A Time For Choosing

VDH: Losing at Home

2006-03-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

A must read by VDH:

At War With Ourselves
We're winning in Iraq. Let's not lose at home.

BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Wednesday, March 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Last week the golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra was blown apart. Sectarian riots followed, and reprisals and deaths ensued. Thugs and criminals came out of the woodwork to foment further violence. But instead of the apocalypse of an ensuing civil war, a curfew was enforced. Iraqi security forces stepped in with some success. Shaken Sunni and Shiite leaders appeared on television to urge restraint, and there appeared at least the semblance of reconciliation that may soon presage a viable coalition government.

But here at home you would have thought that our own capitol dome had exploded. Indeed, Americans more than the Iraqis needed such advice for calm to quiet our own frenzy. Almost before the golden shards of the mosque hit the pavement, pundits wrote off the war as lost--as we heard the tired metaphors of "final straw" and "camel's back" mindlessly repeated. The long-anticipated civil strife among Shiites and Sunnis, we were assured, was not merely imminent, but already well upon us. Then the great civil war sort of fizzled out; our own frenzy subsided; and now exhausted we await next week's new prescription of doom--apparently the hyped-up story of Arabs at our ports. That the Iraqi security forces are becoming bigger and better, that we have witnessed three successful elections, and that hundreds of brave American soldiers have died to get us to the brink of seeing an Iraqi government emerge was forgotten in a 24-hour news cycle.

Few observers suggested that the Samarra bombing of a holy mosque by radical Muslims might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation--killers who have not, and cannot, defeat the U.S. military. After the furor over Danish cartoons, French rioting and Iranian nuclear perfidy, the entire world is turning on radical Islam and the terrorists feel keenly this rising tide of opposition on the frontline in Iraq.

True, the Sunni Triangle, unlike southern Iraq and Kurdistan, is often inhospitable to the forces of reconstruction--but hardly lost to jihadists and militias as we are told. There is a disturbing sameness to our acrimony at home, as we recall all the links in this chain of America hysteria from the brouhaha over George Bush's flight suit to purported flushed Korans at Guantanamo Bay. Each time we are lectured that the looting, Abu Ghraib, the embalming of Uday and Qusay, the demeaning oral exam of Saddam, unarmored Humvees, inadequate body armor or the latest catastrophe has squandered our victory, the unimpressed U.S. military simply goes about what it does best--defeating the terrorists and training the Iraqi military to serve a democratic government. They stay focused in this long war, while our pundits prepare the next controversy.

The second-guessing of 2003 still daily obsesses us: We should have had better intelligence; we could have kept the Iraqi military intact; we would have been better off deploying more troops. Had our forefathers embraced such a suicidal and reactionary wartime mentality, Americans would have still torn each other apart over Valley Forge years later on the eve of Yorktown--or refought Pearl Harbor even as they steamed out to Okinawa.

There is a more disturbing element to these self-serving, always evolving pronouncements of the "my perfect war, but your disastrous peace" syndrome. Conservatives who insisted that we needed more initial troops are often the same ones who now decry that too much money has been spent in Iraq. Liberals who chant "no blood for oil" lament that we unnecessarily ratcheted up the global price of petroleum. Progressives who charge that we are imperialists also indict us for being naively idealistic in thinking democracy could take root in post-Baathist Iraq and providing aid of a magnitude not seen since the Marshall Plan. For many, Iraq is no longer a war whose prognosis is to be judged empirically. It has instead transmogrified into a powerful symbol that apparently must serve deeply held, but preconceived, beliefs--the deceptions of Mr. Bush, the folly of a neoconservative cabal, the necessary comeuppance of the American imperium, or the greed of an oil-hungry U.S.

If many are determined to see the Iraqi war as lost without a plan, it hardly seems so to 130,000 U.S. soldiers still over there. They explain to visitors that they have always had a design: defeat the Islamic terrorists; train a competent Iraqi military; and provide requisite time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists.

We point fingers at each other; soldiers under fire point to their achievements: Largely because they fight jihadists over there, there has not been another 9/11 here. Because Saddam is gone, reform is not just confined to Iraq, but taking hold in Lebanon, Egypt and the Gulf. We hear the military is nearly ruined after conducting two wars and staying on to birth two democracies; its soldiers feel that they are more experienced and lethal, and on the verge of pulling off the nearly impossible: offering a people terrorized from nightmarish oppression something other than the false choice of dictatorship or theocracy--and making the U.S. safer for the effort.

The secretary of defense, like officers in Iraq, did not welcome the war, but felt that it needed to be fought and will be won. Soldiers and civilian planners express confidence in eventual success, but with awareness of often having only difficult and more difficult choices after Sept. 11. Put too many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we earn the wages of imperialism, or create a costly footprint that is hard to erase, or engender a dependency among the very ones in whom we wish to ensure self-reliance. Yet deploy too few troops, and instability arises in Kabul and Baghdad, as the Islamists lose their fear of American power and turn on the vulnerable we seek to protect.

In sum, after talking to our soldiers in Iraq and our planners in Washington, what seems to me most inexplicable is the war over the war--not the purported absence of a plan, but that the more we are winning in the field, the more we are losing it at home.

Mr. Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the author most recently of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War" (Random House, 2005).

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

"Don't Call Me An Islamophobe"

2006-02-24T08:49:00.000-07:00

It seems that that is now the rallying cry of those who reacted with hysteria at the prospect of an Arab country leasing terminal management duties at our ports. I am sure there are those who have called the critics “Islamophobes”, and it was wrong for them to do so. However, I have no sympathy for the opponents as they brought it upon themselves by reacting so hysterically when this story broke. There are questions that need to be answered about the deal, and the Administration has started to do so.

The opponents of the deal immediately jumped on the bandwagon that this was a horrible deal. The transaction was completely mischaracterized, and those mischaracterizations were used to prey on the fear Americans rightly have after 9/11. An Arab owned company has bought our Ports! Our ports have been “out sourced!” This is the worst political mistake the administration could make!!! This is the end of the Bush administration!!! At best it’s a horrid political mistake, at worst we may lose a city!!

All said before even 10% of the facts were known. The question those of us who withheld judgement have for those who were hysterical from the get go is simple: Why? Why didn’t you get the facts before you commented? Why did the potential of this deal send you over the edge? Why were you willing to attack the President without knowing any of the facts?

It may very well be that after review the deal shouldn’t go forward. But for heavens sake calm down. As for the opponents being upset about others being upset about their irrational response: tough. When you throw a hissy fit and act like a baby, that is how you will be treated. In the mean time, more responsible people will have a debate about the possible security implications of any foreign entity, whether from the Middle Eat or Great Britain, leasing terminals in our ports. When you are finished throwing your fit, you can join the conversation.

Update:

It seems that now, those who had a ridiculous knee jerk reaction to the story and commented before having all (or any) of the facts, are now using the "ineptitude of the administration" as a cover for their behaviour. Instead of an excuse how about just admitting you were wrong to prejudge the situation and to help whip the public into a frenzy? Although I link to Instapundit as an example this excuse is rampant amoung those who are now embarrassed to admit that their opposition to the deal really only boiled down to ethnicity.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Unreported Thwarting Of A Terrorist Attack on The US

2006-01-12T05:32:00.000-07:00

Italy has arrested three Algerians who were planning an attack more spectacular than that of the September 11th attacks. The attack was to be launched within the United States against stadiums, train stations etc. The story itself should be what makes the headlines, unless you are an avid reader of blogs, you have not heard this story. The mainstream media has blacked it out. Why? Why would the mainstram media in the United States not cover what is most likely the biggest story regarding homeland security and one of the biggest stories in general since September 11th, when international newspapers are screaming it across their front pages and leading their newscats with it? The answer lies in how the Italian authorities uncovered and foiled the plot: using wiretaps. That's right. It seems the largest terror plot on the US since September 11th was uncovered using the very method the Democrats and their allies in the media hope to impeach George Bush for if the Democrats manage to retake the house. How could the media allow the people of the United States to hear a story that would completely take the wind out of the impeachment sails? They can't, therefore you are not allowed to see a story that is treated as blockbuster news everywhere from China to Europe.

Read it here.

Powerline also commented on this story here.

Be sure to check the current posts for update.

The Coming War With Iran

2005-12-14T08:21:00.000-07:00

The string of anti-Israel rants and the refusal to cooperate with the international community lead me to believe that Iran is not "months away" from having a nuclear weapon, but already have nuclear weapons. If the IAEA is willing and able to say that they believe Iran is only months away then the United States and the West should assume that Iran has nuclear weapons. Ariel Sharon has postured himself politically to be able to take in necessary action against Iran. Let the countdown begin, the war is coming and this time our "allies" had better be able to see the danger and join the coalition.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Predictable Press

2005-11-03T08:10:00.000-07:00

There have been dozens of articles like this one in the past few weeks. The press, in conjunction with renewed attacks by the Democrats, has been relentlessly trying to convince the American people that George Bush's Presidency is over. The bias is stunning. In fact, it can no longer be considered "bias" as that infers that the writer is at least attempting to be up the middle. The fact is the press during the past 5 years has turned itself into the propoganda wing of the Democratic Party. Each of these articles cited the same events: the death of 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, the indictment of Scooter (who?) Libby, and supposedly low approval numbers as evidence that the President is a lame duck, one year after recieving more voted than any presidential candidate in the history of the U.S. We are witnessing the press campaign for the Democrats in a mid term election. Oh well, what else is new?

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

This is Fascinating

2005-11-02T14:09:00.000-07:00

This is a fascinating story, via LGF. After reading it, I searched the web and found a few more pages devoted to it here, here and here.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Comments Off

2005-11-01T06:12:00.000-07:00

Spammers have taken to leaving dozens of absurd, sometimes offensive comments, so I am turning comments off until I can find a remedy. If anyone knows of a way to stop this, please let me know. Otherwise comments will be limited to emails.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Libby Indicted

2005-10-28T13:22:00.000-06:00

So a two year, multi-million dollar investigation ends with one person indicted for making false statements regarding an event (the publication of a name) that was never a crime to begin with. If Libby did lie he has nothing but his own poor judgement to blame. So after all the press hysteria we have a one man tragedy.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Happily, I Return To Blogging...

2005-10-27T08:59:00.000-06:00

But the current political environment in nauseating. I will comment on "Plamegate" after there is an announcement by the special prosecutor. Until then I know as much as anyone in the media, zero, so there is no need to speculate. However I do have something to say about the Miers nomination and subsequent withdrawal. The actions of some conservatives on this have been unforgivable. I hope the insulated word warriors The Corner at NRO are proud of themselves. No doubt they will spend many hours patting themselves on the back telling themselves they are the guardians of "True Conservatism", protecting it from the lowly masses who felt Harriet Miers deserved enough respect to at least get a hearing. I have advice for the folks at NRO: get out amongst the people once in a while. You are as insulated from the world as any liberal college professor who has spent his entire life in school. By "out" I do not mean among other like minded pundits who are eager to pass out compliments in order to receive compliments, but average people who go to work 8 hours a day in professions that have nothing to do with law or politics. Internet sites like NRO are incestuous places where political debate goes to die.

I would have preferred Luttig. Was Harriet Miers the best nominee? We will never know because she didn't have a hearing. I can't wait for the NRO's reaction when Alberto Gonzales, or someone just as moderate as him, is the replacement pick. You reap what you sow. SO while many at NRO and other sites are congratulating each other, the millions of "everyday" Republicans who supported the President's nominee will continue to view the criticism as arrogant and elitist. Based on the arguments given by her opponents, I say they are right to do so.

I refer you to Hugh Hewitt for further comments on the treatment on Miers by the right.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Blogging From Iceland

2005-05-23T09:35:00.000-06:00

I am currently in Iceland and I will return in about two weeks with many photos, so check back often. I will load the pictures when I return home!

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Unbelieveable Press

2005-05-18T08:48:00.000-06:00

When you read the text of questions asked of Scott Mclellan, the Press Secretary, please remeber that these are not Senate Democrats asking the questions, but members of the White House press who claim to be unbiased. Also keep in mind the backdrop to this conference is the false story published by Newsweek that led to riots and deaths in the Middle East. Powerline has a good list of the questions.

Remeber as well that before the election, the President held a press conference during which the media acted much like they did this time. The American people reacted negatively to such an obvious display of partisanship, and I suspect they will react the same way to this show.

Thye bad news is that so few people read newspapers or watch TV news that the temper tantrum thrown by the press will likely go unnoticed.
Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Radical Democrats, Dishonest Media and A Naive Newt

2005-05-13T08:09:00.000-06:00

Three really incredible stories in the news. Barbara Boxer has put a hold on the Bolton nomination after it was sent to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The Democrats have decided that they will essentially overrule the results of the election by not allowing anything to happen in the country for four years. No judicial nominees will go through and no appointments will go through. Apparently the blocking of everything they disagree with is their idea of Democracy. SOrt of the same as their claim that conservative voices on PBS is against the law.

In another related story, CBS has once again lied to the American people to support claims by the Democrats. This time they have butchered a Ken Starr quote to make it appear that he stated that the Republican bid to end the fillibuster of judges is a radical step and an attack on the judiciary. Of course he said no such thing, in fact his meaning was almost the opposite.

The third story involves Hillary Clinton's attempt to get who she has called an "Arch-Conservative" and a man who many conservatives looked upon as a hero to basically endorse her for President in 2008. Apparently she is doing a very good job. Newt get a clue, she is using you like she has used so many others for political gain in the past. Hillary uses Newt, Bill uses Preesident Bush Sr. We have seen it all before.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Bolton Vote Looks Good Today

2005-05-12T07:37:00.000-06:00

It looks as though Bolton will be confirmed. The comittee vote is today.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Democrats Go Further and Further Left

2005-05-12T07:26:00.000-06:00

Two amazing stories that show clearly the Democrats natural tendancy is toward a socialist government that controls free speech. The first story involves DNC chair Howard Dean endorsing a Socialist candidate for Senate in Vermont.

The second and in some ways more incredible story is that two Democratic Congressman are calling for an investigation into the hiring practices of PBS. WHy? Because they recently hired conservative voices, which the Democrats say might be illegal. Conservative voices on PBS are illegal? The Democrats constantly cry that Republicans threaten free speech. Yet the Democrats want to regulate political speech on the internet, re-enact the Fairness Doctrine and have now claimed that it is illegal to hire conservative voices on PBS.

This is a developing story on Drudge.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

President Bush In Georgia

2005-05-10T07:13:00.000-06:00

I enjoy reading about and posting on the President's trips to Eastern European countries more than most other events. Most Eastern Europeans, unlike their counterparts on the other side of the continent, understand and appreciate the role America plays in keeping them free. They understand the strength it takes for a leader to fight the naysayers and lead people, through force or diplomacy, to greater freedom. Unlike the average American college student, young people in Eastern Europe appreciate the sacrifice it takes to become and remain a free peoples. The countries and the people of Eastern Europe will be among our greatest allies in the future, and we will owe their allegiance to great men like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

More here.

It remains a truism that those who yearn for freedom continue to look to AMerica for guideance and hope, despite what the opposition party in this country might say.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Anti-Choice Party

2005-05-03T08:05:00.000-06:00

The Democrats often describe themselves as the party of choice, it has been their mantra for decades. They use the “choice” argument in an attempt to convince potential voters that they will free them from the shackles of the right wing fascists that make up the Republican Party. But the fact of the matter is time and time again, Democrats prove themselves to be the party of ever increasing government control, thus limiting the choice of average Americans. Are they pro choice on schools? No, they oppose vouchers which would give many parents the choice to remove their children from failing public schools. Are they pro-choice on guns? No, they in most cases oppose the right to bear arms, thus eliminating the choice to own a weapon. Are they pro-choice on Social Security? No, they oppose private accounts which would give younger workers the choice to open and maintain accounts with a small percentage of the money paid to Social Security. Are they pro-choice on smoking? No, Clinton started the war on tobacco which has now resulted in business being forced to eliminate smoking in their establishments. A private business owner no longer has the choice to allow smoking in a business he has invested his money and time in. Are they pro-choice in hiring practices? No, they have passed laws in state after state dictating who a manager can and can’t employee. If a person owns a business and a male employee decides that he will dress in women’s clothing and wear make-up, an employer cannot fire him, no matter the effect on his business. Are they pro-choice on the definition of marriage? No. State after state has voted down redefining marriage, yet the Democrats have rammed the issue through state courts and federal courts, in many cases overturning the choice of the majority with the opinions of a few.

On issue after issue the Democrats oppose you having any choice in your life. They rail against the Patriot Act because of the specter of government intrusion is private lives, yet they pass law after law, file lawsuit after lawsuit and oppose bill after bill that would take the government out of a person’s life. The only topic on which they are pro-choice is abortion. But the reality is that they are actually pro-abortion, not pro-choice. In Colorado they passed a bill that would effectively force all hospitals to provide abortion information to victims of rape, no matter the beliefs of the hospital. A Catholic hospital, although opposed to abortion, would be forced to give the patient the information on abortion no matter the fact that the founding principles of the hospital oppose abortion. The bill does not, of course, force the hospitals to provide information on other options such as adoption. The Republican Governor vetoed the bill, but it looks as if the veto will be overturned by the newly elected Democratic Senate and Congress. (Both elected by major hyper-donators from around the country that targeted the state). The Democratic State Senate in the state has also passed a smoking ban for every establishment in Denver. The Republicans managed to rewrite the bill to include only restaurants, thus saving decades old bars and Cigar bars from the ban, but the Democrats have now forced them back under the law.

The Democratic Party left unchecked would transform this country into a socialist state where every “choice” in a persons life would be made by the government. They are the anti-choice party.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

US Okays Israeli Bunker Busters

2005-04-28T10:57:00.001-06:00

This is good news, and I hope it means that “negotiations” with Iran are coming to an end.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

US Okays Israeli Bunker Busters

2005-04-28T10:57:00.000-06:00

This is good news, and I hope it means that “negotiations” with Iran are coming to an end.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Prager Agrees: McCain Must Go

2005-04-28T10:56:00.000-06:00

Dennis Prager has just stated on his show what I stated several days ago in this post; it is time for John McCain to go. He bases his opinion on McCain’s support for the disastrous campaign finance reform bill as well as his opposition to ending the Democrats filibuster of Appellate Court nominees.

It is not that he is not “Conservative enough” but that he has demonstrated profound moral confusion on major issues. Time for the Arizona Republican Party to introduce a strong candidate.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Bolton Accuser Admits Dishonesty

2005-04-27T14:06:00.000-06:00

LGF has the best coverage of this, but the jest of the story is that the person on whom the Dems are hanging their opposition to John Bolton has, to say the least, a credibility problem.

I am sure you are shocked
.
Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

It's Always 1974

2005-04-22T12:59:00.000-06:00

Yes, yes, yes... Fianlly someone has articulated it.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

More Clinton Corruption

2005-04-21T08:18:00.000-06:00

It is incredible. The depths of corruption in the Clinton organization is bottomless. The New York Sun is all over a story that the large mainstream media outlets seem to be ignoring for some reason. Gee, I wonder why?

A Democratic fund-raiser involved in Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign has offered a guilty plea to bank fraud charges and is likely to become a government witness at the upcoming federal trial of a top finance aide to Mrs. Clinton, David Rosen, court records obtained by The New York Sun show.

As part of an FBI investigation into alleged campaign finance reporting violations by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, the mystery witness secretly taped a conversation with Mr. Rosen in September 2002 and apparently tried to elicit statements from the former Clinton staffer about financial irregularities involving an August 2000 Hollywood fund-raising event.

Allegedly inaccurate reports about that event filed with the Federal Election Commission led to Mr. Rosen's indictment on four counts of causing false statements to be made to federal authorities. One count was dropped by a judge last month, but Mr. Rosen is scheduled to go to trial on the remaining charges at Los Angeles on May 3.

In the documents reviewed by the Sun, the name of the FBI informant is not disclosed. However, the records offer intriguing clues that suggest the mystery witness operated at the highest echelon of Democratic politics.

"The CW [confidential witness] is related to an extremely prominent and well-known political figure. It can be expected that the fact that CW was working in an undercover capacity for the FBI will become the subject of intense media attention," prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg wrote in a November 2004 memo asking a federal magistrate to keep the relationship under wraps.

An affidavit filed by a Los Angeles-based FBI agent, David Smith, said the informant began working with the FBI in July 2002."The CW states that s/he is active in fundraising for the Democratic Party. CW assisted in the U.S. Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton. S/he was involved in the planning of the Clinton Gala," Mr. Smith wrote in January 2003. "The CW is the target of an FBI investigation on unrelated bank fraud charges. S/he has since signed a plea agreement, and has agreed to cooperate in this case."

Needless to say, if this case involved President Bush or a Republican Senator, the media would be howling and Democratic lawmakers would be calling for impeachment, censure etc... Since however it involves the ever corrupt great white hope of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, the media and the Democrats are silent. The Sun is leading this story because other media wants it to go away.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Andrew Sullivan: Karl Rove/Republicans Behind Selection of new Pope

2005-04-20T13:43:00.000-06:00

This is incredible. Andrew Sullivan has just claimed on the Michael Medved Show that Karl Rove and the Republicans were behind the selection of the new Pope. Sullivan hates the new Pope because Pope Benedict XVI will not allow gay priests, gay marriage etc... Everything that Andrew Sullivan says is colored by the fact that he is gay.

This is incredible. Karl Rove is, according to the left, the most powerful man in the universe. I hope that his statements are broadcast far and wide for people to hear. The fact of the matter is Andrew Sullivan is a crackpot who is able to turn a phrase. Sorry to all those who have some respect for the man, but anyone who will claim that Republicans and Karl Rove are behind the selection of a Pope has lost his moorings.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Fonda Spit On By Vet

2005-04-20T09:38:00.000-06:00

I am sorry, but this is funny...

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

What Really Happened in Oklahoma City?

2005-04-20T08:34:00.000-06:00

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions regarding the Oklahoma City bombing. In reading this article on Fox News, these paragraphs stood out:

Some argue the FBI should have looked harder at phone records they used to track McVeigh and Nichols. The records might hold ignored or missed clues that call for a wider investigation, especially the number of calls McVeigh made to the Philippines.

“It's amazing to me that not more has been made of those phone records,” Johnston said.

Repeated calls were made from Terry Nichols' home to a place called Star Glad Lumber in the Philippines.

“Star Glad Lumber is operated by a man whose brother and cousin were both notorious terrorists, splinter groups of the Abu Sayyaf terror group in the Philippines,” according to Johnston, the attorney.

Nichols also repeatedly called a boarding house in Cebu City, an establishment that has been linked to 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef (search). The same kind of ANFO fertilizer fuel bomb was used in New York and in Oklahoma City.

Huh? McVeigh and Nichols both made calls to overseas numbers known to be connected with well known Islamic terrorists before they blew up a US Federal building? This is the only act of terror on US soil in the past few years NOT attributed to Islamic radicals?

If it weren't for the pathetic foreign policy record of the Clinton Administration I would brush all notion of a conspiracy aside. But given Clinton's obsession with his own legacy, particularly in regards to Middle East peace, I do not think it out of the realm of possibility that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton decided to, for the sake of their own lagacy and theur future political aspirations, pass the problem of Islamis terror to the next administration. Considering the repeated attacks we suffered without retaliation, it seems clear that the Clintons were either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat closing in on our shores.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.