January 11, 2007
I don't have all the data about the current situation in Baghdad and Anbar Provence (few do). But it strikes the right tone in my mind.
Implementing this plan offers no guaranty of victory, but the Democrats' alternative can only guaranty defeat. It's the only thing they understand.
As far as I'm concerned, only one of these choices is acceptable. Give our men and women what they need, remove the unnecessary restrictions on the rules of engagement and let them do their job. Period.
January 02, 2007
Hit them with this beauty from Clifford May at NRO:
Imagine that Saddam had not been executed. Imagine that he had been sentenced to life in prison.That ought to shut their pie-holes for them, but good. Actually, we should thank our lucky stars that the terrorists didn't think of this one before.
Now imagine that a group of pro-Saddam terrorists seizes an elementary school. They say they will kill all the students and teachers if Saddam is not released within 24 hours.
Should Saddam then be released? Or should several dozen innocent children and their teachers be killed?
Is it not better that we have guaranteed that it will never be necessary to make such a choice?
December 29, 2006
I love when you get all biblical, Satan! You know exactly how to turn my crank.
December 28, 2006
The families of his victims have waited over three years since his capture for justice. I'll still only believe it when I see him actually hanging from a noose.
The sooner, the better.
Death warrant signed by Iraqi Prime Minister...check.
Saddam transferred to Iraqi custody...check.
Hinges on the gallows trap-door oiled...check...
Rumor has it,
midnight Iraqi time (4pm EST) 6am Iraqi time (10pm EST).
You can read through this monster's rap sheet while you wait.
December 12, 2006
Some people believe the media. Some people believe the "Iraq Surrender Group".
I believe these guys. Case closed. God Bless 'em.
December 06, 2006
This one will have many Dems scratching their heads and the nutroots screaming at the top of their lungs. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleasantly surprised that he won't be pushing "Operation Cut And Run", but who saw this coming?
Well, Pelosi for one.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: What I said was, we cant afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest Were all interested in getting out of Iraq. Thats a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they dont care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Lets just leave there. And I argue against that. I dont think thats responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.So how do you anti-war Lefties like your Speaker now? Inquiring minds want to know.
***UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces clipped some reax from the peanut gallery at DU. As expected, vile and frothing at the mouth.END UPDATE***
Ed Morrissey points out that this is yet another example of how Pelosi has spent the last month seriously undermining her own credibility:
"Pelosi stripped Harman of the chair that she gave Reyes primarily because of her support of the war in Iraq and a lack of partisan animus on Harman's part. While Reyes promised to vigorously pursue the issues of the warrantless NSA surveillance of international calls and other counterterrorism efforts by the Bush administration, clearly the Democrats expected someone less inclined to keep troops in Iraq, let alone add to the contingent. Even Harman has not gone on record in support of an expansion of troop levels.This is pretty significant. Because the more split this thin majority is over the next two years, the less damage they can do.
So why did she replace Harman? It seems obvious that the decision had much more to do with personal issues than with policy. Democrats may want to rethink her Speakership in light of the series of strange decisions she has made in the wake of their victory. The rule of personal whim has just about destroyed their momentum and may have set up the House caucus for a devastating split at the moment of their greatest unity in a generation."
November 29, 2006
Clearly, from it's tone the letter in question is aimed in particular at the blame-America-first, appeasement-on-demand, Kos-ified, Bush-hating, hug-the-world-into-submission, Left-wing moonbats among the population.
However, as a citizen of the U.S., I'd like to respond.
Dear President Ahmadinejad,And God bless the United States of America.
Allow me to adapt a quote from a famous work of literature that comes from the Western culture that you now disingenuously "reach out" to yet publicly disdain at every opportunity:
"We will have peace...When you hang from a gibbet at your window for the sport of your own crows. This country will have peace with you and your Islamofascist regime."
Put more simply, suck my balls.
Love and Kisses,
Gary (the Ex-Donkey)
November 05, 2006
"In the streets of Dujail, a Tigris River city of 84,000, people celebrated and burned pictures of their former tormentor as the verdict was read."
Personally, I would have preferred drawing and quartering.
November 03, 2006
But I don't think they fully appreciate what they've just done. They're revealing that Saddam Hussein was actively working on a nuclear weapon program, had pretty-much all the know-how and only lacked certain elements to put it all together.
So what happens to the the "Iraq had no WMDs" mantra of the Left? It's dead. Buried. Finished.
And doesn't this sentence send a chill up your spine?
"Experts say that at the time, Mr. Husseins scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."Jim Geraghty is incredulous that the NYT would openly admit this.
So Iraq had all the know-how, all the plans, all the designs, "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building." Unless they were keeping these documents around as future material for paper airplanes, all this stuff constituted a plan of action for some point in the future; but to complete creating these weapons, they would have needed stuff. I don't know an exact list of what they would have needed, but articles like this one give a good idea. Sounds like you need a firing mechanism (the right kind of firearm would suffice), some fairly common industrial equipment like a lathe, material for the bomb casing, some fairly common conventional explosives, all of which would have been easy to get in Iraq. Oh, and, of course, the nuclear material itself.
They would have needed something like... um... you know... what's that stuff called? Oh, that's right.
But we know Iraq would never make an effort to get yellowcake. Joe Wilson had tea with officials in Niger who said so.
October 25, 2006
Hopefully, he suffered. Good riddance.
September 28, 2006
Why is so hard for some people to grasp the idea that Islamic Fascism is an ideology (posing as a theology) hell bent on destroying the West in general and the United States in particular for no other reason than they hate everything that we are and what we represent? They don't need Iraq or any other motivation to want to convert us or kill us. They just do.
If America hadnt invaded Iraq, the United Nations would presumably still be enforcing sanctions against Saddams regime sanctions which were killing thousands of Iraqi children each month and which were specifically cited by Osama in 2002 as a justification for the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the situation in Iraq before the war was viewed by al Qaeda as a rationale for violence against America.It's not what we do it's who we are. If we fight back, it's a recruiting tool. If we passively look the other way after an attack, it's a recruiting tool. If we draw breath, it's a recruiting tool!
Then again, Americas support for Israel was also cited by Osama to justify his terrorist jihad. Should we therefore end that support? What about our tolerance of, in Osamas words, immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings [sic], and trading with interest? If our immorality is being utilized by al Qaeda to recruit terrorists, should we therefore crack down on Snoop Dogg, Will and Grace, Budweiser, Las Vegas, and Citibank? And what of our stubborn refusal to convert to Islam in Osamas eyes, perhaps the greatest provocation of all? Should we therefore renounce our Judeo-Christian heritage, abandon the separation of church and state and adopt sharia law to escape the wrath of al Qaeda?
If America is ever to triumph in its war against Islamic terrorism, we must get past the idea that we are its root cause. Specifically, we must get past the idea that a suicide bomber is just a peace-loving Muslim who, if we hadnt set him off, would be growing figs and building sandcastles. Strapping explosives to your torso, marching yourself into a crowded marketplace and blowing yourself up in order to slaughter as many civilians, including women and children, as you can is a profoundly demented act, an act which undoes a dozen or so millennia in the moral evolution of the human species.
Such an act is not triggered by Americas sociopolitical landscape or by its foreign policy. Rather, it is nurtured by an intellectually degenerate culture, sponsored by sleazy kleptocratic regimes and authorized by a once-honorable religious tradition perverted to serve the pipedreams of an apocalyptic death cult.
Its Muslim civilization, not America, that must change in order for Islamic terrorism to cease.
Seriously, if the position of a political party is that we as a nation can somehow mollify or reduce this enemy's hatred for us and thereby lower the threat that they pose then it represents a fundamental failure to understand this enemy.
That alone disqualifies Democrats from being in charge of the Global War On Terror.
It's bad enough that the Democrats' "Blame America" rhetoric gives aid and comfort to this enemy. Allowing them to call the shots in how we deal with them would have disastrous consequences for the safety of the American people.
The Moose is thinking along similar lines today:
It comes down to a clash of perspectives between those who view the fight against Jihadists as a criminal action against a gang versus those who view it as a war against a terrorist movement that rejects the normal rules of combat. If you believe the former, the detainees should have access to all of the protections and rights of the American legal system. If your perspective is that this is a war, then the normal protections that are championed by the ACLU for American citizens do not apply.Smart guy, that Moose.
America remains the great hope of liberalism in a world threatened by reactionaries who seek to repeal civilization and return us to the seventh century. For the sake of the soul of progressivism, it is time for liberals to speak these truths.
Anti-Bush animus is leading lefties to lose perspective and adopt the old "Blame America First" mentality. The enemy is not us.
4,000? Not bad for a distraction from the War On Terror, eh?
September 22, 2006
A.J. Strata gets to the nut of deal:
Bush now has a definition of what is illegal, and therefore everything else is legal. Checkmate.Good. Now let's move on to the military tribunal legislation so, as soon as these scumbags are all interrogated out and no longer of any use to us, we can try and execute their sorry asses. Good riddance.
September 13, 2006
I watched part one last night. Sunday was reserved for watching the Giants blow their first game to the Colts and Monday was my wedding anniversary, so I'm just now getting to it.
First point: The film is well made. The pacing is not too slow or too fast. The editing and cinematography keep you riveted. The use of hand-held cameras gives it an air of authenticity.
Second point: The portrayal of Richard Clarke is very positive (so far). He's actually one of the few higher up White House types that take this threat seriously. Why is Clarke so upset about this film? Doesn't make sense. Maybe he objects to being played by Milton, the red stapler guy from Office Space?
Third point: No, Sandy Burglar and Maddy Albright are not presented in a favorable light but neither is George Tenet or anyone else at a level of significant responsibility. Their words and actions (or lack thereof) are not so much indicative of individual character flaws as they are of a particular mindset that our government had at the time.
The film is more of an examination of what happens when you treat counter-terrorism as a "Law and Order" episode. We did this from Nixon to Bush 43, until 9/11/01. At that point, the current President and his cabinet realized that this is really a war - one like we've never fought before - that requires treating it like one.
It also provides a better understanding of the vastness of the terror network and how hard so many people have worked to track it down. The people in the CIA, FBI and other agencies who get their hands dirty understood the threat. It's the politicians and the bureaucrats who didn't. The agents didn't fail us, their bosses did. I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish even in that restrictive environment.
If we give these folks the tools that they need and support what they do, we will defeat the terrorists almost every time. As Harvey Keitel's John O'Neill says "Nobody bats 1.000." But we need to recognize what we're dealing with and accept what we need to do to fight it.
If our government holds true to a "post-9/11" perspective we have a chance. To go back to a "pre-9/11" mentality would be suicide. And the problem with Democrats is that they desperately cling to a "pre-9/11" mentality. They prefer treating terrorists as criminals with Constitutional rights. They'd rather have court victories than military victories. They think negotiation is a viable tool in dealing with these animals. We can never go back to that old mindset.
And this reason above all others - the reminder that this approach is what doomed us to failure - is why Democrats should be most worried about this film, not the affect it will have on individual legacies and reputations.
Only by accepting responsibility and demonstrating that lessons have been learned can Democrats ever hope to convince the American people that they can be trusted with their safety. By demanding that "The Path To 9/11" be pulled in an attempt to cover-up their shortcomings, they have done more damage to their credibility than any movie ever could.
September 12, 2006
He offered words of optimism, hope and encouragement. He spoke of the courage, strength and spirit that this country has always shown in times of crisis.
What the majority of Americans saw was an example of leadership.
What Democrats saw will no doubt inspire in them anger and rage. Based on their experiences within their own party, Democrats have a hard time recognizing leadership. While they are all very familiar with being roused, stirred-up and driven to indignation, they have very little experience in being led.
The President layed out his case for fighting this war against Islamic Fascism - on all of its fronts.
For the majority of Americans whose outlooks are based in reality, this case - whether they liked hearing it or not - makes sense.
For the Left, however, it was a challenge to their fantasy of a false peace rooted in isolationism and head-in-the-sand denial. And they will react as they typically do. Years from now, when their children are grown they will ask, "Mommy? Daddy? What did you do during the great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century?" And they can hold their heads up high, look them in the eyes and say "I posted thousands of childish, obscene comments on weblogs!"
How does that old saying go? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?
President Bush concluded his address to the nation with a call for unity.
Most Americans remember the kind of unity this country shared in the weeks following 9/11 and they long for it again. They recognize how important this is in a time of war.
Democrats will reject this call out of hand. After all, they are engaged in a different war - a political war to take back control of the Federal government. For them, a sense of unity offsets any political advantage they might hope to exploit. Democrats are calling this a "political speech". This should come as no surprise. Surely, to those who would make the war a political issue, it was.
Yes, we have two perspectives out there. Our enemies are hoping one of them will prevail. It's not all that hard to figure out which one.
September 11, 2006
However, Confederate Yankee made a post today that expressed exactly what I was thinking but in a more eloquent manner than I ever could. Here I share a portion that really nails it.
"Five years later, American Democrats have more hate in their hearts for their own President than they do for the terrorists that killed almost 3,000 of their countrymen. They refuse to confront terrorism. Some would rather blame America and the world they think they understand, rather than face up to the fact that the world we all thought we knew was just an illusion. They are in catastrophic psychological denial, and cannot face the fact that "the other" they have spent their lives providing moral equivalence for were the ones who attacked our country.And these are the stakes heading into November 7th.
It is so much easier to blame Bush than face the fact that we were attacked because we are the beacon of freedom for the world, and the greatest threat to radical Islam. It is so much easier to blame Bush, than realize that decades of denial led us to that horrific moment. If they can only blame Bush for that dayand every day since that their worldview has been shown to be vapid, self-serving, and a fraudthen their denial can go on, and "reality-based community" can continue to live in a world that has refuses to learn, to adapt, to change.
The Left refuses to learn from 9/11 and knows no way forward. It is why they grasp so insistently to the past, clinging to what was and what might have been, instead of moving forward to forcefully determine what should be and what must be done to secure our freedoms for the future. It is they that childishly insist for the "Perfect War" theory, stating a belief that any war not fought with perfect foresight and accuracy is wrong, while knowing securely no war has ever met their standard.
They show that they hate the present and don't understand the lessons of the recent past. They strive for stagnation and stasis and blaming ourselves, but they offer no hope for the future.
They blame Americans for radical Islamic plans for world domination. They vilify our troops instead of the terrorists they fight. They attack western governments fighting for freedom instead of eastern governments and the terrorists they sponsor that are fighting for oppression and destruction of our way of life.
The Left offers America and true liberalism a death sentence, seeking to repeat the failed policies of 30 years in denial.
We will not listen to them again.
That, perhaps, is their greatest fear of all."
Read the whole post here.
Has it been five years already? Sometimes it feels like it happened just yesterday, and other times it seems like it all took place during someone else's lifetime.
But we must remember. Remember those innocents who died and their loved ones who grieve. Remember those who fought back. Remember those who risk everything to keep us safe. Remember why we fight and why we must never give up that fight.
Take a few minutes and remember: here.
September 02, 2006
BESLAN, North Ossetia -- School No. 1 stands in ruins. People still come from around the world to place fresh flowers and bottles and jars full of water on the school grounds.
Two years ago Friday, terrorists seized School No. 1 and held more than 1,100 children, parents and grandparents hostage for three days in sweltering heat. Deprived of food and water, the hostages were reduced to chewing on leaves and sucking wet rags for moisture.
On the third day of the crisis, federal troops stormed the school in a hail of gunfire -- the school was destroyed by explosions and fire. To date, 332 people have died as a result of the siege.
Outside of bloggers, the rest of the mainstream media fails to identify the Islamic origin of the terrorists who committed this vile crime against humanity.
August 29, 2006
In wake of the cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, there have been many who have perceived agreement to the cease-fire as a kind of defeat for Israel. Certainly, my own concern is that a cease-fire only returns us back to the status-quo, giving Hezbollah time to regroup and reinvigorate itself, for the next battle.
One thing that drives me ill, is how Israel was accused of reacting with a "disproportionate response"; how popular "world" opinion that might have been sympathetic at first, turned against them, and pressured Israel into this cease-fire. And when Israel apparently caved to the political will of the world, the world declares it a victory for Hezbollah.
At least that's my perception, if not the actual reality. I admit I haven't followed every single news and blog story on the conflict. (What do y'all make of the Palestinian boy band (s)hit single, "Hawk of Lebanon"? Go to Newsbusters for the MP3 of the smash anti-semitic single, praising Hezbollah, Nasrallah, and Allah).
Not everyone has seen this month-long war as a defeat for Israel. But the last person I expected to hear label the abduction of 2 Israeli soldiers as "a mistake" even as he declares victory, is ol' Nasrallah himself.
BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Had Hezbollah known how Israel was going to respond, the group would not have captured two Israeli soldiers last month in northern Israel, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Sunday.I've often wondered, even knowing that bin Laden wanted this war with the West, if he has ever thought, "Maybe the U.S. isn't such a paper tiger after all...perhaps bringing down the Towers wasn't such a great idea." After all, he cannot possibly be living up the high life in a cave...nor is he enjoying the 72 virgins promised for martyrdom.
If someone had said July 11 that there was "a one percent possibility" Israel's military response would be as extensive as it turned out to be, "I would say no, I would not have entered this for many reasons -- military, social, political, economic," said Nasrallah, speaking in Arabic."One percent" probability?! Did the possibility not even come close to entering their "sheet-for-brains" turban-wearing heads? The blood of innocents is on their hands.
Not even the families of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel would have wanted to bring on such action, he said.
"If there was a one percent possibility, we would not have done that. We would not have done any capturing."
124 queries taking 0.1092 seconds, 277 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.