have his medical history yet," Winter said.

"We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior. Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how to love," a memorial page on Breitbart's websites said. The message said Breitbart "passed away unexpectedly from natural causes."

The leading Republican presidential candidates, conservative commentators and some liberals quickly reacted with sadness to Breitbart's death.

"Ann and I are deeply saddened by the passing of @AndrewBreitbart: brilliant entrepreneur, fearless conservative, loving husband and father," Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney said on his Twitter page.

A message from former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page also praised Breitbart. "We are all stunned and saddened by the news of Andrew Breitbart's passing," she wrote. "Andrew was a warrior who stood on the side of what was right."

Even ideological opponents praised Breitbart.

"Andrew Breitbart was a conservative political combatant who was unafraid of his critics," tweeted Donna Brazile, Democratic Party strategist and former presidential campaign manager for Al Gore. "We battled on and off air, but he was a genius."

In his book "Righteous Indignation," Breitbart wrote: "I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and - famously - I enjoy making enemies."

"At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night," Breitbart wrote in the book.

(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Tim Gaynor and Mark Hosenball; Editing by Anthony Boadle)

_______________________________

Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43

©2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

___________________________

Conservative activist Andrew Breitbart dead at 43

Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms.

On Syria – Obama Indecision may be Worse than Decisiveness

John R. Houk

© March 1, 2012

The current Syrian government – a client State of Iran – has been massacring its own citizens for months now. Unlike in Libya, the Obama solution is to look the other way. Why?

My best guess is that the consequences of aiding Syrian revolutionaries (the Sunni-Islam majority weary of the Alawite-Islam minority) have too many unknowns for President BHO to enter the fray to stop the genocide.

If BHO actively supports the revolutionaries will Iran have the guts to send troops into Syria to defend its client? And if Iran sends troops will Israel use the excuse to enter Syria militarily because of Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map? Will the real Lebanese government in the form of Hezbollah offer military support to Assad’s Syria since Hezbollah is both a client of Iran and Shias like Alawites are Shias? Again, will Hezbollah action force Israel’s entrance into Syria?

I am sure there are other possible consequences that BHO does not want to deal with in an election year; nonetheless you can see that revolution in Syria could be the first domino leading to at least a Middle East regional war or worst WWIII.

If Obama Foreign Policy spinelessness continues his indecision might tip the first domino making things worse in a war somewhat like Britain and France waited on Hitler to have some common sense until the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939.

Below are some Leslie J. Sacks thoughts on the slaughter in Iran.

JRH 3/1/12

***************************

Syria - A Minefield

By Leslie J. Sacks

Sent: Feb 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Website: Strength and Tolerance

Senator Clinton's vocal (though not military or financial) support as well as the White House's ambivalent backing for the Free Syria Coalition, now after 7,000 deaths and a year of violent revolution, may come back to haunt us.

Too little, too late.  Early sanctions and support may have saved most of these lives.  Yet in Libya by contrast, with a neutered, secular and defanged Gadhafi, the West intervened in an ambiguous revolution that brought NATO to the same side as Al Qaeda elements and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The same dangers exist in Syria, multiplied.

Already Hamas and its prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, have thrown their weight behind the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, the groups long-time patron and host.  Also the leader of Al Qaeda, the Sunni aligned global terrorist movement, as well as Muslim Brotherhood, have thrown their support behind the Syrian opposition.  I can't imagine Hillary Clinton is entirely comfortable with her radical new Sunni partners in the expanding anti-Assad opposition. 

Daniel Pipes of the venerable Middle East Forum writes (Syria: Arguing for U.S. Inaction) that inaction by America may be the best policy.  Naïve sentimentalism and humanitarian goals may just indeed result in far worse consequences.  Some Sunni revolutionaries in Syria, when asked as to their plans about the Alawites after the fall of Assad, reflected quite honestly that they would merely "kill them of course".  In the insanity of the Middle East, this is a tried and tested normalcy.

Assad's Alawite minority (12%) dominate a Syria of 23 million people, controlling the army, sources of revenue and power.  They have oppressed and murdered their way for decades now, first with Assad senior, Hafez, and then with his vicious but spineless son Bashar.

Remember that Hafez Al-Assad (President from 1971-2000) and leader of the Baath party massacred at least 10,000 fellow Syrians in Hama in 1982 (some sources cite 20-40,000 casualties) in putting down protests there.

Were the despicable Assad to be violently deposed, we could expect a backlash against the Alawites, the Christians (9%) and other minorities, that would make historical Hama and current casualties pale into insignificance.  Bosnian ethnic cleansing would seem mild by comparison.

A weak but continuing Assad dynasty, beset with troubles, forced to eventually compromise and share power, may indeed be the least damaging and dislocating solution:

·         Syrian supporters - Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah will continue to be embarrassed and compromised

·         More Sunni anger at Assad and his Shiite wetnurse, Iran means less vitriol for America and Israel

·         The more Syria and Iran are tied together in this no-win situation, the less likely they will ferment trouble and the more likely Iran's green revolution will be emboldened.

·         Genocidal post-revolution tendencies in Syria will be stayed

·         Ultimately as Daniel Pipes succinctly puts it, it may serve us to see the rotting corpse of Syria remain chained to an intransigent Iran for a while longer.

National Review - Assad's Useful Idiots

Investigative Project - Daniel Pipe's article and Zuhdi Jasser's response

Wall Street Journal - A U.S. - Led Exit Strategy for Assad

Wall Street Journal - Hillary's Syria Chutzpah

Leslie Sacks

_____________________________

On Syria – Obama Indecision may be Worse than Decisiveness

John R. Houk

© March 1, 2012

______________________________

Syria - A Minefield

Leslie Sacks | 10550 Wilshire Blvd | Los Angeles | CA | 90049