It’s much better than we thought. Not only has Iraq become the “cause celeb” for terrorists, it’s where they are being killed by the thousands. Democrats are in high dudgeon over a single line in the latest NIE report that says Iraq is drawing in foreign fighters. Democrats wailed and moaned, cried, shouted and whined that Iraq was only strengthening the enemy.
Only after much hand wringing from sisified Democrats and their terrorists cheering stooges in the MSM did we hear from the new nut-case running al Qaeda operations in Iraq. Well yeah, it turns out that a lot of foreign fighters are showing up in Iraq to become martyrs, and the coalition is obliging them in huge numbers. The new al Qaeda leader Hamza al-Muhajir celebrated the fact that 4,000 (the real number must be much higher) foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq – which make one wonder what might cause such a man to morn.
All of this would seem to bear out what President Bush has been saying. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. If we kill the Islamo-terror-fascists there, we will not have to kill or try them, with all of our civil liberties and rights, here after they have knocked down another building or two.
The clueless among us, of course, will continue to argue that had we just left them alone, the ITF that populate the madrasses and listen to the whacko imams would never have come out against us. That idea is as nutty as a Snickers bar. As Presidents Bush and Karzi have pointed out recently, the ITF have been waging war on us for the last 30 years. Lex thinks the war goes all the back to 1803 when the Marines took on the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.
Whenever this war started, we know that playing nice or hiding under the bed sheets in the hope that “they’ll just leave us alone” does not work. The ITF are committed to conquest, conversion or death – ours or theirs. I’m of the opinion that it ought to be theirs.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Reports, reporters, and what they report
Anyone who has worked in a large organization knows that at times you become so focused on the process that you forget the mission. During my twenty years in the Marine Corps, I was responsible for processing a plethora of weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports. Some assignments had so many reports or a report of such importance that the report became the focus of the job rather than what the report was reporting.
One day as young captain, I was going over a report that broke down my artillery battery’s racial make up with my battalion commander. He asked me why I was tracking such things. I told him well because regiment and division require it. He said, “I know. But why are you doing it?” I had no clue. The report had become the focus. What it was telling me had long ago been forgotten.
It took an outsider to come in and remind me that my report was combined with others to tell recruiters and others if the make-up of the Corps was consistent with the make-up of America. It also told us if our promotion and disciplinary policies were in sync with the make-up of the Corps.
That may be where we are in our war with Islamo-terror-fascists. The NIE report gets illegally leaked and politicians begin to cherry pick it’s findings. We are now bickering so often and as such partisans among ourselves, we’ve forgotten why we're fighting and what’s at stake. It took an outsider to put our fight back into stark terms. Afghan president Karzi did that recently when some idiot reporter misstated a NIE finding. Here’s what Karzi had to say:
"PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
"They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like."
One day as young captain, I was going over a report that broke down my artillery battery’s racial make up with my battalion commander. He asked me why I was tracking such things. I told him well because regiment and division require it. He said, “I know. But why are you doing it?” I had no clue. The report had become the focus. What it was telling me had long ago been forgotten.
It took an outsider to come in and remind me that my report was combined with others to tell recruiters and others if the make-up of the Corps was consistent with the make-up of America. It also told us if our promotion and disciplinary policies were in sync with the make-up of the Corps.
That may be where we are in our war with Islamo-terror-fascists. The NIE report gets illegally leaked and politicians begin to cherry pick it’s findings. We are now bickering so often and as such partisans among ourselves, we’ve forgotten why we're fighting and what’s at stake. It took an outsider to put our fight back into stark terms. Afghan president Karzi did that recently when some idiot reporter misstated a NIE finding. Here’s what Karzi had to say:
"PRESIDENT KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
"They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like."
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Sometimes letters are to the editor
Several posts below Lex takes on The Atlanta Journal-Constitution via the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette on the subject of rough treatment of POWs during WWII. The next day I received a note from the Journal-Gazette. The J-G informed me that since I’d had letter published in the last 30 they could not publish my latest submission. On the same page as the WWII excrement, the Journal Gazette published this bit of detritus on Bilal Hussein, a terrorist masquerading as an AP photo stringer. Michael Malkin has the skinny ol’ Bilal here. So, I replied back to the J-G with this:
Dear editors,
Yes, I'm aware of your policy. That truly was a letter to the editor. I hoped that you would consider bringing a bit of balance to your overwhelmingly left leaning page, much of what shows up there unfortunately being rubbish.
For instance your “Held without charges” editorial which never mentions the fact that Hussein was captured in the company of al Qaeda terrorists and tested positive for trace amounts of explosives on his body. According to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq, to AP International Editor John Daniszewski, "[Hussein] has close relationships with persons knownto be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces...The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."
Letting your readers in on all of this might have added a bit of balance to the piece and would keep them from making fools of themselves in a discussion on the subject with an informed friend or co-worker. In my book, if he has unlimited access to terrorists, is captured with terrorists, looks like a terrorist, smells like a terrorist (i.e. explosives), he’s probably a terrorist.
Editors could have told the whole story while maintaining the central point of the piece that Hussein should be charged or let go. This would highlight the competing theories in our war on terror. The J-G’s apparently being that we’re not really engaged in a war at all, just a large-scale, world-wide, criminal investigation.
Also, calling any news service “objective” is nonsense. Due in large part to their twisting of the news to fit their liberal agenda, news outlets are among the least trusted institutions in America. 62%of Americans don’t trust the press, according to a Harris poll. Conversely, the same poll found that 63% of Americans do trust the military. But since the J-G’s circulation continues to go through the roof, I’m sure none of that concerns you.
Regards,
Dear editors,
Yes, I'm aware of your policy. That truly was a letter to the editor. I hoped that you would consider bringing a bit of balance to your overwhelmingly left leaning page, much of what shows up there unfortunately being rubbish.
For instance your “Held without charges” editorial which never mentions the fact that Hussein was captured in the company of al Qaeda terrorists and tested positive for trace amounts of explosives on his body. According to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq, to AP International Editor John Daniszewski, "[Hussein] has close relationships with persons knownto be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces...The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities."
Letting your readers in on all of this might have added a bit of balance to the piece and would keep them from making fools of themselves in a discussion on the subject with an informed friend or co-worker. In my book, if he has unlimited access to terrorists, is captured with terrorists, looks like a terrorist, smells like a terrorist (i.e. explosives), he’s probably a terrorist.
Editors could have told the whole story while maintaining the central point of the piece that Hussein should be charged or let go. This would highlight the competing theories in our war on terror. The J-G’s apparently being that we’re not really engaged in a war at all, just a large-scale, world-wide, criminal investigation.
Also, calling any news service “objective” is nonsense. Due in large part to their twisting of the news to fit their liberal agenda, news outlets are among the least trusted institutions in America. 62%of Americans don’t trust the press, according to a Harris poll. Conversely, the same poll found that 63% of Americans do trust the military. But since the J-G’s circulation continues to go through the roof, I’m sure none of that concerns you.
Regards,
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Is it OK for Byrd to be a racist of the worst kind?
Senator George Allen is being accused of using the “N” word back in his college days. Given the times, maybe he did. I don’t know. Given his father’s close association with accomplished black men as a professional football coach, maybe he knew better. I don’t know.
But I do know that there is a man running for the US senate that used word many times. A sitting senator that used the word so often and with such hate that it propelled him into a leadership position within the KKK. We do not hear much about that senator who, like Allen, is running for re-election this fall. Now why is that do you suppose?
Former Klansman and ardent racist, Robert Byrd is seeking re-election to his senate seat in WV. Yet we’ve heard nothing of what must have daily diatribes against blacks and as he said on FNC white “N”s. Why? It couldn’t be MSM double standard BS could it?
But I do know that there is a man running for the US senate that used word many times. A sitting senator that used the word so often and with such hate that it propelled him into a leadership position within the KKK. We do not hear much about that senator who, like Allen, is running for re-election this fall. Now why is that do you suppose?
Former Klansman and ardent racist, Robert Byrd is seeking re-election to his senate seat in WV. Yet we’ve heard nothing of what must have daily diatribes against blacks and as he said on FNC white “N”s. Why? It couldn’t be MSM double standard BS could it?
If his lips are moving, he's lying
Two posts below, Lex takes former President Clinton to task for being a self-promoting narcissist. I noted how Clinton used the terms “I” and “me” 6 times in about 21 seconds. In a word search of the FNS transcript dealing only with the bin Laden portion of the interview, Clinton used “I” 103 times, “me” 18 times, “my” 8 times, “I’m” 7 times and “I’ve” 3 times. That’s 139 references to himself in about ten minutes time. Given the fact some of time was used by FNS host Chris Wallace the references per minute of just Clinton speaking would be through the roof.
After doing that bit of research, the Drudge Report this morning is saying Secretary of State Rice is calling Clinton a liar. While it struck me that Clinton seemed obsessed with himself during the interview, it never occurred to me to check his facts, because I just assumed he’d be lying. Further, given Mr. Clinton’s propensity to play fast and lose with the truth, I assumed everyone else would assume he was lying.
Eleven times during the interview, Mr. Clinton refers to Richard Clarke’s book. He ought to read it himself. In it and the 9-11 Commission report, Clarke refutes two of Clinton’s main accusations, that Clinton had left the Bush administration a comprehensive plan for the war on terror. Clarke says no such plan ever existed. Clarke also lays waste to Clinton’s assertion that he was demoted. He was not. Clarke was in fact the head of counterterrorism on 9-11. The other most obvious lie was when Clinton said, straight- faced, “Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush.” Yagottabekidding.
None of that surprises me. It’s hard to keep every fact of one’s eight year administration straight or even the first nine month of someone else’s. What struck me most in the interview was the part where Clinton said “After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn up to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack and search for bin Laden.” The only hold up was that the FBI and CIA wouldn’t let him. Huh? It's as if a couple of eight year olds were planning a sleep over. The plans get scuttled when Billy's mom says "no". You were the president man! Who tells who they can’t do something?
I’ve noted on this page before that Clinton was a poll driven president who never did or even tried to do anything big after Hillary’s health care debacle. The three major accomplishments of his administration, the economy, welfare reform and the balanced budget were the result of previous Republican administrations and a Republican congress. Clinton will always have a one word legacy - Monica.
After doing that bit of research, the Drudge Report this morning is saying Secretary of State Rice is calling Clinton a liar. While it struck me that Clinton seemed obsessed with himself during the interview, it never occurred to me to check his facts, because I just assumed he’d be lying. Further, given Mr. Clinton’s propensity to play fast and lose with the truth, I assumed everyone else would assume he was lying.
Eleven times during the interview, Mr. Clinton refers to Richard Clarke’s book. He ought to read it himself. In it and the 9-11 Commission report, Clarke refutes two of Clinton’s main accusations, that Clinton had left the Bush administration a comprehensive plan for the war on terror. Clarke says no such plan ever existed. Clarke also lays waste to Clinton’s assertion that he was demoted. He was not. Clarke was in fact the head of counterterrorism on 9-11. The other most obvious lie was when Clinton said, straight- faced, “Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush.” Yagottabekidding.
None of that surprises me. It’s hard to keep every fact of one’s eight year administration straight or even the first nine month of someone else’s. What struck me most in the interview was the part where Clinton said “After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn up to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack and search for bin Laden.” The only hold up was that the FBI and CIA wouldn’t let him. Huh? It's as if a couple of eight year olds were planning a sleep over. The plans get scuttled when Billy's mom says "no". You were the president man! Who tells who they can’t do something?
I’ve noted on this page before that Clinton was a poll driven president who never did or even tried to do anything big after Hillary’s health care debacle. The three major accomplishments of his administration, the economy, welfare reform and the balanced budget were the result of previous Republican administrations and a Republican congress. Clinton will always have a one word legacy - Monica.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Democrats hail information ignore source
The New York Times’ latest effort to undermine our war on Islamo-terror-fascists was to release a top secret assessment, by our spy agencies, that indicates the ITF are growing stronger as a result of our efforts in Iraq. Fine, that would seem to prove President Bush’s point that Iraq is now the central front on the war on ITF.
Democrats are gleefully hailing the report as proof positive the war that they voted for in Iraq was a mistake. I’m of the opinion that if some percentage of a billion Muslims want to join the ITF in waging war on a Muslim country, fine we can kill them there. And I’m not surprised given the encouragement ITF receives from “we can hide under the bed sheets and they’ll leave us alone” politicians and the blame America first left that they are not emboldened to pursue our defeat in Iraq. All of this proves a point. If the ITF are willing to blow themselves and innocent Muslims up in a Muslim country, does anyone seriously believe that they will ever leave us alone?
And where is all of the outrage about the leaking of classified information from Democrats who faked outrage when non-spy, non-covert, run of the mill, ordinary citizen who happened drive in and out of the front gate at Langley Valerie Plame showed up in a Robert Novak column? There isn’t any.
The reason that there isn’t any outrage is because this leak is a good leak that serves Democrat purposes. The Plame leak was a bad leak because it exposed liar Joe Wilson and his ordinary bureaucrat wife for the political hacks that they are. So for democrats the only way to make political hay of the Plame leak was to condemn the leak itself rather than information.
This latest leak is a good leak because on the surface it can hurt Republicans. So the information is hailed and the fact that the information is top secret and was leaked by some partisan in one of our spy agencies is ignored. While Democrats publicly, prematurely and as it turned out wrongly screamed for Karl Rove’s head in the Plame leak, if the scoundrel who leaked the top secret information on our war effort in Iraq is ever caught, Democrats no doubt will hail him as a great patriot speaking only truth to power rather than the treasonous bastard that he is.
And yes Mr. & Mrs. America, this is yet another reason why it is not yet safe to vote for a Democrat.
Democrats are gleefully hailing the report as proof positive the war that they voted for in Iraq was a mistake. I’m of the opinion that if some percentage of a billion Muslims want to join the ITF in waging war on a Muslim country, fine we can kill them there. And I’m not surprised given the encouragement ITF receives from “we can hide under the bed sheets and they’ll leave us alone” politicians and the blame America first left that they are not emboldened to pursue our defeat in Iraq. All of this proves a point. If the ITF are willing to blow themselves and innocent Muslims up in a Muslim country, does anyone seriously believe that they will ever leave us alone?
And where is all of the outrage about the leaking of classified information from Democrats who faked outrage when non-spy, non-covert, run of the mill, ordinary citizen who happened drive in and out of the front gate at Langley Valerie Plame showed up in a Robert Novak column? There isn’t any.
The reason that there isn’t any outrage is because this leak is a good leak that serves Democrat purposes. The Plame leak was a bad leak because it exposed liar Joe Wilson and his ordinary bureaucrat wife for the political hacks that they are. So for democrats the only way to make political hay of the Plame leak was to condemn the leak itself rather than information.
This latest leak is a good leak because on the surface it can hurt Republicans. So the information is hailed and the fact that the information is top secret and was leaked by some partisan in one of our spy agencies is ignored. While Democrats publicly, prematurely and as it turned out wrongly screamed for Karl Rove’s head in the Plame leak, if the scoundrel who leaked the top secret information on our war effort in Iraq is ever caught, Democrats no doubt will hail him as a great patriot speaking only truth to power rather than the treasonous bastard that he is.
And yes Mr. & Mrs. America, this is yet another reason why it is not yet safe to vote for a Democrat.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Clinton, as always, talks about Clinton
Were he not such a classless, self-promoting revisionist, I could almost tolerate former president Bill Clinton. But he is, and I can’t. Clinton’s latest effort to restore himself from what will always be his legacy of creepy behavior is his appearance on Fox News Sunday.
Here, host Chris Wallace asks Mr. Clinton if he had done enough to catch bin Laden. First, I think he doth protest too much. Next, notice in the 21 seconds of Clinton talking, he uses the pronoun “I” and “me” 6 times. It’s always about Bill. He shows up at a funeral and instead of talking about the deceased, he talks about himself. He always talks about himself.
What Clinton might have tried is something along the lines of:
“Look, everyone in my administration did their very best. We did not have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Like 99% of Americans, we did not appreciate the depths of evil which bin Laden was capable. It’s a bit disingenuous, after the fact, to show where the strong man stumbled or where the man in the ring failed. In hindsight, could we have done more to get bin Laden? Of course. With the benefit of knowing what would happen, would we have done more? Of course. But we did not have the benefit knowing how things would turn out. So ask the critics, ‘What were you doing prior to 9-11 to get bin Laden or prevent 19 lunatics from flying planes into buildings and the ground?’ For 99.9% of us, sadly, the answer is nothing. And so, we paid the price on 9-11.”
But for Clinton, it’s always all about Clinton.
Here, host Chris Wallace asks Mr. Clinton if he had done enough to catch bin Laden. First, I think he doth protest too much. Next, notice in the 21 seconds of Clinton talking, he uses the pronoun “I” and “me” 6 times. It’s always about Bill. He shows up at a funeral and instead of talking about the deceased, he talks about himself. He always talks about himself.
What Clinton might have tried is something along the lines of:
“Look, everyone in my administration did their very best. We did not have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Like 99% of Americans, we did not appreciate the depths of evil which bin Laden was capable. It’s a bit disingenuous, after the fact, to show where the strong man stumbled or where the man in the ring failed. In hindsight, could we have done more to get bin Laden? Of course. With the benefit of knowing what would happen, would we have done more? Of course. But we did not have the benefit knowing how things would turn out. So ask the critics, ‘What were you doing prior to 9-11 to get bin Laden or prevent 19 lunatics from flying planes into buildings and the ground?’ For 99.9% of us, sadly, the answer is nothing. And so, we paid the price on 9-11.”
But for Clinton, it’s always all about Clinton.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Atlanta Journal Constitution claims US didn't torture during WWII, oh really
Today Ft. Wayne's Journal Gazette re-published a piece from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or as Rush Limbaugh calls it the Atlanta Journal-Constipation. In its long-winded high-minded piece the AJC asserts that the US never used rough treatment on POWs in WWII. Lex fired off the following response:
The piece that appeared in the editorial roundup section from the Atlanta J-C in today’s J-G, is perhaps the dumbest or most willfully ignorant thing I’ve seen in print in a long time. To claim that the US didn’t mistreat Nazis and Japanese prisoners during WWII is ludicrous. The writers ought to study the US struggle with Germans in the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest or one of about eight dozen references on Marine actions in the South Pacific.
To be sure, the actions were not government policy, but to pretend it didn’t happen or that the government wasn’t aware is dubious at best. The J-C makes its ridiculous assertion because it’s a good way to color the Bush administration’s effort to ensure American safety and clarify Common Article III of the Geneva Convention in the worst possible light.
If anything, Bush is taking the high road by seeking congressional codification of POW treatment rather than just doing what needs to be done. FDR never sought the codification of POW treatment during WWII, where only the most naive among us, or political hacks that populate today's editorial boards, would think rough treatment of POWs on both sides did not commonly occur.
But times were different then. Everyone knew the country was at war. Everyone knew what was at stake. Everyone supported the military and nearly everyone supported the president. The Supreme Court and congress never tried to assert power as the Commander in Chief. There were no protests calling FDR a war criminal when he had four German saboteurs tried by a military tribunal in secret in the basement of the justice building and then hanged.
If the misinformed or under-educated editorial staff at the J-C want to read about American treatment of Muslims in a former war, they should read about how we dealt with Muslim terrorists during the Philippine insurrection. If they’d like to read about American inhumanity to Americans, pick up a book on the Confederate prison at Andersonville.
The piece that appeared in the editorial roundup section from the Atlanta J-C in today’s J-G, is perhaps the dumbest or most willfully ignorant thing I’ve seen in print in a long time. To claim that the US didn’t mistreat Nazis and Japanese prisoners during WWII is ludicrous. The writers ought to study the US struggle with Germans in the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest or one of about eight dozen references on Marine actions in the South Pacific.
To be sure, the actions were not government policy, but to pretend it didn’t happen or that the government wasn’t aware is dubious at best. The J-C makes its ridiculous assertion because it’s a good way to color the Bush administration’s effort to ensure American safety and clarify Common Article III of the Geneva Convention in the worst possible light.
If anything, Bush is taking the high road by seeking congressional codification of POW treatment rather than just doing what needs to be done. FDR never sought the codification of POW treatment during WWII, where only the most naive among us, or political hacks that populate today's editorial boards, would think rough treatment of POWs on both sides did not commonly occur.
But times were different then. Everyone knew the country was at war. Everyone knew what was at stake. Everyone supported the military and nearly everyone supported the president. The Supreme Court and congress never tried to assert power as the Commander in Chief. There were no protests calling FDR a war criminal when he had four German saboteurs tried by a military tribunal in secret in the basement of the justice building and then hanged.
If the misinformed or under-educated editorial staff at the J-C want to read about American treatment of Muslims in a former war, they should read about how we dealt with Muslim terrorists during the Philippine insurrection. If they’d like to read about American inhumanity to Americans, pick up a book on the Confederate prison at Andersonville.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Chaves and Ahmadinejad use Democrat talking points
How would you feel if you found out that nut balls like Venezuela's Hugo Chaves and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shared many of your views? Well unless it was something innocuous like your favorite color, one might begin to reconsider their view. These two nut jobs took to the stage of the UN, the world’s Disneyland for nut jobs, over the last couple of days and blasted the US for everything from global warming to pumpkins being orange. Chaves called our president the devil. Ahmadinejad delivered most of the Democrat talking points before ending with a prayer for the end of the world.
Wouldn’t a politician love to get on the news condemning these guys? Too bad Democrats can’t take advantage of the opportunity. First, because they’d never stick up for this president. They didn’t when Michael Moore made a movie so full of crap a fleet of septic services couldn’t clean it up. They didn’t when some kook published a book on how to assassinate Bush. They didn’t when a movie on the same subject was made.
Not only do Democrats not require civility from foreign leaders on our soil, they nod knowingly to one another and talk about how America has lost its place in the world. They blame America first. They give a pass to anyone to say anything about America – if it’s bad. They will not condemn the speakers because they have said many of the same things or worse. You know like RC Durbin comparing American troops to the soviets who ran the gulag; or John Kerry, who complained about American forces terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night; or George Soros’ daily comparison of Bush to Hitler; Howard Deans tells Americans that we can’t win the war in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.
Somewhere there is a Democrat who’d like to take Chaves and Ahmadinejad to task for their comments, but he can’t. He can’t because he’d be Joe Liebermaned out of the party. He can’t because his party “leadership” says the exact same things day in and day out. So, Democrats, how does it feel to be aligned with such men of such intellectual power, grace and honor as Chaves and Ahmadinejad?
Wouldn’t a politician love to get on the news condemning these guys? Too bad Democrats can’t take advantage of the opportunity. First, because they’d never stick up for this president. They didn’t when Michael Moore made a movie so full of crap a fleet of septic services couldn’t clean it up. They didn’t when some kook published a book on how to assassinate Bush. They didn’t when a movie on the same subject was made.
Not only do Democrats not require civility from foreign leaders on our soil, they nod knowingly to one another and talk about how America has lost its place in the world. They blame America first. They give a pass to anyone to say anything about America – if it’s bad. They will not condemn the speakers because they have said many of the same things or worse. You know like RC Durbin comparing American troops to the soviets who ran the gulag; or John Kerry, who complained about American forces terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night; or George Soros’ daily comparison of Bush to Hitler; Howard Deans tells Americans that we can’t win the war in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.
Somewhere there is a Democrat who’d like to take Chaves and Ahmadinejad to task for their comments, but he can’t. He can’t because he’d be Joe Liebermaned out of the party. He can’t because his party “leadership” says the exact same things day in and day out. So, Democrats, how does it feel to be aligned with such men of such intellectual power, grace and honor as Chaves and Ahmadinejad?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Engagement is futile
If someone referred to me as a loud, foul-mouthed, immature idiot, by shouting back at them, “OH YEAH! A*&HOLE! WELL, I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?” I might just be making their point. So, even if what they are saying about me is true, it might be in my best interest to just ignore them.
So it is as the Pope wonders aloud if it’s possible to have a reasoned conversation with a Muslim about religion without the Muslim resorting violence. Predictably, the Muslims are rioting in the streets, burning churches and murdering nuns. All of this is in an effort to prove the Pope wrong and get an apology. Worse, great thinkers like Arnaud de Borchgrave and not so great thinkers like E. J. Dionne are wondering whether the pope should have said anything at all.
Well it is the Pope’s job to confront evil, not sit quietly in its presence. Whether the world wants to admit it or not, we are in the throes of a world war with a ruthless enemy known as Islamo-terror-fascists. The Pope erred only with his non-apology, apology. You know the RC Durbin type apology where you apologize for the reaction to your remarks rather than the remarks themselves. In Durbin’s case he apologized for the reasonable reaction at his idiotic and reprehensible remarks comparing US troops to Nazis, Pol Pot and the soviets who ran the Gulag, without ever retracting the words. The Pope apologized for the idiotic and reprehensible reaction to his reasonable remarks wondering if it is possible to have a conversation with a Muslim about religion, without ever retracting the words.
The answer, by the way, is no. You cannot have a reasonable conversation with radical lunatics trapped in the seventh century. Until Islam under goes some sort of reformation which purges the blood-thirsty imams, closes Saudi madrases, and rejects pan Islamo-terror-fascism, engagement will only incite the mob. Ask the Pope, Theo Van Gough’s friends and family, Dutch cartoonists or the friends and family of the murdered Italian nun.
So it is as the Pope wonders aloud if it’s possible to have a reasoned conversation with a Muslim about religion without the Muslim resorting violence. Predictably, the Muslims are rioting in the streets, burning churches and murdering nuns. All of this is in an effort to prove the Pope wrong and get an apology. Worse, great thinkers like Arnaud de Borchgrave and not so great thinkers like E. J. Dionne are wondering whether the pope should have said anything at all.
Well it is the Pope’s job to confront evil, not sit quietly in its presence. Whether the world wants to admit it or not, we are in the throes of a world war with a ruthless enemy known as Islamo-terror-fascists. The Pope erred only with his non-apology, apology. You know the RC Durbin type apology where you apologize for the reaction to your remarks rather than the remarks themselves. In Durbin’s case he apologized for the reasonable reaction at his idiotic and reprehensible remarks comparing US troops to Nazis, Pol Pot and the soviets who ran the Gulag, without ever retracting the words. The Pope apologized for the idiotic and reprehensible reaction to his reasonable remarks wondering if it is possible to have a conversation with a Muslim about religion, without ever retracting the words.
The answer, by the way, is no. You cannot have a reasonable conversation with radical lunatics trapped in the seventh century. Until Islam under goes some sort of reformation which purges the blood-thirsty imams, closes Saudi madrases, and rejects pan Islamo-terror-fascism, engagement will only incite the mob. Ask the Pope, Theo Van Gough’s friends and family, Dutch cartoonists or the friends and family of the murdered Italian nun.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Senate to take up fence issue
The senate is ready to take up the border fence issue. They are ready that is unless John, how can I get everybody’s attention, McCain decides one incredibly stupid and dangerous grandstanding ploy is not enough for one month. Barring any more idiocy from McCain and McCain wannabes like Lindsey Graham, the bill calling for 700 mile of fence along our southern border ought to get an up or down vote.
Given that upward of 70% of Americans think the fence is a good idea, and the fact that we are now within 50 days of an election, the bill ought to pass. But it’s a win-win, because if the bill fails it will at least smoke out Democrats and clueless Republicans before the November election.
The fence is the first step in what Democrats call “comprehensive immigration reform.” That is simply a euphemism for cramming so much into one bill that no one will vote for it. It seems pretty easy to me. Do the easy things for which there is the most support first. Then, issue by issue, tackle the tougher things. So it might look this:
- First build a fence.
- Next, develop a tamper proof ID for immigrants entering the country legally.
- Next, fine employers $10,000 a head if caught employing illegal aliens.
- Next, remove all government assistance, except life saving measures, to illegal aliens. No welfare. No driver’s license. No tuition assistance. No food stamps. Etc.
- Finally, amend US law, code or the constitution if necessary to eliminate the notion that any illegal baby who happens to be born here, probably at tax payer expense, is an automatic citizen.
If we took these steps, we’d not have to worry about deporting 12 million illegals. They’d leave on their own, because there’d be no benefit in staying.
Given that upward of 70% of Americans think the fence is a good idea, and the fact that we are now within 50 days of an election, the bill ought to pass. But it’s a win-win, because if the bill fails it will at least smoke out Democrats and clueless Republicans before the November election.
The fence is the first step in what Democrats call “comprehensive immigration reform.” That is simply a euphemism for cramming so much into one bill that no one will vote for it. It seems pretty easy to me. Do the easy things for which there is the most support first. Then, issue by issue, tackle the tougher things. So it might look this:
- First build a fence.
- Next, develop a tamper proof ID for immigrants entering the country legally.
- Next, fine employers $10,000 a head if caught employing illegal aliens.
- Next, remove all government assistance, except life saving measures, to illegal aliens. No welfare. No driver’s license. No tuition assistance. No food stamps. Etc.
- Finally, amend US law, code or the constitution if necessary to eliminate the notion that any illegal baby who happens to be born here, probably at tax payer expense, is an automatic citizen.
If we took these steps, we’d not have to worry about deporting 12 million illegals. They’d leave on their own, because there’d be no benefit in staying.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Make 'em vote
John, stop what you’re doing and look at me, McCain can’t take yes for an answer.
Last year when “negotiating” The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to stop the cruel and continuous torture of poor innocent jihadis at G’itmo by corrupt and inhumane US military personnel, Senator Self-Centered insisted on the following language for treatment of terrorists:
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
Now fast forward to June 29, 2006. Five dopes in robes decide that captured terrorists, who regularly behead captives after torture, then mutilate the dead bodies, who belong to no country, let alone to one which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, must be treated in accordance with the conventions. Democrats and other liberals, while claiming to support the troops, hailed the decision – that’ll teach that little Hitler wannabe George Bush.
So now, due to the wisdom of the five dopes, Common Article III applies to terrorists. Sub-paragraph (1) (c) forbids any “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” President Bush considers that language too vague. Given what we know about these lunatics anything can and will be considered degrading, women, printed material other than the Koran, photos, political cartoons, words of a 14th century Byzantine King, putting you feet up, eating bacon, music, to name a few, are all degrading to Islamo-terror-fascists.
So the president thinks an undefined Common Article III will put our interrogators at risk of becoming war criminals. So President Bush in an effort to give our interrogators clear lines to operate within went back to McCain’s own language of 2005. That ought to make Senator Maniac happy – right? Wrong!
Senator McNutt claims that the conventions have not been changed in 57 years and the US cannot do so unilaterally. Well HELLO Senator! If they haven’t been amended in 57 years maybe they are just a bit outdated for dealing with Islamo-terror-fascists.
President Bush needs to push this to a vote ASAP. Even if he loses, he’ll smoke out the dopes. How is someone who votes against a bill designed to give our interrogators clear rules of engagement going to justify their position to voters?
Last year when “negotiating” The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to stop the cruel and continuous torture of poor innocent jihadis at G’itmo by corrupt and inhumane US military personnel, Senator Self-Centered insisted on the following language for treatment of terrorists:
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
Now fast forward to June 29, 2006. Five dopes in robes decide that captured terrorists, who regularly behead captives after torture, then mutilate the dead bodies, who belong to no country, let alone to one which is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, must be treated in accordance with the conventions. Democrats and other liberals, while claiming to support the troops, hailed the decision – that’ll teach that little Hitler wannabe George Bush.
So now, due to the wisdom of the five dopes, Common Article III applies to terrorists. Sub-paragraph (1) (c) forbids any “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” President Bush considers that language too vague. Given what we know about these lunatics anything can and will be considered degrading, women, printed material other than the Koran, photos, political cartoons, words of a 14th century Byzantine King, putting you feet up, eating bacon, music, to name a few, are all degrading to Islamo-terror-fascists.
So the president thinks an undefined Common Article III will put our interrogators at risk of becoming war criminals. So President Bush in an effort to give our interrogators clear lines to operate within went back to McCain’s own language of 2005. That ought to make Senator Maniac happy – right? Wrong!
Senator McNutt claims that the conventions have not been changed in 57 years and the US cannot do so unilaterally. Well HELLO Senator! If they haven’t been amended in 57 years maybe they are just a bit outdated for dealing with Islamo-terror-fascists.
President Bush needs to push this to a vote ASAP. Even if he loses, he’ll smoke out the dopes. How is someone who votes against a bill designed to give our interrogators clear rules of engagement going to justify their position to voters?
Sunday, September 17, 2006
They can't handle the truth II
Democrats are upset because of a comment by House Majority Leader John Boehner. Boehner recently said Democrats seem “more interested in protecting terrorists than the American people.” Well many Democrats by word and action make Boehner’s point. Ted Kennedy continues to harp on Abu Graihb and once said the prison was only “under new management.” He maligned President Bush for cooking up the Iraq war at a Texas Bar-B-Q. Dick Durbin compared American troops to Nazis, Pol Pot, and the thugs who ran the Soviet gulag. John Kerry accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the middle of the night. Harry Reid “killed the Patriot Act.” Russ Feingold wants to impeach the president for eavesdropping on international terrorists’ calls. The New York Times, George Soros, and Hollywood elite publish state secrets and compare Bush to Hitler – nice.
Democrats routinely call the war in Iraq, “George Bush’s war” as if they had no hand in the US entering the war and George Bush is the only one fighting. They forget it was the big bad tough Democrats who demanded a second opportunity to vote on the war before the 2002 mid-terms. Most Democrats voted for the war. Now they are running like scared squirrels claiming the president lied to them. Their comments, captured in a post several below, give lie to the claim they were lied to.
Democrats are political weasels. By their comments and deeds they have demonstrated that are quite willing to give aid and comfort our enemy, lose a war, destroy the economy, and sell America short all in an effort to get George Bush. If it looks like a weasel, smells like a weasel, acts like a weasel, but walks on two legs, it’s probably a Democrat.
Democrats are squealing like weasels about Boehner’s comments because, like the post below, an inconvenient truth stings way more than a simple lie. Boehner’s comment has hit home, and Democrats have been stung as if they walked into a hornet’s nest.
Democrats routinely call the war in Iraq, “George Bush’s war” as if they had no hand in the US entering the war and George Bush is the only one fighting. They forget it was the big bad tough Democrats who demanded a second opportunity to vote on the war before the 2002 mid-terms. Most Democrats voted for the war. Now they are running like scared squirrels claiming the president lied to them. Their comments, captured in a post several below, give lie to the claim they were lied to.
Democrats are political weasels. By their comments and deeds they have demonstrated that are quite willing to give aid and comfort our enemy, lose a war, destroy the economy, and sell America short all in an effort to get George Bush. If it looks like a weasel, smells like a weasel, acts like a weasel, but walks on two legs, it’s probably a Democrat.
Democrats are squealing like weasels about Boehner’s comments because, like the post below, an inconvenient truth stings way more than a simple lie. Boehner’s comment has hit home, and Democrats have been stung as if they walked into a hornet’s nest.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
14th century Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul, was way ahead of his time when he said, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
It’s 2006, but little has changes since Paleologos’ time. Radical Islam governed by Islam-terror-fascists, you know the Islam that dominates the daily news, are still evil and inhumane and strive to spread their perversion via…OK one thing has changed. The ITF strive to spread their perversion primarily via suicide bombers although if you’re caught by these “men of peace” you’re likely as not to have your head hacked off by some sword wielding nut job.
Don’t be on the streets of Riyadh, the capitol of Saudi Arabia, during prayer time. The religious police will be out with sticks rounding people up who have not made the prayer call. You can also visit chop-chop square in Riyadh. That’s where sharia law is carried out. Hands and heads, depending on the crime, are regularly removed by a masked ax-man while the public delights.
Ask any Muslim Paleologos’ demand, to show you what the religion has brought the world that is new, and except for a huge whole in the middle of New York City, they will be hard pressed to name a single thing. No cars. No music. No films – except snuff films. No books. No man on the moon. No scientific breakthroughs. No significant contributions to economic or political thought. Basically what you will find, when you look at Muslim contributions to the world, is a well chronicled history of mayhem, murder, kidnapping, hijackings, bombings, assassinations and riots.
And that is not the worst of it. The worst is not that Muslims have made no significant contribution for the good of man since the 14th century. Heck even Ted Williams had a couple of back to back 0-for games. The worst isn’t even the fact that the only contributions Muslims have made are evil and inhumane. The worst of it is the deafening silence of the vast majority of the Muslim “leadership” and Muslim masses as a small cadre of ITF continue to stand the world on its head in the name of their religion.
Now Pope Benedict is in hot water for resurrecting Paleologos’ words. Truer words have rarely been spoken. And that seems to be the problem. Simple lies are easy to ignore. It’s the inconvenient truth that causes us the most discomfort. So when faced with such a truth, Muslims do what Muslims do. They do not argue their case because it is a losing case. They take to the streets destroy things. Soon I predict we’ll read about the murder of a priest by a Muslim somewhere. All in the name of the “religion of peace” of course.
UPDATE: OK silly me, it wasn't a priest. It was an Italian Nun working in a Somali Hospital for the poor. An Islamo-terror-fascist shot the old Nun three time - in the back. His 72 virgins certainly await for such bravery - shooting an old woman of peace in the back - in the name of Allah. Any doubt such acts confirm Paelologos' words.
It’s 2006, but little has changes since Paleologos’ time. Radical Islam governed by Islam-terror-fascists, you know the Islam that dominates the daily news, are still evil and inhumane and strive to spread their perversion via…OK one thing has changed. The ITF strive to spread their perversion primarily via suicide bombers although if you’re caught by these “men of peace” you’re likely as not to have your head hacked off by some sword wielding nut job.
Don’t be on the streets of Riyadh, the capitol of Saudi Arabia, during prayer time. The religious police will be out with sticks rounding people up who have not made the prayer call. You can also visit chop-chop square in Riyadh. That’s where sharia law is carried out. Hands and heads, depending on the crime, are regularly removed by a masked ax-man while the public delights.
Ask any Muslim Paleologos’ demand, to show you what the religion has brought the world that is new, and except for a huge whole in the middle of New York City, they will be hard pressed to name a single thing. No cars. No music. No films – except snuff films. No books. No man on the moon. No scientific breakthroughs. No significant contributions to economic or political thought. Basically what you will find, when you look at Muslim contributions to the world, is a well chronicled history of mayhem, murder, kidnapping, hijackings, bombings, assassinations and riots.
And that is not the worst of it. The worst is not that Muslims have made no significant contribution for the good of man since the 14th century. Heck even Ted Williams had a couple of back to back 0-for games. The worst isn’t even the fact that the only contributions Muslims have made are evil and inhumane. The worst of it is the deafening silence of the vast majority of the Muslim “leadership” and Muslim masses as a small cadre of ITF continue to stand the world on its head in the name of their religion.
Now Pope Benedict is in hot water for resurrecting Paleologos’ words. Truer words have rarely been spoken. And that seems to be the problem. Simple lies are easy to ignore. It’s the inconvenient truth that causes us the most discomfort. So when faced with such a truth, Muslims do what Muslims do. They do not argue their case because it is a losing case. They take to the streets destroy things. Soon I predict we’ll read about the murder of a priest by a Muslim somewhere. All in the name of the “religion of peace” of course.
UPDATE: OK silly me, it wasn't a priest. It was an Italian Nun working in a Somali Hospital for the poor. An Islamo-terror-fascist shot the old Nun three time - in the back. His 72 virgins certainly await for such bravery - shooting an old woman of peace in the back - in the name of Allah. Any doubt such acts confirm Paelologos' words.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Lex takes up the case for Indiana conservative
Indiana conservative and third district congressman Mark Souder takes a daily beating in Ft. Wayne's liberal morning fish wrap The Journal-Gazette. Editors whined that the beating was a result the paper reciving far more letters supporting Souder's Democrat opponet retired MD Tom Hayhurst. So Lex has come to the rescue. Here's what I sent the Journal Gazette:
Since the Journal Gazette seems to be running behind in letters supporting Mark Souder, I thought I’d chime in. First, I question the integrity of using the Gazette’s letters to the editor as some kind of straw poll and publishing the results as an editor’s note. Given the left leaning nature of the Journal Gazette’s editorial page and it’s willingness to print all manner of liberal tripe no matter how ridiculous, I’d be shocked to find any other outcome.
If you’re for securing the border against illegal immigration and terrorists, vote Souder.
If you’re for making English the official language of government, vote Souder.
If you’d like to keep your taxes low, vote Souder.
If you want to protect America and defeat Islamo-terror-fascists, vote Souder.
If you want to protect the sanctity of life, vote Souder
If you want to help make a clueless, tax and spend, blame America first, west coast liberal like San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi the third most powerful person in America, vote Hayhurst.
If you want to help make a kook like Michigan Democrat John Conyers the head of the House Judiciary Committee, where he can spend the next two years investigating and attempting to impeach President Bush, vote Hayhurst.
If you want to help make an ultra-liberal like New York Democrat Charlie Rangel the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he is sure to try to raise taxes on everything on, in or above the ground, vote Hayhurst.
END OF LETTER
Yes, I’m the same Schumick that has a letter due appear on the smoking brouhaha, but given the supposed paucity of letters in support of Mr. Souder and your interest in fair play, evenhandedness and balance, I suppose you’ll be willing to suspend your 30 day rule. But then again, you might be more interested in simply advancing the editors’ point of view.
On another subject. Editors might have made the following editor’s notes for today’s letters.
*Editor’s notes on “Vote to impeach Rumsfeld”
Mr. Rumsfled has twice offered to resign from office. Twice the president has refused to accept that resignation.
While the word “responsibility” is often cited as a leadership trait in our military, integrity is the hallmark of officership. Therefore integrity is the bottom line of leadership.
*Editor’s note on “Some Republicans opposed World War II”
Mr. Rumsfeld never mentioned an individual or party in his remarks. To indicate otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding or willful attempt to misstate the secretary’s point.
Since the Journal Gazette seems to be running behind in letters supporting Mark Souder, I thought I’d chime in. First, I question the integrity of using the Gazette’s letters to the editor as some kind of straw poll and publishing the results as an editor’s note. Given the left leaning nature of the Journal Gazette’s editorial page and it’s willingness to print all manner of liberal tripe no matter how ridiculous, I’d be shocked to find any other outcome.
If you’re for securing the border against illegal immigration and terrorists, vote Souder.
If you’re for making English the official language of government, vote Souder.
If you’d like to keep your taxes low, vote Souder.
If you want to protect America and defeat Islamo-terror-fascists, vote Souder.
If you want to protect the sanctity of life, vote Souder
If you want to help make a clueless, tax and spend, blame America first, west coast liberal like San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi the third most powerful person in America, vote Hayhurst.
If you want to help make a kook like Michigan Democrat John Conyers the head of the House Judiciary Committee, where he can spend the next two years investigating and attempting to impeach President Bush, vote Hayhurst.
If you want to help make an ultra-liberal like New York Democrat Charlie Rangel the head of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he is sure to try to raise taxes on everything on, in or above the ground, vote Hayhurst.
END OF LETTER
Yes, I’m the same Schumick that has a letter due appear on the smoking brouhaha, but given the supposed paucity of letters in support of Mr. Souder and your interest in fair play, evenhandedness and balance, I suppose you’ll be willing to suspend your 30 day rule. But then again, you might be more interested in simply advancing the editors’ point of view.
On another subject. Editors might have made the following editor’s notes for today’s letters.
*Editor’s notes on “Vote to impeach Rumsfeld”
Mr. Rumsfled has twice offered to resign from office. Twice the president has refused to accept that resignation.
While the word “responsibility” is often cited as a leadership trait in our military, integrity is the hallmark of officership. Therefore integrity is the bottom line of leadership.
*Editor’s note on “Some Republicans opposed World War II”
Mr. Rumsfeld never mentioned an individual or party in his remarks. To indicate otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding or willful attempt to misstate the secretary’s point.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Can blaming America be a winning strategy?
Does anyone else find it odd that Democrats are more worried about President Bush than al Qaida? Listening in yesterday on senate debate about the NSA international eavesdropping program, it was obvious that Russ Feingold would rather allow al Qaida unfettered ability to plan attacks than have this president get credit for stopping such attacks. Why else would Feingold and other Democrats object to legislation giving a legal program the imprimatur of senate approval?
It’s politics that’s why. And it’s loser politics at that. Democrats continue to think that the path to an election victory in November can be achieved by blaming American generally and an American president specifically for all of the world’s woes. Democrats blame America for making terrorists a bit uncomfortable while gaining invaluable information to protect America. You go Democrats. That’s a winner. 98% of Americans could care less what happens to the murdering bastards once they are caught.
American Liberals have not yet discovered what their British partner Tony Blair has. Blair recently noted,
"Part of the problem you have in Western opinion is that [the West] always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a ... grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying, 'I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims,' when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. That warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."
The problem here is that it not just the terrorists that have “warped” minds. Democrats and their willing accomplices in the MSM are “warped” as well. Democrats whine about us being less safe all the while undermining every program this administration has undertaken to keep us safer. They turn a fraternity type prank into a perpetual national self-flagellation. They even object to plainly stating who the enemy is – Islamo-terror-fascists.
Hard to believe that Democrats can find a winning strategy in all of that. We’ll see in about 54 days.
It’s politics that’s why. And it’s loser politics at that. Democrats continue to think that the path to an election victory in November can be achieved by blaming American generally and an American president specifically for all of the world’s woes. Democrats blame America for making terrorists a bit uncomfortable while gaining invaluable information to protect America. You go Democrats. That’s a winner. 98% of Americans could care less what happens to the murdering bastards once they are caught.
American Liberals have not yet discovered what their British partner Tony Blair has. Blair recently noted,
"Part of the problem you have in Western opinion is that [the West] always wants to believe that it's our fault and these people want to have a ... grievance culture that they visit upon us and say it's our fault. And so we have a young British-born man of Pakistani origin sitting in front of a television screen saying, 'I will go and kill innocent people because of the oppression of Muslims,' when he has been brought up in a country that has given him complete religious freedom and full democratic rights and actually a very good job and standard of living. That warped mind has grown out of a global movement based on a perversion of Islam which we have to confront, and we have to confront it globally."
The problem here is that it not just the terrorists that have “warped” minds. Democrats and their willing accomplices in the MSM are “warped” as well. Democrats whine about us being less safe all the while undermining every program this administration has undertaken to keep us safer. They turn a fraternity type prank into a perpetual national self-flagellation. They even object to plainly stating who the enemy is – Islamo-terror-fascists.
Hard to believe that Democrats can find a winning strategy in all of that. We’ll see in about 54 days.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Secondhand smoke screen
Lex is in a tussle with the Allen County Commission. The commission is considering a county-wide smoking ban. The left leaning Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette yesterday published a letter supporting the ban from a Ms. Carla Castro. In her letter, Ms. Castro claimed that 53,000 people a year die from the effects of secondhand smoke. That figure is absurd. The EPA puts the figure at 3,000. So Lex fired off a letter taking the editor to task. In no time they called back and asked to publish the letter. Here’s what I sent them:
Can anyone write to this page and have any foolishness published? Do the editors of this page feel any obligation to protect readers from hogwash or writers from making fools of themselves? Are you so hard up for letters that you will print anything? Carla Castro’s claim that 53,000 Americans die from secondhand smoke each year strains credulity. Reliable studies place the number of deaths attributable to secondhand smoke somewhere between 0 and 3,000.
A 1998 study by the World Health Organization, hardly a shill for tobacco companies, could find no link – none, nada, zero, zilch - between secondhand smoke and cancer. 32 of 40 other studies, almost all of them based on the experience of non-smokers married to smokers, found no evidence of secondhand smoke causing any disease at all. The other eight showed some association – but counter intuitively, some of the studies found that the non-smoking spouse was less likely to get a serious disease.
How about Ms. Castro and the busybody, nanny-state, I know what’s best for you, freedom crushing do-gooders on town councils and the County Commission require a sign for smoking establishments such as, “People smoke here. If you don’t like it, visit Castro & Crawford’s smoke-free establishments.” No doubt the busybodies are having trouble living their own lives, so they want to make up for it by telling the rest of us how to live ours.
Having jousted with this windmill once before in Montgomery, AL, I’m pretty sure how it will turn out. Someone will write in and say something like, “If Schumick and other smokers want to kill themselves, fine I don’t care. But don’t kill me and my family in the process.” Well I don’t smoke. I prefer the confines of non-smoking environment myself, particularly when dining. But the issue here is not about smoking. It’s about the commission telling businesses how to operate based on junk science. Reliable studies prove what we already know - secondhand smoke is annoying to about everyone, even smokers, but it won't kill you.
What’s next? Here’s a short list of things that annoy me while dining out:
- Fat people eating at the all-you-can-eat buffet, ban it.
- People who try to hide the fact that they haven’t showered by wearing too much cologne, ban them.
- People who try to act like big-shots by shouting into a cell phone for everyone to hear, ban it.
- Wait staff who try to earn a big tip by being overly friendly rather than providing good service, ban them.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
J Rockefeller in third place, tries harder
After slow Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham, perhaps the dumbest guy in the senate is J. Rockefeller (D [the D is for Dope], WV). But it's tough getting by on a famous last name and inherited millions. Rockhead told a CBS News correspondent, "The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war.’" It worked so well even Rockhead, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and is privy to much of the same intell as the president, fell for it when he took to the senate floor on Oct 10, 2002 and said, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Rockhead went a step further when he opined that the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it meant Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. Given a chance to backtrack, do you really mean the world would be a better place if Saddam were still in power senator? Rockhead, who is so stupid he once bragged on TV about tipping off Middle Eastern countries about our war plans said, "Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." The interview was cut short before Rockhead could claim the US was responsible for 50 million deaths during WWII when failed to simply isolate Hitler.
But Rockhead is not alone. It’s an election year so Democrats are going to be resurecting all manner of failed arguments like the “Iraq was not responsible for 9-11” bovine excrement. So here are the quotes from Dems on Iraq and Saddam – notice when they start Rockhead.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Rockhead went a step further when he opined that the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it meant Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq. Given a chance to backtrack, do you really mean the world would be a better place if Saddam were still in power senator? Rockhead, who is so stupid he once bragged on TV about tipping off Middle Eastern countries about our war plans said, "Yes. [Saddam] wasn't going to attack us. He would've been isolated there," Rockefeller said. "He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn't have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about." The interview was cut short before Rockhead could claim the US was responsible for 50 million deaths during WWII when failed to simply isolate Hitler.
But Rockhead is not alone. It’s an election year so Democrats are going to be resurecting all manner of failed arguments like the “Iraq was not responsible for 9-11” bovine excrement. So here are the quotes from Dems on Iraq and Saddam – notice when they start Rockhead.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real … Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Monday, September 11, 2006
It makes sense for weasels to work together
Democrats have released a 400 hundred page report re-confirming the 9-11 Commission’s finding that Iraq nor Saddam Hussein had no hand in the attacks on America on 9-11. I don’t believe the old news republished by Democrats for political purposes. I don’t believe it not because I’ve read anything convincing to lead me to believe that Iraq was involved and certainly not because President Bush said there was a link. He never did. I don’t believe it because I think Hussein and al Qaida were linked before 9-11. I think that because they have a common interest in seeing the demise of the United States. So, neither Saddam or Osama bin Laden being able to bring about their desire independently, it makes sense to me that they would have been collaborating and that the Iraqi government, at a minimum, had prior knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. My whole theory is like OJ. Nobody proved he’s murdering bastard, but everyone knows it. And oh yeah, there’s this:
From: Mr.Richard Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which appeared on the New York Times' bestseller list.
From: Mr.Richard Miniter is a senior fellow at the Center for the New Europe and author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror" (Regnery) which appeared on the New York Times' bestseller list.
- * Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
- * Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
- * Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.
- * Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
- * An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
- * In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
- * In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
- * As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
- * Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.
- * An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"
- * In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
- *The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
- * Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.
- * In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.
- * That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.
- * Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.
- *Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.
- * Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."
- * Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
- * Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
- * Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.
- * Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."
- * After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Safe but concerned
Splain this to me. Democrats send out “The Cricket” - AKA Wes Clark – to make the case that we’re not safer. Fine, who’d feel safe in world with a billion Muslims, of which a substantial portion want to saw your head off, blow up your airplane, bomb your business, poison the air, water and everything else in effort to commit mass murder and kill you’re your children in the name of their religion. Further, the biggest percentage of the remaining Muslims feel no obligation to condemn the mayhem being created by the dopes “perverting” their religion. So fine, we’ll take The Cricket at his word. It is a scary world and we’re not safer.
But then how do Democrats square what The Cricket says with what Howard Dean says, when he tells rabid Democrats that the president is just using 9-11 to scare Americans? It seems to me that if we’re less safe we ought to be concerned. It seems to me that the president telling Americans that we’re living in dangerous times, safer but not yet safe, is a disagreement with The Cricket only on the margins and by a few degrees.
Of course the two don’t square. It’s just more Democrat demagoguery. Democrats are like Henny Penny shouting, “the sky is falling.” They do it loudly and continuously. Soon a crowd gathers and shouts along and hysteria grows. Hopefully their will be enough of us with our wits about us to keep the country out of the fox’s den.
But then how do Democrats square what The Cricket says with what Howard Dean says, when he tells rabid Democrats that the president is just using 9-11 to scare Americans? It seems to me that if we’re less safe we ought to be concerned. It seems to me that the president telling Americans that we’re living in dangerous times, safer but not yet safe, is a disagreement with The Cricket only on the margins and by a few degrees.
Of course the two don’t square. It’s just more Democrat demagoguery. Democrats are like Henny Penny shouting, “the sky is falling.” They do it loudly and continuously. Soon a crowd gathers and shouts along and hysteria grows. Hopefully their will be enough of us with our wits about us to keep the country out of the fox’s den.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Democrats make America less safe
Democrats have decided on a strategy of attacking the Republican strength, security. So they have trotted out marionette and former NATO commander General Wes Clark to claim that, because of the Iraq war and other Bush administration miscalculations, we are less safe now than before 9-11. Now just forget, aside from some lone Muslim whackos shooting 14 people, driving their cars into a bunch a students and killing an El Al flight agent, we have had no major attacks in the US since 9-11 – even though everyone predicted that we would.
Focus instead on what the Bush administration is doing and the Democrat response to those actions. Bush called for the renewal of the Patriot Act as means to safeguard Americans, Harry Reid prematurely claimed to have “killed” the act a month or so before it became law. Bush refuses to close G’itmo and Abu Ghraib after media driven scandals plagued both facilities because useful intelligence continued to be gathered. As result of the MSM hyped scandals, Democrats like Dick Durbin compared American soldiers with Nazis and the communists who the gulag. Ted Kennedy compared US leadership in Iraq to Saddam Hussein. Bush authorized an international federal eavesdropping program to track terrorists’ calls coming or going from the country and Democrat Feingold calls for impeachment. Bush remains steadfast in commitment to meet terrorists on the battlefield in Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. Democrats fail to see any connection between the GWOT and what’s going on in Iraq even though they will admit that al Qaida and other terrorists groups are active in Iraq.
So here are some questions the MSM ought to be asking local candidates.
Do you support the Patriot Act, if not what would propose instead?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will either support the Patriot Act or propose something very similar.
Would you close G’itmo, if so what would you do with the terrorists now confined there?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will call for G’itmo’s closure and either turn the terrorists loose and/or foul the US court system with endless circus trials.
Would you call for an end to the NSA eavesdropping program?
Rediction: Democrat candidates will not call for an end to the program but continue to bash Bush for authorizing it.
Would you withdraw from Iraq immediately?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will say they would “redeploy” US forces. That is Democrat speak for retreating, chickening out, quitting. Jack (ass) Murtha has called for such a redeploy to “someplace close like Okinawa” where the troops could quickly return if necessary. Murtha, it pains me to say, is a former Marine Colonel. He has either forgotten or never learned that 5,000 miles (the distance between Okinawa and the Middle East) does not equal a quick return.
“America is less safe” is just more Democrat sloganeering. It offers nothing in the way solutions and is in fact, just plain wrong.
Focus instead on what the Bush administration is doing and the Democrat response to those actions. Bush called for the renewal of the Patriot Act as means to safeguard Americans, Harry Reid prematurely claimed to have “killed” the act a month or so before it became law. Bush refuses to close G’itmo and Abu Ghraib after media driven scandals plagued both facilities because useful intelligence continued to be gathered. As result of the MSM hyped scandals, Democrats like Dick Durbin compared American soldiers with Nazis and the communists who the gulag. Ted Kennedy compared US leadership in Iraq to Saddam Hussein. Bush authorized an international federal eavesdropping program to track terrorists’ calls coming or going from the country and Democrat Feingold calls for impeachment. Bush remains steadfast in commitment to meet terrorists on the battlefield in Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. Democrats fail to see any connection between the GWOT and what’s going on in Iraq even though they will admit that al Qaida and other terrorists groups are active in Iraq.
So here are some questions the MSM ought to be asking local candidates.
Do you support the Patriot Act, if not what would propose instead?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will either support the Patriot Act or propose something very similar.
Would you close G’itmo, if so what would you do with the terrorists now confined there?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will call for G’itmo’s closure and either turn the terrorists loose and/or foul the US court system with endless circus trials.
Would you call for an end to the NSA eavesdropping program?
Rediction: Democrat candidates will not call for an end to the program but continue to bash Bush for authorizing it.
Would you withdraw from Iraq immediately?
Prediction: Democrat candidates will say they would “redeploy” US forces. That is Democrat speak for retreating, chickening out, quitting. Jack (ass) Murtha has called for such a redeploy to “someplace close like Okinawa” where the troops could quickly return if necessary. Murtha, it pains me to say, is a former Marine Colonel. He has either forgotten or never learned that 5,000 miles (the distance between Okinawa and the Middle East) does not equal a quick return.
“America is less safe” is just more Democrat sloganeering. It offers nothing in the way solutions and is in fact, just plain wrong.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Dems support the troops
In the post “Real Democrat sloganeering” below, Lex notes some bumper stickers seen on cars in Ohio and then notes some bumper stickers that would really say what Democrats believe. I’ve note something odd on my latest trip through Ohio. Democrat bumper stickers like “Bush Lied” are often accompanied by a magnetic American flag or one of those trendy “I support the troops” magnetic ribbons. So you have the idiotic juxtaposition of these Democrats calling the Commander in Chief of all US forces a liar, thereby undermining morale and discipline within the very force they claim to “support.”
God knows it’s hard to be a Liberal. You almost have to be a Machiavellian, two-faced, dyslexic, switch hitting, duplicitous, double dealing, ambidextrous, hypocrite to square anything with reality if you’re a Liberal today. Given their deep hatred of George Bush, you can almost understand Libs for some of their disingenuousness. Like Al Gore burning tons of fuel day in and day out in effort to slow our use of fossil fuel. Like Rosie O’Donnell surrounding herself, her kids and lover with armed security while campaigning against the rest of us owning a gun for similar protection. Like the Kennedy’s, Sorros’ et al whining about how low US taxes are while they squirrel their own money away in off-shore tax free shelters. We could go for a hundred pages noting hypocrisy after hypocrisy, but you get the idea.
Now some bright Democrat strategist has come up with the brilliant idea of undermining the leadership of the armed forces while claiming to “support the troops.” What the Democrat bumper sticker really means is, “I support the troops…who shoot their officers.” If they regain power, I wonder how long it'll take these Libs to throw out the magnetic American flags and ribbons that adorn their cars?
God knows it’s hard to be a Liberal. You almost have to be a Machiavellian, two-faced, dyslexic, switch hitting, duplicitous, double dealing, ambidextrous, hypocrite to square anything with reality if you’re a Liberal today. Given their deep hatred of George Bush, you can almost understand Libs for some of their disingenuousness. Like Al Gore burning tons of fuel day in and day out in effort to slow our use of fossil fuel. Like Rosie O’Donnell surrounding herself, her kids and lover with armed security while campaigning against the rest of us owning a gun for similar protection. Like the Kennedy’s, Sorros’ et al whining about how low US taxes are while they squirrel their own money away in off-shore tax free shelters. We could go for a hundred pages noting hypocrisy after hypocrisy, but you get the idea.
Now some bright Democrat strategist has come up with the brilliant idea of undermining the leadership of the armed forces while claiming to “support the troops.” What the Democrat bumper sticker really means is, “I support the troops…who shoot their officers.” If they regain power, I wonder how long it'll take these Libs to throw out the magnetic American flags and ribbons that adorn their cars?
Friday, September 01, 2006
Democrats clueless about history
Democrats are in a tizzy. President Bush has finally screwed up the courage to call the pan-Islamo-terror-fascists what they are, although he prefers fewer modifiers referring to them simply as Islamic fascists. Then Defense Secretary Rumsfeld goes out and gives America a desperately needed history lesson.
Democrats knocked each other over to get to microphone to say that the president’s remarks were insensitive and they were…to pan-Islamo-terror-fascists who would like nothing better than to slide under the radar for another couple of decades. These people have been raising hell with the West since about 700 AD. They respond to one thing – force. When they get slapped down they crawl back into their hole for a decade or two and then resurface.
President Bush, for all of his other faults, has gotten the basic dynamic of dealing Islamo-terror-fascists right. Root them out and kill them. Plus, he has taken on a bold strategy to deal with the root of the problem – spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. This is a more dangerous problem for the Muslim satraps and dictators that populate the area than a nuclear weapon. If successful, and we will be if we don’t blink, domestic populations will cause the fall of the house of Saud, Assad, Mubarak etc. not the Great Satan America.
When Rumsfeld recalled the history of Europe before WWII, the kind of history that used to be taught in public schools before “Heather has two mommies” took over the curriculum, Democrats didn’t rush to microphone to say Rumsfeld’s account Europe’s appeasement of Nazis and fascists before the war was wrong. They claimed that pan-Islamo-terror-fascists were different. They said that diplomacy was the key. They do not explain how one would negotiate with a person like Osama bin Laden. In arguing that the ITFs are NOT as great a threat to our way of life as the Nazis were, Democrats seem to make Rumsfeld’s point for him.
Democrats knocked each other over to get to microphone to say that the president’s remarks were insensitive and they were…to pan-Islamo-terror-fascists who would like nothing better than to slide under the radar for another couple of decades. These people have been raising hell with the West since about 700 AD. They respond to one thing – force. When they get slapped down they crawl back into their hole for a decade or two and then resurface.
President Bush, for all of his other faults, has gotten the basic dynamic of dealing Islamo-terror-fascists right. Root them out and kill them. Plus, he has taken on a bold strategy to deal with the root of the problem – spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. This is a more dangerous problem for the Muslim satraps and dictators that populate the area than a nuclear weapon. If successful, and we will be if we don’t blink, domestic populations will cause the fall of the house of Saud, Assad, Mubarak etc. not the Great Satan America.
When Rumsfeld recalled the history of Europe before WWII, the kind of history that used to be taught in public schools before “Heather has two mommies” took over the curriculum, Democrats didn’t rush to microphone to say Rumsfeld’s account Europe’s appeasement of Nazis and fascists before the war was wrong. They claimed that pan-Islamo-terror-fascists were different. They said that diplomacy was the key. They do not explain how one would negotiate with a person like Osama bin Laden. In arguing that the ITFs are NOT as great a threat to our way of life as the Nazis were, Democrats seem to make Rumsfeld’s point for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)