loading...

 

Liberal Utopia

What your world would be if everything liberals wanted, they got. Open the door at the bottom of its Elysium fa├žade and take a glimpse of hell.

Can you believe that our President gave THIS speech?

 

How much can one person mislead with just a single speech? (Quoted below, with emphases supplied.)


“I
wish to talk this evening about another subject that has not received as much conversation...as it merits—because...a very troubling situation has developed in the Middle East that has ominous implications, not just for our national security but literally for the security of all civilized and law-abiding areas of the world.

“Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the [1991] Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's truculence has continued unabated. In the final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces, on the grounds that to do so would leave a risky vacuum, as some then referred to it, in the Middle East which Iran or Syria or other destabilizing elements might move to fill.

“But instead of reforming his behavior after he was handed an historic defeat, Saddam Hussein has continued to push international patience to the very edge. The United Nations, even with many member nations which strongly favor commerce over conflict, has established and maintained sanctions designed to isolate Iraq, keep it too weak to threaten other nations, and push Saddam Hussein to abide by accepted norms of national behavior. These sanctions have cost Iraq over $100 billion and have significantly restrained his economy. They unavoidably also have exacted a very high price from the Iraqi people, but this has not appeared to bother Saddam Hussein in the least. Nor have the sanctions succeeded in obtaining acceptable behavior from Saddam.

“Now...Saddam again has raised his obstinately uncooperative profile. We all know of his announcement that he will no longer permit United States citizens to participate in the U.N. inspection team searching Iraq for violations of the U.N. requirement that Iraq not build or store weapons of mass destruction. And he has made good on his announcement. The UNSCOM inspection team, that is, the United Nations Special Commission team, has been refused access to its inspection targets...because it has Americans as team members. While it is not certain, it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam's action may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard.

“Another reason may be that Saddam Hussein, who unquestionably has demonstrated a kind of perverse personal resiliency, may be looking at the international landscape and concluding that, just perhaps, support may be waning for the United States's determination to keep him on a short leash via multilateral sanctions and weapons inspections. This latest action may, indeed, be his warped idea of an acid test of that conclusion.

“We should all be encouraged by the reactions of many of our allies, who are evincing the same objections to Iraq's course that are prevalent here in the United States. There is an inescapable reality that, after all of the effort of recent years, Saddam Hussein remains the international outlaw he was when he invaded Kuwait. For most of a decade he has set himself outside international law, and he has sought to avoid the efforts of the international community to insist that his nation comport itself with reasonable standards of behavior and, specifically, not equip itself with implements of mass destruction which it has shown the willingness to use in previous conflicts.

Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility.

“This is especially true when...the administration extracted some very serious commitments from China...to halt several types of proliferation activities. It is unthinkable that we and our allies would stand by and permit a renegade such as Saddam Hussein, who has demonstrated a willingness to engage in warfare and ignore the sovereignty of neighboring nations, to engage in activities that we insist be halted by China, Russia, and other nations.

“Let me say that I agree with the determination...at the outset of this development, to take a measured and multilateral approach to this latest provocation. It is of vital importance to let the United Nations first respond to Saddam's actions. After all, those actions are first and foremost an affront to the United Nations and all its membership which has, in a too-rare example of unity in the face of belligerent threats from a rogue State, managed to maintain its determination to keep Iraq isolated via a regime of sanctions and inspections.

“I think we should commend the resolve of the Chief U.N. Inspector...who has refused to bend or budge in the face of Saddam's intransigence. Again and again he has assembled the inspection team...and presented it to do its work, despite being refused access by Iraq.

“He rejected taking the easy way out by asking the U.S. participants simply to step aside until the problem is resolved so that the inspections could go forward. He has painstakingly documented what is occurring, and has filed regular reports to the Security Council. He clearly recognizes this situation to be the matter of vital principle that we believe it to be.

“The Security Council correctly wants to resolve this matter if it is possible to do so without plunging into armed conflict, be it great or small. So it sent a negotiating team to Baghdad to try to resolve the dispute and secure appropriate access for UNSCOM's inspection team. To remove a point of possible contention as the negotiators sought to accomplish their mission, the United Nations asked that the U.S. temporarily suspend reconnaissance flights over Iraq that are conducted with our U-2 aircraft under U.N. auspices, and we complied. At that time, in my judgment this was the appropriate and responsible course.

“But now we know that Saddam Hussein has chosen to blow off the negotiating team entirely. It has returned emptyhanded to report to the Security Council tomorrow. That is why I have come...to speak about this matter, to express what I think is the feeling of many...Americans as the Security Council convenes tomorrow.

“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent—and that the United States should support and participate in those steps....

Should Saddam be so foolish as to take any action intended to endanger...[U.S. reconnaissance] aircraft or interrupt their mission, then we should...be prepared to take the necessary actions to either eliminate that threat before it can be realized, or take actions of retribution.

“When it meets tomorrow to...determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants.

“In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

“This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

“Of course...the greatest care must be taken to reduce collateral damage to the maximum extent possible, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein cynically and cold-heartedly has made that a difficult challenge by ringing most high-value military targets with civilians.

“As the Security Council confronts this, I believe it is important for it to keep prominently in mind the main objective we all should have, which is maintaining an effective, thorough, competent inspection process that will locate and unveil any covert prohibited weapons activity underway in Iraq. If an inspection process acceptable to the United States and the rest of the Security Council can be rapidly reinstituted, it might be possible to vitiate military action.

Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted...the United States must not lose its resolve to take action....

“To date, there have been nine material breaches by Iraq of U.N. requirements. The United Nations has directed some form of responsive action in five of those nine cases, and I believe it will do so in this case.

“The job...is to effectively present the case that this is not just an insidious challenge to U.N. authority. It is a threat to peace and to long-term stability in the tinder-dry atmosphere of the Middle East, and it is an unaffordable affront to international norms of decent and acceptable national behavior.

We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S. But it is my belief that we have the ability to persuade them of how serious this is and that the U.N. must not be diverted or bullied.

“The reality...is that Saddam Hussein has intentionally or inadvertently set up a test which the entire world will be watching, and if he gets away with this arrogant ploy, he will have terminated a most important multilateral effort to defuse a legitimate threat to global security—to defuse it by tying the hands of a rogue who thinks nothing of ordering widespread, indiscriminate death and destruction in pursuit of power.

“If he succeeds, he also will have overwhelmed the willingness of the world's leading nations to enforce a principle on which all agree: that a nation should not be permitted to grossly violate even rudimentary standards of national behavior in ways that threaten the sovereignty and well-being of other nations and their people.

I believe that we should aspire to higher standards of international behavior than Saddam Hussein has offered us, and the enforcement action of the United Nations pursues such a higher standard.

We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma, and Syria that the willingness of most other nations—including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq—is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms. It would be a monumental tragedy to see such willingness evaporate in one place where so far it has survived and arguably succeeded to date, especially at a time when it is being subjected to such a critical test as that which Iraq presents.

“In a more practical vein...I submit that the old adage `pay now or pay later' applies perfectly in this situation. If Saddam Hussein is permitted to go about his effort to build weapons of mass destruction and to avoid the accountability of the United Nations, we will surely reap a confrontation of greater consequence in the future. The Security Council and the United States obviously have to think seriously and soberly about the plausible scenarios that could play out if he were permitted to continue his weapons development work after shutting out U.N. inspectors.

There can be little or no question that Saddam has no compunctions about using the most reprehensible weapons—on civilians as readily as on military forces. He has used poison gas against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq border conflict. He has launched Scud missiles against Israel and against coalition troops based in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war.

It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.

Were he to do either, much less both, the entire balance of power in the Middle East changes fundamentally, raising geometrically the already sky-high risk of conflagration in the region. His ability to bluff and bully would soar. The willingness of those nations which participated in the gulf war coalition to confront him again if he takes a course of expansionism or adventurism may be greatly diminished if they believe that their own citizens would be threatened directly by such weapons of mass destruction.

“The posture of Saudi Arabia, in particular, could be dramatically altered in such a situation. Saudi Arabia, of course, was absolutely indispensable as a staging and basing area for Desert Storm which dislodged Saddam's troops from Kuwait, and it remains one of the two or three most important locations of U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.

Were Israel to find itself under constant threat of potent biological or nuclear attack, the current low threshold for armed conflict in the Middle East that easily could escalate into a world-threatening inferno would become even more of a hair trigger.

“Indeed, one can easily anticipate that Israel would find even the prospect of such a situation entirely untenable and unacceptable and would take preemptive military action. Such action would, at the very least, totally derail the Middle East peace process which is already at risk. It could draw new geopolitical lines in the sand, with the possibility of Arab nations which have been willing to oppose Saddam's extreme actions either moving into a pan-Arab column supporting him against Israel and its allies or, at least, becoming neutral.

Either course would significantly alter the region's balance of power and make the preservation and advancement of U.S. national security objectives in the region unattainable—and would tremendously increase the risk that our Nation, our young people, ultimately would be sucked into yet another military conflict, this time without the warning time and the staging area that enabled Desert Storm to have such little cost in U.S. and other allied troop casualties.

“Finally, we must consider the ultimate nightmare. Surely, if Saddam's efforts are permitted to continue unabated, we will eventually face more aggression by Saddam, quite conceivably including an attack on Israel, or on other nations in the region as he seeks predominance within the Arab community. If he has such weapons, his attack is likely to employ weapons of unspeakable and indiscriminate destructiveness and torturous effects on civilians and military alike. What that would unleash is simply too horrendous to contemplate, but the United States inevitably would be drawn into that conflict....

“I could explore other possible ominous consequences of letting Saddam Hussein proceed unchecked. The possible scenarios I have referenced really are only the most obvious possibilities. What is vital is that Americans understand, and that the Security Council understand, that there is no good outcome possible if he is permitted to do anything other than acquiesce to continuation of U.N. inspections.

As the world's only current superpower, we have the enormous responsibility not to exhibit arrogance, not to take any unwitting or unnecessary risks, and not to employ armed force casually. But at the same time it is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run.

“While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.

I believe this is such a situation....It is a time for resolve....[W]e must make that clear to the Security Council and to the world.

Can you believe President Bush would say such things? I can believe it. Unfortunately for radical extremist liberals, it wasn't President Bush who delivered the above speech.

The speech, titled "We Must Be Firm with Saddam Hussein," was entered into the Congressional Record of November 9, 1997. It was made on the floor of our United States Senate.

The person who gave this speech there that day?

The senator (junior grade) from Massoqueeretts.

Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry.


(Ironic that, when you click the "We Must Be Firm" link, the next speaker listed is ol' Bait-n-Switch Torricelli himself.)

See also: Mary Mostert, "Sen. John Kerry 1997 vs Sen. John Kerry 2004 on Iraq's WMD," RenewAmerica.us, Feb. 8, 2004; and Mark Noonan, "John Kerry on Saddam and WMD," Blogs for Bush, Jan. 26, 2004.

Bookmark and Share    

Focus Group's Reaction To First Debate

 

CBS asked a group of undecided voters dwellers in TV-free caves whether watching this debate had helped them to finally make up their minds.


“H
i, I'm Leslie Stahl, and I'm with a group of undecided voters who just watched the first presidential debate between Our Darling Own True Love™ Senator Qerry and another guy. Let's find out what they thought of it.

"Hi, I'm Leslie Stahl. Please tell us your name and why you thought Mr. Qerry did such a wonderful job during this debate."

"My name is Travis. But I didn't think he did a good job at all."

"Thank you, Travis. Let's ask someone else now. Hi, I'm Leslie Stahl. What is your name and what convinced you that Mr. Qerry should be our next president."

"I'm Jean and I haven't been convinced. He looks and sounds too shady to be a president, especially during a war. I thought he—"

"You've hogged enough of our precious time, Jean. Let's be courteous and let someone else speak for a change. Let me try the back row now. Hello, I'm Leslie Stahl. What is your name and at what point in the debate did you decide that the other guy was a chimpanzee?"

"What are you talking about? I may not pay that much attention to politics but I do know that was President George Bush in the debate. The other guy looked like a baboon, not our president."

"I'm sorry, sir. You were supposed to give your name first. We won't be—"

"My name's Bob and I still think—"

"Sir, it's too late. We won't be asking you—"

"I still think that senator guy looked and acted like a baboon. He—"

"We won't be asking you any more questions. Please stop answering or I'll have you removed. Let's try this sweet old lady at the end and find out what she thought. Hi, I'm Leslie Stahl and what made you decide to vote for Mr. Qerry this November?"

"I'm Matilda."

"And why will you be voting for Mr. Qerry?"

"I live in Poughkeepsie."

"That's nice. Now tell us, Matilda, why do you agree with everyone here that Mr. Qerry is so wonderful?"

"Do you know anyone else who lives in Poughkeepsie?"

"Please answer the question, Matilda. How come you've decided to vote for Mr. Qerry?"

"Mr. who? Does he live in Poughkeepsie?"

"No. Now why are you going to vote for him? Just answer the question."

"Yes, I do live in Poughkeepsie."

"Listen, you bag of old bones, I don't give a flyin' flop which peasant hellhole you live in. But I do have your address, and if you don't vote for Qerry I'll find out and come to your house and break your osteoporosis-ridden arms. Do you hear me!—No, stop crying. Stop! Let me ask my producer to have you removed. You're being too disruptive.

"I'd like to apologize to our viewer for that. We apparently didn't screen her as well as we should've. She was obviously a Repugglican plant. Just goes to show you how low they'll stoop, using sweet old ladies like that to disrupt our fair and balanced discussion. Now where were we? Can I hear from someone who has decided to vote for Mr. Qerry after watching the debate?

"Anyone? Anyone at all?

"Well, all right then. It seems we're out of ti—Yes? You with your hand up, you'll be voting for Mr. Qerry?"

"My name is Dora, and I don't think it was very nice of you, the way you treated that old lady. I—"

"Thanks, Dora. I see you're clearly in cahoots with her. Do you want to tell everyone here and the person watching tonight why Karl Rove put you up to this?"

"I don't know any Karl Rove. I just don't like—"

"A likely story, Dora. If that's you're real name. I bet it's really Laura or Karen or even Condi. Isn't it? Isn't it!"

"No."

"Well, we're out of time. I'll turn it back over to you, Dan. Obviously, we've been infiltrated by a bunch of vastly conspiring right-wing Republitzer plants. They're probably behind all those questionable memos you innocently received a few weeks ago too."

"Leslie, this is Dan. I think you're right. Thanks for bravely putting up with that dirty trick they tried to pull off on all our viewer. What? Oh, my producer's telling me there might be more than one. Okay, so that's viewers, then. Thanks again, Leslie.

"Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. We tried to get the honest reaction of a few undecided voters to the presidential debate and were sideswiped by the dirty tricks of the Bush Campaign. It's a sad commentary on the state of our political process when a Republican—it should come as no surprise—resorts to stifling the freedom of the press in this manner.

"Sitting next to me is Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who asked to come on earlier so he could respond to the dirty trick that he told us he expected the Republicans would try to pull with our focus group. I have to say, Terry, you were right."

"Just as I said they would, Dan."

"Well, we have to break for a commercial right now, but I'd like your reaction when we come back."

"You bet."

"Good. We'll find out more about this dirty trick when we return. Stay tuned right here to CBS's expanded coverage of the first presidential debate.

"In the meantime: Courage."

Bookmark and Share    

No laughing matter

 

Not when the Distributic Party is so deadly serious about it.


N
onetheless, this joke parable from Right Wing News (via dgci), has a better chance of accomplishing with humor what tracts upon tracts of reasoned argument ever could with the "fair-'mind'ed" Left (double sneer quotes required).
Bookmark and Share    

Relative Levels of Violence

 

Perspective once again proves fatal to loony leftist logic.


T
en—count 'em—ten "9/11s" each year. That's the equivalent of what the Iraqi people suffered on average during the totalitarian torturocracy of one Saddam Hussein al-Majid. "I live in every Iraqi house," he told a sovereign Iraq court last July when asked where he lived. In hundreds of thousands of those houses, the same cannot be said of their former residences. That's because they're dead. He killed them. Murdered each one in cold blood. One-third of a million men, women, and children are lying in the mass graves he dug for them. Two-thirds more are missing and presumed dead. That's an entire million murdered by Saddam Hussein during his thirty years of absolute power over the lives and deaths of all his so-called roommates. In every one of those murdered million cases, they got to know the full extent of that power and didn't live to tell about it beyond their screams of horror inside his torture chambers. For hundreds of thousands more, it was the prolonged but equally brutal deaths of forced starvation as Saddam built up his bunkers, palaces, and weaponry instead of the people's food supplies.

No longer is that the case anywhere now in Iraq. All courtesy of the extraordinarily courageous men and women of the United States Armed Forces and their commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush. No more Gestapo-like rampages in the night or organized mass slaughters. No more diverting funds intended for the people's sustenance into a dictator's coffers used to acquire instruments of mass death.

Compare Saddam Hussein's record to the estimated 3,487 Iraqis killed—about half of them insurgents terrorists radical Islamofascist fanatics—since April 5, including in Islamofascist bombings of marketplaces and mosques. We didn't target those civilians. Islamonazis cowardly targeted them or used them as shields when they attacked our troops. Any blame for their deaths rests solely on those fanatics' hands.

Under Saddam Hussein's butcherocracy, no human life was precious. Just his own insatiable, all-consuming quest for ultimate power inside Iraq and over his neighbors. Obviously, everyone is better off without him in any position other than prisoner, awaiting trial for his war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We go out of our way—often at the increased risk of our own troops—to avoid casualties among the civilian population. Can the same be said of the Islamofanatics who intentionally target us and that population? Where are the cries of condemnation from the Left against them? If there are any, you can never hear them above the din of the Left's vilifying our efforts to stop those butchers.

There may not have been collapsing towers during the Iraqi people's half-score 9/11s per year. The ravages and suffering they experienced as a result of them, however, were just as horrible as ours. We've put a stop to all that. We're making sure that not a single one will ever happen again, either there or here.

That's the proper perspective for what's happening in Iraq. An Iraq now free of the government of, by, and for Saddam Hussein and those ten 9/11s a year.

Bookmark and Share    

Pride and Hope

 

From this leader's thank you, on behalf of a true ally where none was ever before.


A
yad Allawi, Interim Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, addressed a joint meeting of Congress Thursday morning. The text below comes from the widely published transcript of his speech. (A video of it is at this link.)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, it's my distinct honor and great privilege to speak to you today on behalf of Iraq's interim government and its people.

It's my honor to come to Congress and to thank this nation and its people for making our cause your cause, our struggle your struggle.

Before I turn to my government's plan for Iraq, I have three important messages for you today.

First, we are succeeding in Iraq.

It's a tough struggle with setbacks, but we are succeeding.

I have seen some of the images that are being shown here on television. They are disturbing. They focus on the tragedies, such as the brutal and barbaric murder of two American hostages this week.

My thoughts and prayers go out to their families and to all those who lost loved ones.

Yet, as we mourn these losses, we must not forget either the progress we are making or what is at stake in Iraq.

We are fighting for freedom and democracy, ours and yours. Every day, we strengthen the institutions that will protect our new democracy, and every day, we grow in strength and determination to defeat the terrorists and their barbarism.

The second message is quite simple and one that I would like to deliver directly from my people to yours: Thank you, America.

We Iraqis know that Americans have made and continue to make enormous sacrifices to liberate Iraq, to assure Iraq's freedom. I have come here to thank you and to promise you that your sacrifices are not in vain.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are grateful. They are grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein and the torture and brutality he forced upon us, grateful for the chance to build a better future for our families, our country and our region.

We Iraqis are grateful to you, America, for your leadership and your sacrifice for our liberation and our opportunity to start anew.

Third, I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed. Like almost every Iraqi, I have many friends who were murdered, tortured or raped by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Well over a million Iraqis were murdered or are missing. We estimate at least 300,000 in mass graves, which stands as monuments to the inhumanity of Saddam's regime. Thousands of my Kurdish brothers and sisters were gassed to death by Saddam's chemical weapons.

Millions more like me were driven into exile. Even in exile, as I myself can vouch, we were not safe from Saddam.

And as we lived under tyranny at home, so our neighbors lived in fear of Iraq's aggression and brutality. Reckless wars, use of weapons of mass destruction, the needless loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the financing and exporting of terrorism, these were Saddam's legacy to the world.

My friends, today we are better off, you are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one.

There are no words that can express the debt of gratitude that future generations of Iraqis will owe to Americans. It would have been easy to have turned your back on our plight, but this is not the tradition of this great country, nor for the first time in history you stood up with your allies for freedom and democracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I particularly want to thank you in the United States Congress for your brave vote in 2002 to authorize American men and women to go to war to liberate my country, because you realized what was at stake. And I want to thank you for your continued commitment last year when you voted to grant Iraq a generous reconstruction and security funding package.

I have met many of you last year and I have in Iraq. It's a tribute to your commitment to our country that you have come to see firsthand the challenges and the progress we have and we are making.

Ladies and gentlemen, the costs now have been high. As we have lost our loved ones in this struggle, so have you. As we have mourned, so have you.

This is a bitter price of combating tyranny and terror.

Our hearts go to the families, every American who has given his or her life and every American who has been wounded to help us in our struggle.

Now we are determined to honor your confidence and sacrifice by putting into practice in Iraq the values of liberty and democracy, which are so dear to you and which have triumphed over tyranny across our world.

Creating a democratic, prosperous and stable nation, where differences are respected, human rights protected, and which lives in peace with itself and its neighbor, is our highest priority, our sternest challenge and our greatest goal. It is a vision, I assure you, shared by the vast majority of the Iraqi people. But there are the tiny minority who despise the very ideas of liberty, of peace, of tolerance, and who will kill anyone, destroy anything, to prevent Iraq and its people from achieving this goal.

Among them are those who nurse fantasies of the former regime returning to power. There are fanatics who seek to impose a perverted vision of Islam in which the face of Allah cannot be seen. And there are terrorists, including many from outside Iraq, who seek to make our country the main battleground against freedom, democracy and civilization.

For the struggle in Iraq today is not about the future of Iraq only. It's about the worldwide war between those who want to live in peace and freedom, and terrorists. Terrorists strike indiscriminately at soldiers, at civilians, as they did so tragically on 9/11 in America, and as they did in Spain and Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia in my country and many others.

So in Iraq we confront both, insurgency and the global war on terror with their destructive forces sometimes overlapping. These killers may be just a tiny fraction of our 27 million population, but with their guns and their suicide bombs to intimidate and to frighten all the people of Iraq, I can tell you today, they will not succeed.

For these murderers have no political program or cause other than push our country back into tyranny. Their agenda is no different than terrorist forces that have struck all over the world, including your own country on September 11th. There lies the fatal weakness: The insurgency in Iraq is destructive but small and it has not and will never resonate with the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi citizens know better than anyone the horrors of dictatorship. This is past we will never revisit.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me turn now to our plan which we have developed to meet the real challenges which Iraq faces today, a plan that we are successfully implementing with your help. The plan has three basic parts: building democracy, defeating the insurgency and improving the quality of ordinary Iraqis.

The political strategy in our plan is to isolate the terrorists from the communities in which they operate. We are working hard to involve as many people as we can in the political process to cut the ground from under the terrorists' feet.

In troubled areas across the country, government representatives are meeting with local leaders. They are offering amnesty to those who realize the error of their ways. They are making clear that there can be no compromise with terror, that all Iraqis have the opportunity to join the side of order and democracy, and that they should use the political process to address their legitimate concerns and hopes.

I am a realist. I know that terrorism cannot be defeated with political tools only. But we can weaken it, ending local support, help us to tackle the enemy head-on, to identify, isolate and eradicate this cancer.

Let me provide you with a couple of examples of where this political plan already is working.

In Samarra, the Iraqi government has tackled the insurgents who once controlled the city.

Following weeks of discussions between government officials and representatives, coalition forces and local community leaders, regular access to the city has been restored. A new provincial council and governor have been selected, and a new chief of police has been appointed. Hundreds of insurgents have been pushed out of the city by local citizens, eager to get with their lives.

Today in Samarra, Iraqi forces are patrolling the city, in close coordination with their coalition counterparts.

In Talafa, a city northwest of Baghdad, the Iraqi government has reversed an effort by insurgents to arrest, control...the proper authorities. Iraqi forces put down the challenge and allowed local citizens to choose a new mayor and police chief. Thousands of civilians have returned to the city. And since their return, we have launched a large program of reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me turn now to our military strategy. We plan to build and maintain security forces across Iraq. Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to take over entirely this role and to shoulder all the security burdens of our country as quickly as possible.

For now, of course, we need the help of our American and coalition partners. But the training of Iraqi security forces is moving forward briskly and effectively.

The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat- ready Iraqis.

By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis.

The government has accelerated the development of Iraqi special forces, and the establishment of a counter-terrorist strike force to tackle specific problems caused by insurgencies.

Our intelligence is getting better every day. You have seen that the successful resolution of the Najaf crisis, and then the targeted attacks against insurgents in Fallujah.

These new Iraqi forces are rising to the challenge. They are fighting on behalf of sovereign Iraqi government, and therefore their performance is improving every day. Working closely with the coalition allies, they are striking their enemies wherever they hide, disrupting operations, destroying safe houses and removing terrorist leaders.

But improving the everyday lives of Iraqis, tackling our economic problems is also essential to our plan. Across the country there is a daily progress, too. Oil pipelines are being repaired. Basic services are being improved. The homes are being rebuilt. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt. The clinics are open and reopened. There are now over 6 million children at school, many of them attending one of the 2,500 schools that have been renovated since liberation.

Last week, we completed a national polio vaccination campaign, reaching over 90 percent of all Iraqi children.

We're starting work on 150 new health centers across the country. Millions of dollars in economic aid and humanitarian assistance from this country and others around the world are flowing into Iraq. For this, again, I want to thank you.

And so today, despite the setbacks and daily outrages, we can and should be hopeful for the future.

In Najaf and Kufa, this plan has already brought success. In those cities a firebrand cleric had taken over Shia Islam's holiest sites in defiance of the government and the local population. Immediately, the Iraqi government ordered the Iraqi armed forces into action to use military force to create conditions for political success.

Together with the coalition partners, Iraqi forces cleaned out insurgents from everywhere in the city, capturing hundreds and killing many more.

At the same time, the government worked with political leaders and with Ayatollah Sistani to find a peaceful solution to the occupation of the shrine. We were successful. The shrine was preserved. Order was restored. And Najaf and Kufa were returned to their citizens.

Today the foreign media have lost interest and left, but millions of dollars in economic aid and humanitarian assistance are now flowing into the cities. Ordinary citizens are once again free to live and worship at these places.

As we move forward, the next major milestone will be holding of the free and fair national and local elections in January next.

I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met. So let me be absolutely clear: Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January because Iraqis want elections on time.

For the skeptics who do not understand the Iraqi people, they do not realize how decades of torture and repression feed our desire for freedom. At every step of the political process to date the courage and resilience of the Iraqi people has proved the doubters wrong.

They said we would miss January deadline to pass the interim constitution.

We proved them wrong.

They warned that there could be no successful handover of sovereignty by the end of June. We proved them wrong. A sovereign Iraqi government took over control two days early.

They doubted whether a national conference could be staged this August. We proved them wrong.

Despite intimidation and violence, over 1,400 citizens, a quarter of them women, from all regions and from every ethnic, religious and political grouping in Iraq, elected a national council.

And I pledge to you today, we'll prove them wrong again over the elections.

Our independent electoral commission is working with the United Nations, the multinational force and our own Iraqi security forces to make these elections a reality. In 15 out of our 18 Iraqi provinces we could hold elections tomorrow. Although this is not what we see in your media, it is a fact.

Your government, our government and the United Nations are all helping us mobilizing the necessary resources to fund voter registration and information programs. We will establish up to 30,000 polling sites, 130,000 election workers, and all other complex aspects mounting a general election in a nation of 27 million before the end of January next.

We already know that terrorists and former regime elements will do all they can to disrupt these elections. There would be no greater success for the terrorists if we delay and no greater blow when the elections take place, as they will, on schedule.

The Iraqi elections may not be perfect, may not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold. They will no doubt be an excuse for violence from those that despise liberty, as were the first elections in Sierra Leone, South Africa or Indonesia.

But they will take place, and they will be free and fair. And though they won't be the end of the journey toward democracy, they will be a giant step forward in Iraq's political evolution.

They will pave the way for a government that reflects the world, and has the confidence of the Iraqi people.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is our strategy for moving Iraq steadily toward the security and democracy and prosperity our people crave.

But Iraq cannot accomplish this alone. The resolve and will of the coalition in supporting a free Iraq is vital to our success.

The Iraqi government needs the help of the international community, the help of countries that not only believe in the Iraqi people but also believe in the fight for freedom and against tyranny and terrorism everywhere.

Already, Iraq has many partners. The transition in Iraq from brutal dictatorship to freedom and democracy is not only an Iraqi endeavor, it is an international one. More than 30 countries are represented in Iraq with troops on the ground in harm's way. We Iraqis are grateful for each and every one of these courageous men and women.

United Nations Resolution 1546 passed in June 2004, endorsed the Iraqi interim government and pledged international support for Iraq upcoming elections. The G-8, the European Union and NATO have also issued formal statements of support.

NATO is now helping with one of Iraq's most urgent needs, the training of Iraqi security forces. I am delighted by the new agreement to step up the pace and scope of this training.

The United Nations has reestablished its mission in Iraq, a new United Nations special representative has been appointed and a team of United Nations personnel is now operating in Baghdad.

Many more nations have committed to Iraq's future in the form of economic aid. We Iraqis are aware how international this effort truly is.

But our opponents, the terrorists, also understand all too well that this is an international effort. And that's why they have targeted members of the coalition.

I know the pain this causes. I know it is difficult but the coalition must stand firm.

When governments negotiate with terrorists, everyone in the free world suffers. When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourage more violence.

Working together, we will defeat the killers, and we will do this by refusing to bargain about our most fundamental principles.

Ladies and gentlemen, good will aside, I know that many observers around the world honestly wonder if we in Iraq really can restore our economy, be good neighbors, guarantee the democratic rule of law and overcome the enemies who seek to tear us down. I understand why, faced with the daily headlines, there are these doubts. I know, too, that there will be many more setbacks and obstacles to overcome.

But these doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists. Despite our problems, despite our recent history, no one should doubt that Iraq is a country of tremendous human resources and national resources.

Iraq is still a nation with an inspiring culture and the tradition and an educated and civilized people. And Iraq is still a land made strong by a faith which teaches us tolerance, love, respect and duty.

Above all, they risk underestimating the courage, determination of the Iraqi people to embrace democracy, peace and freedom, for the dreams of our families are the same as the dreams of the families here in America and around the world. There are those who want to divide our world. I appeal to you, who have done so much already to help us, to ensure they don't succeed.

Do not allow them to say to Iraqis, to Arabs, to Muslims, that we have only two models of governments, brutal dictatorship and religious extremism. This is wrong.

Like Americans, we Iraqis want to enjoy the fruits of liberty. Half of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims already enjoy democratically elected governments.

As Prime Minister Blair said to you last year when he stood here, anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom not tyranny, democracy not dictatorship, and the rule of law not the rule of the secret police.

Do not let them convince others that the values of freedom, of tolerance and democracy are for you in the West but not for us.

For the first time in our history, the Iraqi people can look forward to controlling our own destiny.

This would not have been possible without the help and sacrifices of this country and its coalition partners. I thank you again from the bottom of my heart.

And let me tell you that as we meet our greatest challenge by building a democratic future, we the people of the new Iraq will remember those who have stood by us.

As generous as you have been, we will stand with you, too. As stalwart as you have been, we will stand with you, too.

Neither tyranny nor terrorism has a place in our region or our world. And that is why we Iraqis will stand by you, America, in a war larger than either of our nations, the global battle to live in freedom.

God bless you and thank you.



The Members of Congress who were AWOL from the joint meeting of Congress in which the above speech was given, include: Sen.(jg) Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry-Heinz (D-MA), Sen. Johnny Reid Qerrwarts (D-NC), Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN), and 27 other Doorknobatic senators. Each one's petty partisanship childishness delivered a grave insult to all the Iraqi people.

Of course, al-Qerry went even further. Not content just with insulting yet another of our staunchest allies, he also went out of his way to insult us Americans, too, by refusing to even show up for the vote to keep our middle-class tax cuts. Similar to the way he insulted us when he skipped out on all those Senate Intelligence Committee meetings he was supposed to attend.

I wouldn't be surprised if Qerry decides to skip out on the presidential debates as well. Then President Bush could say, "I'd like to thank you all for coming. It's been an enjoyable and informative evening. I'd also like to thank my opponent for not doing any flip-flops during this debate. Of course, his not being here may have had something to do with it."

Bookmark and Share    

This is how you destroy a demoonbatic meme

 

To paraphrase a line from Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's favorite movie, “I love the smell of desperation in the moonbats.”


I
n a comment to Matt's "White House Pool Report: Bush Surprise Visit To Troops Headed to Iraq," cook climbed out from under his rock at September 24, 2004 01:35 PM to post:

I find it sad that our President cannot find the time to attend one of our fallen soldiers funerals.


To which Scaramonga responded at September 24, 2004 03:24 PM with:

I find it sad that you would be so dumb. Do you know what an invasion of privacy it would be to intrude on the funeral of a fallen soldier? You would have the President, his secret service detail, military aides, and the ever-present press corps stomping around, pushing and shoving, flashing pictures and recording audio and videos....

The fact is if idiots like you ever got the chance to actually affect US policy as far as this war is concerned, you'd get us all killed. You should fall on your knees and pray to your moon god, coven chief, or whatever pagan symbol you worship to give thanks that George W. Bush is leading the most courageous bunch of young Americans in a noble and heroic cause for democracy and freedom.



Scaramonga's entire Megaton Yield of Clue rising above the stark desert known as The Liberal Mind Piece of Anatomy Used to Keep Chairs Warm™ is a sight to behold. (Source: Blogs for Bush; via Slobokan at his Site O' Schtuff, and Patrick, The Pamphleteer.)
Bookmark and Share    

Raise the Terror Alert Level. Now.

 

The target we already know: disrupt our democratic process. The most opportune time in the terrorists' "minds" to hit it? Friday, October 1.


W
hen it comes to my country and her citizens' safety, I firmly believe it's better to be too cautious and see nothing happen, than to think we're ready but later find out we weren't ready enough.

In addition to the upcoming election, I've been wondering what al Qaeda terrorists might be considering as they plan when and where to attack us next. I'm concerned about two entire oil tankers, both suspected of being used in oil-smuggling operations, which disappeared after supposedly being seized recently in Nigeria. Yesterday, Nigerian authorities reported they've found only one of them. Where is the other oil-laden tanker? How far could a terrorist-hijacked tanker get in and plow full-steam ahead up the East River in an attempt to maneuver it practically atop New York City's waterfront before detonating explosives on board, igniting its whole cargo of oil?

Seeing how Kufr Islamonazi fascists keep trying to justify their mass murders on religious grounds, I wonder about the significance of Muslim rituals and observances scheduled between now and Election Day. Next Wednesday night, September 29, is the Lailatul-Bara'at ("Night of Salvation") festival on the Islamic calendar. The day itself (which ends Thursday evening, September 30) is Nisfu-Sha'ban, the one on which Muslims believe "God decides who will be born, who will die." Also,

It is said that God will take care of the needs of all those, who turn to God sincerely on this night. Further, it is believed that doing the above in a gathering (satsang) of other Muslims (seekers) on the 15th night of the month of Shabaan [i.e., this Wed. night, ending early Thus. morning, Sept. 30] will lead one to Liberation.


By the next day, October 1, everyone who's slated to die (including as a martyr) has been chosen. Moreover, the month of Ramadan begins October 16. I doubt even a warped-minded Islamofascist would want to try rationalizing from his twisted logic any "religious" tenets for justifying the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children during that holy month of fasting. This October 1-15 window seems most risky for our country.

If terrorists attack us too close to our election, the resulting bipartisan panic and calls for postponement won't be enough to overcome the inertia of going ahead with it. If too far from it, such as before this week, there is sufficient time to effectively counter all those voices yelling for postponement. An attack between such times, and our resolve would be most vulnerable to accepting what those voices want. Out of our unsureness and vulnerability, terrorists would then obtain their best chance of having us give them what they want: a disruption of our democratic process along with the confusion and divisive squabbling and accusations that would likely follow.

If I could do so myself, I would raise the nationwide alert level now to High and keep it there until a week after the October 16 start of Ramadan. Afterwards I would lower it back to Elevated for most of the country, but keep it at High through Election Day for places like New York City, Los Angeles, our ports of entry such as Long Beach, New Orleans, and Savannah, and any other places I knew the terrorists might want to try attacking. The Pentagon and U.S. Capitol buildings are still targets too. Moreover, I would post at least two National Guardsmen aboard every freight train, especially those hauling hazardous gases and similar materials through populated areas.

The war is not yet over. Our enemy has no regard for human life, not even his own. He believes our destruction is part of his holy crusade to turn the entire world into an Islamic totalitarian state. Our shattering his plans now to disrupt our political and economic institutions and processes, while we continue to capture and kill his leadership and their followers, would set him back even further and thus more quickly bring about his inevitable, total defeat.

To that end, we should raise the terror alert level to High. Now.

Bookmark and Share    

Transcript of Rather Interrogation Released

 

(Er, that should be "Rather Questioning.") Hauled down to police headquarters prior to his arrest for the murder of Mainst Reammedia, one D. Rather—alias Ms. Word Default—was gone over and grilled good about his knowledge of the DNC/CBS forged memos badmouthing our president during wartime. Here's a transcript of that interrogation question & answer session:


SUSPECT D. RATHER: I want to see my lawyer.

DETECTIVE T. SMITH: All right... O.K., Sergeant. You can bring in Mr. Rather's lawyer now.

SGT. W. CORONA: Here ya go.

SMITH: Thanks, Sergeant

RATHER: Hey, that's just a photograph of my lawyer, mounted in a stand-up frame. A nice frame, I'll grant you. I like the gilded edges. Where did you get it? Oh, wait! I meant, I want to talk to my lawyer.

SMITH: Well, why didn't you say so? All right, here's the phone. You can call him now.

RATHER: Thanks. Now let's see... Five-Five-Five Zero-Zero-Zero-Zero. It's ringing... It's still ringing.... O.K., he's picking up now. Huh?

PHONE: Hi, you have reached Mr. Rather's lawyer. I'm not in right now, but if you'd like to leave a message I'll get back to you. Bye. *dhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

RATHER: Hey, wait! He hung up on me before I could even leave a message on his answering machine.

SMITH: Can you call your lawyer at another number?

RATHER: Yeah. I can probably reach him at the bar.

CORONA: The Bar Association?

RATHER: No. The Tropical Flamingo, on J Street in D.C.

CORONA: Oh.

RATHER: Let's see. One-Two-Three Four-Five-Six-Seven. It's ringing... It's still ringing. Hang on.... Ah, here we go. Someone's answering—Wha?

PHONE: Hi, you have reached Mr. Rather's lawyer. I'm not in right now, but if you'd like to leave a message I'll get back to you. Bye. *dhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

RATHER: What? This doesn't seem right. Let me dial a number at random. Two-Four-Six One-Three-Five-Nine. Ringing... Ringing... and—

PHONE: Hi, you have reached Mr. Rather's lawyer. I'm not in right now, but if you'd like to leave a message I'll get back to you. Bye. *dhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

RATHER: Look, I don't know what's going on around here, but I have a right to legal counsel. I demand access to a lawyer, and I demand it now.

SMITH: Oh, all right. Here's the Yellow Pages®. You have access to every lawyer listed in there. Why don't you call one of them?

RATHER: All right, I will. Let me see now... B... F... G... M... Q... Oh, wait. Too far. N... L... O.K. Lucite... Lip Readers... Liposuction... Laxatives... Lawyers, here we go. Hmm. There doesn't seen to be that many listed. J.Q. Doe, Esq.... F. Scott Fitshyster, Esq.... S. Nake Indygrass, Esq.... Low Estform Oflife, Esq.... Vill Ain, Esq.... Ambu Lancechaser, Esq.... Bilkyou, Bilkme & Bilkall LLP... Something's wrong here. These might sound like lawyers' names, but I've never heard of any of them specifically. Wait, here's one that sounds familiar. Joe Bob's Lawfirm & BBQ. If I remember right, they also have an office in Texas. I'll try them. Let's see... Seven-Six-Five Four-Three-Two-One. It's ringing... Still ringing... Ring—O.K. Someone's picking up. Hey!

PHONE: Hi, you have reached one of Mr. Rather's potential lawyers. We're not in right now, but if you'd like to leave a message we'll get back to you. Bye. *dhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

RATHER: Listen, you two. This isn't funny. I refuse to answer any questions unless I see my lawyer.

SMITH: You hear that, Sergeant?

CORONA: Loud and clear. Mr. Rather, who's in that picture sitting on the table.

RATHER: That's my lawyer.

CORONA: You see him?

RATHER: Yes. But—

CORONA: Then you best answer our questions like you just said you would. *Knuckles cracking*

RATHER: *Gulp*

SMITH: All right, Mr. Rather. Here's the first question. Who wrote the forged memos?

RATHER: That's "allegedly forged," flatfoot.

CORONA: *Bap*

RATHER: Hey! You aren't allowed to strike anyone in your custody. I'll do a special 60 Minutes II exclusive investigation of you!

CORONA: That's the one you host on Wednesday nights?

RATHER: Yeah.

CORONA: *BAP!*

RATHER: Ouch! What was that one for?

CORONA: I hate that show.

SMITH: Now, Sergeant. We aren't here to be TV critics.

CORONA: Sorry, sir.

SMITH: That's O.K. Just tell us, Mr. Rather. Who wrote the forged memos?

RATHER: I don't know what you're talking about. The memos aren't forged. I just haven't been able to vouch for their veracity yet.

SMITH: You trying to be funny?

RATHER: Not as funny as you. ...Lookin', that is.

SMITH: Sergeant.

CORONA: *Smack*

RATHER: Dern. Can't you fellas take a joke?

SMITH: If it's anything like the one your network ran last Wednesday night at eight, the answer is no.

CORONA: Sir, didn't you say we aren't here to be—

SMITH: It's all right, Sergeant. That just applies to the show in general. If it's a particular show you're criticizing, then by all means smack away.

CORONA: Well, in that case—*BAP*

RATHER: Crap! That one hurt.

CORONA: Just letting you know that I didn't like your last Wednesday show either.

RATHER: Can't we just get on with this? I have a fax coming in at nine.

SMITH: Sure. So you say the forged memos aren't really forged, eh? Then take a look at this copy of one of them. How do explain all those things I've cricled in red?

RATHER: Uh, you used a red ink pen?

SMITH: Sergeant.

CORONA: *SMACK*

RATHER: Yeow!

SMITH: No, the things inside those red circles. Like the small-lettered "th" superscript, and the perfectly pixelled-centered lines at the top. You believe both of those were done using a Seventies-era typewriter?

RATHER: Well, I'm no expert when it comes to such matters. But I will say, based on what a couple of unnamed, unimpeachable sources told me, that those things could've been done by at least one brand of typewriter then in existence.

SMITH: An expensive, top-of-the line model used almost exclusively by professional printers, you mean.

RATHER: Well, yes. But the key word there is "almost." Some other people could've been using that model as well.

SMITH: Like an Air National Guard unit?

RATHER: Yes, I believe that's possible.

SMITH: Even when the very same lady who was in charge at the time of typing every single memo at the Guard unit identified in this memo, who you interviewed yourself, says she never typed or could type anything like it?

RATHER: I don't know how reliable she is when she says that. I mean it was over thirty years ago, for cryin' out loud. She might have been able to, but simply forgot that she had.

SMITH: So when she remembers something else from the same time and place, her reliably about that is questionable too?

RATHER: Now, I didn't say that. She probably remembers some things better than others. It depends on what she's remembering when she remembers it.

SMITH: That's stupid.

RATHER: Hey, I'm no expert on memory or a neurologist or anything. So I can't tell you whether she's remembering something a hundred percent correctly or not. My job is just to report what she's saying and let my viewers decide.

SMITH: You report, we decide. Is that it?

RATHER: Yeah, something like that.

SMITH: Let's put aside that forgery part for the moment. Who gave you the memos?

RATHER: You want to try another question? You ought to know I can't reveal my sources.

SMITH: Wrong answer. Sergeant, it's time.

CORONA: Okie dokie. Be back in a minute.

RATHER: Where's he going?

SMITH: You'll see.

CORONA: Here you are, sir.

RATHER: Hey, what's with the wires and electrodes?

SMITH: Just standard procedure. Nothing to be concerned about. Oh, and it looks like the cassette in our tape recorder's about to run out. We'll have to put in a new one now. Mmwha ha haha hah—

[ break in the recording of the interrogation question & answer session ]

SMITH: Thanks for remembering to turn that tape recorder back on, Sergeant. In all the excitement, I simply forget about it.

CORONA: No problem, sir. Quite understandable. Could happen to anyone.

SMITH: Now, Mr. Rather. Do you want to repeat your answer?

RATHER: Ahhhhhgh! Voltage. Too. High... Please. Lower.

SMITH: You heard the man, Sergeant.

CORONA: Turning it down now.

SMITH: Well, Mr. Rather? Who gave you the forged memos?

RATHER: You can't treat me this way! I'm a respected, albeit totally discredited journalist. You haven't let me see—er, call—uh, speak with my lawyer. You haven't even read me my rights yet.

SMITH: But you're a Lefty.

RATHER: I still have rights.

SMITH: Very well, if you insist. Ronald Reagan.

RATHER: What?

SMITH: He's right, all right. You want me to read you another?

RATHER: Wait. I meant rights. R-I-G-

CORONA: *Bip*

RATHER: Wha! You have to read me my rights. I know. I once did a special CBS 60 Minutes II exclusive investigation on it.

CORONA: *BAP!*

RATHER: Yeouch! Why'd you do that?

CORONA: Didn't you hear me when I told you that I hated that show?

RATHER: All right, all right. I won't mention it again. But I demand that your read me my real rights.

SMITH: Oh, ok. George W. Bush.

RATHER: Agh! I hate that name. Don't even mention it in my presence!

SMITH: O.K. George W. Bush.

RATHER: Ahhh, stop! I have rights. You can't torture me like this!

SMITH: Well, in that case. Here. Put these panties on top of your head.

RATHER: What the—?

SMITH: It was your producer's idea.

RATHER: My producer's?

SMITH: Yeah. In case you're interested, she was in here this morning, singing like a canary. And she wasn't too pleased about the way you've been trying to pin the rap entirely on her.

RATHER: But it must have been her, I tell you. She must have planned and coordinated the entire thing with the Qerry Qampaign! I'm just a simple news reader. I only say what's on the teleprompter.

SMITH: But you're the network's All-Managing Editor of All News Programs. Is just reading teleprompters the only thing you do?

RATHER: Yeah, sure. That editing part is just fancy talk for teleprompter reader.

SMITH: Listen. Are you gonna put those panties on your head or are we gonna have to do it for you?

RATHER: Geesh. I can do it. I'm more practiced at it than you. There. Satisfied?

SMITH: Now you can sit there, mister, looking more ridiculous than normal until you come clean about who gave you those memos.

RATHER: Speaking of clean, are these new panties?

SMITH: You don't want to know. Some frothing-at-the-mouth hilldabeast left hers at the front desk yesterday along with a note saying, "In case you need to put some panties on a teleprompter reader's managing news editor's head."

RATHER: Oooh noooooo!

SMITH: That reminds me. While we're waiting for your answer, tell us. Have you stopped hating your pajamas?

RATHER: What does that got to do with anything?

SMITH: Just answer 'yes' or 'no.'

RATHER: I don't own any pajamas.

SMITH: Sergeant.

CORONA: *Whap*

RATHER: Eeow! Okay, okay, I do own pajamas, and no, I haven't stopped hating them.

SMITH: There, Sergeant. See what a little mild persuasion can accomplish?

CORONA: Yes, sir.

RATHER: In fact, I hate all pajamas. I hate even the sight of pajamas.

SMITH: O.K.

RATHER: I hate everyone who wears pajamas. Wearing their pajamas and laughing at me. All laughing at me, in their pajamas. Typing at their keyboards and laughing while wearing their stupid, ugly pajamas!

SMITH: All right, that's enough.

RATHER: No! It's not enough. The government should ban the sell of all pajamas! Then no one could wear them and type anymore at their keyboards and laugh at me ever again. I'll do a special 60 Minutes II exclusive investigation of pajamas, and after I'm done investigating them and uncovering their evil, there'll never be any anymore pajamas anywhere for anyone to wear ever again! Hahhe hehee haha hoho hoohooo hahah—

SMITH: Sergeant.

CORONA: *Bamm*

RATHER: No, you can't stop me! I'll conquer the pajama-wearing people everywhere and drive them back into the three-network-only sea of oblivion where I'll again be master of only what I want people to survey. Never again will there be any fact checking. Never again will peasants in pajamas be able to laugh at anything. No more news unless filtered by me. Me! I'll be the one laughing. Laughing atop my anchor desk at everyone who even dared challenge my obvious partisanship and bias.

SMITH: Quick, Sergeant. He's trying to get away.

CORONA: I can't keep him restrained. He's squirming too much.

SMITH: Here. Put this straight jacket on him.

CORONA: It's not working. He's too crooked.

RATHER: Laughing—no more at me! Bwahahah hahah ha—

SMITH: Where's the stungun?

CORONA: I don't know. Try something else.

SMITH: George W. Bush.

RATHER: Ahghh! Don't say that name!

SMITH: George W. Bush. George W. Bush.

RATHER: No, stop! It hurts!

SMITH: George W. Bush. George W. Bush. George W. Bush.

RATHER: Ahhhhhhhhh...

CORONA: It worked, sir. He's out cold.

SMITH: Guess we'll have to schedule the rest of his interrogation, er, I mean Q and A session, for another day.

CORONA: I think you're right, sir.

Bookmark and Share    

Qerry's 'Service' Record

 

Attempted deferment, a falsified scratch-n-scoot bugout, AWOL from Naval Reserves, maligning the very Vets he abandoned, private meetings with enemy officials—and that's just for starters.


P
urple heart number one, Qerry didn't earn. The scratch he received on his arm did not come from any enemy fire or even from his firing at any enemy soldiers. Because there was never any confirmation that even one enemy soldier was anywhere near his position. He was patrolling at night, heard a noise, started firing his machine gun and, when that jammed, launched a grenade which sent a piece a shrapnel ricocheting back after it exploded. That's what nicked his arm. Not anything the enemy did. His wound wasn't the result of enemy action, but an unintended, self-inflicted one. And you don't get purple hearts for self-inflicted wounds. Just ask Max Cleland.

But let's back up a bit. In 1966, Qerry sought a student deferment after he found out that he was about to be drafted into the military. Just to be clear, Qerry sought a student deferment to avoid being drafted. The reason excuse he gave was that he wanted to "study for a year in Paris." That, according to his own current wife, shows he tried to "escape" serving his country. Since he couldn't escape from being drafted, he chose to enlist in the Navy. (No doubt in order to be in the thick of things when the Viet Cong Vast Armada™ went up against our ships or tried to shell the California coastline.) His first 21 months of service he spent in training stateside, before being assigned to a ship.

So now Qerry's off to see the world on board the USS Gridley (DLG-21). Despite Qerry's exaggerated claims, self-pufferies, and outright lies, he never personally took part in any real action himself—combat or otherwise—during the 12 months he served aboard her. In July 1968, after "four months of action off the Vietnam coast," the Gridley was placed out of commission for conversion. Qerry requested reassignment to the then relatively safe Swift boats (or Patrol Craft Fast). Back in the states, Qerry trained for coastal patrol duties. Meanwhile, Vice Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., who became Commander Naval Forces Vietnam (COMNAVFORV) in late 1968, had something else in mind for the Swift boats: the SEALORDS (Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, and Delta Strategy) campaign, under which the Swift boats initially "mounted lightning raids into enemy held coastal waterways and took over patrol responsibility for the Southern [Mekong] Delta's larger rivers."

Qerry arrived back in Viet Nam in mid November 1968, becoming a Swift boat "officer in command (OinC) under training" on December 1, 1968. The very next day he got his first scratch owie!

Sporting a brand-new single Band Aid®, Hanoi John returned to duty, going up and down rivers, burning down villages, cutting off genitals, beheading babies, and personally committing other assorted war atrocities in clear violation of practically every rule of war prescribed by the Geneva Convention. No forged memos needed to substantiate any of those claims. Qerry admitted to committing all those human-rights atrocities himself:

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.


But he was just "an angry young man" when he confessed those things, so it doesn't count. As liberals radical extremists would say, everyone commits war crimes. Let's MoveOn.

It apparently doesn't matter, either, that he swore under oath before Congress that such atrocities were "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He was proud to report these crimes because he and his merry band of anti-war anti-America protesters "feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out."

And what crimes might those be, Hanoi John? Again, not CBS, but the Congressional Record shows what he was just aching to get off his chest:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


Oh, but that was only a few folks, right? Well, the following wasn't faxed from Kinkos either:

I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.


One thousand is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans who would have the same kind of testimony? Let's say, for sake of argument, that 10% is such a "small" representation. That means Qerry believes at least 10,000 of our soldiers are war criminals just like himself. Quick, someone call the International Criminal Court! (Which al-Qerry also believes in, by the way.)

However, let's not get too far ahead of Flopface's sordid tale. When his wasn't burning down villages in Viet Nam or indiscriminately shooting at women and children in free-fire zones, Qerry found time to acquire another scratch and a bruise, single-handedly change Navy regs regarding silVer stars, and pull out of the water a Marine he had knocked off his boat after gunning it to flee from heat of battle. Quick, get Dan Rather's source forger on the phone and have him crank up his Selectric Composer MS Word and type print out some memos from President Nixon Johnson saying Qerry "reminds me of that guy John Wayne Rambo"!

What we have of al-Qerry's service records are those he selected, not collected. He still refuses to sign Standard Form 180—the same one President Bush has signed—authorizing the release of all his records. Perhaps in the meantime Dig-'Em-Up Dan will find some previously unreleased documents from the private files of one of al-Qerry's commanding officers which would help clear up these discrepancies. (Of course, the authenticity of those docs themselves wouldn't be as important as the questions raised in them.)

Three alleged purple hearts later, Qerry is allegedly eligible to ask that he be excused from any further alleged combat. He does ask to leave (actually his band of brothers insisted that he remove his reckless self from their midst so they'd be safer), but not before saying he wanted to stay and still serve before doing a flip-flop the very next morning and leaving.

Qerry's Qommies are led away from Lexington Green after police break up their May 1, 1971 demonstration Giving the Enemy Aid and Comfort (While Blowing Ho Chi "George Washington" Minh a Big Kiss) rally in Massachusetts.

After he left Viet Nam, Qerry went AWOL. The junior senator still refuses to release any records showing he attended all 48 required drills per year and other obligations during the remainder of his enlistment.

Although released from active duty in January 1970, al-Qerry was still in the Naval Reserves until July 1972 (the month he was transferred to the Standby Reserves). During those 30 months, he was a commissioned officer with the rank of Lieutenant (O-3). He also became National Spokesman Propagandist for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW; aka Qerry's Qommies). In direct violation of several provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other federal laws, including constitutionally defined treason, Hanoi John did the following during those 30 months (instead of reporting for duty and his drills):

Met with enemy officials in Paris, first in May 1970 (during his honeymoon!) and again during the summer of 1971, purportedly to negotiate a release to Qerry's Qommies of the staging of an enemy-propaganda ploy involving American Prisoners of War. By any standard, privately meeting with the enemy is the most treasonous act anyone wearing the uniform could commit. Clearly, that's two violations of 18 U.S.C. 953 and two acts of treason.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (18 U.S.C. 953; as written in 1970-71)

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3)

Publicly slandered, lied about, and used contemptuous language against our country's president, administration officials, the Congress, and our troops and their commanders. On Labor Day 1970, in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, al-Qerry said at VVAW's Operation RAW (Rapid American Withdrawal) march-ending rally, "We are here to say that it is not patriotism to ask Americans to die for a mistake and that it is not patriotic to allow a President to talk about not being the first President to lose a war and using us as pawns in that game." In mid 1971, he said, "Nixon ran 3 1/2 years ago saying, 'I have the secret plan for peace.' And now, the only promise he has kept is that the plan is still a secret." An FBI surveillance file and one newspaper reported during the same period, "[Q]erry said...[that] of 234 congressmen's sons eligible for service in Vietnam, only 24 went there and only one of them was wounded." On April 22, 1971, Hanoi John was under oath when he told our Congress, "[the Nixon] administration has done us [Qerry's Qommies] the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifice we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam." During this testimony, he also said there was rampant racism in our military and that it is "more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions." All together, that's at least four violations of 10 U.S.C. 888 and one violation of 10 U.S.C. 934.

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. (10 U.S.C. 888; see also Manual for Courts Martial: "The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.")

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. (10 U.S.C. 934)


No wonder al-Qerry refuses to authorize the release of all documents and information regarding his Naval Reserve years when he was apparently AWOL, meeting with the enemy and badmouthing our country and her soldiers and leaders.
I was just following orders

H.J. al-Qerry said that's why he burned down villages and shot up women and children in Viet Nam. It's the same excuse Nazi SS officers used for committing their war crimes.

Moreover, Qerry confessed to personally committing war crimes during his four months in Viet Nam. Requoting Qerry's confession on NBC's Meet the Press, April 18, 1971:

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.


That last accusation is pure bunk. There's no evidence that burning down villages etc. was our country's written or even unwritten "established policy" in Viet Nam or anywhere else. So Qerry must have committed all his war crimes on his own. That in itself is a violation of 10 U.S.C. 899:

Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy...quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage...shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.


That was and is our written established policy. I don't believe there's any statute of limitations on that provision either. (And don't forget the additional violation of 10 U.S.C. 934 for accusing thousands of our soldiers of committing the same war crimes that, according to his own confession, he personally committed.) I'm sure there's Perjury, Failure-to-Report, and other relevant UCMJ provisions he violated as well.

Understandably, War-Qriminal Qerry was feeling guilty about having received several medals during his warcrime spree. That guilt apparently caught up with him. Believing he didn't deserve any of those medals, he headed straight for our nation's capital to return all of them to our government. Certainly his method of turning his undeserved medals in wasn't conventional—tossing them over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol as news cameras were rolling. But, hey, he's just not a very conventional guy. The fact that these very same medals magically appeared a few years later on the wall of his senate office can attest to that.

But let's not leave this trail of treason and deceit without including a statement from Flopface himself about why he chose to leave Viet Nam early in the first place:

In his 1971 debate on the Dick Cavett Show with John O'Neill, [Q]erry made it seem as if his decision process to leave Vietnam had been tortured:

The fact of the matter remains that after I received my third wound [widdle owie], I was told that I could return to the United States. I deliberated for about two weeks because there was a difficult decision in whether or not you leave your friends because you have an opportunity to go, but I finally made the decision to go back and did leave of my own volition because I felt I could do more against the war back here....When I got back here...I wrote a letter through him [an admiral] requesting that I be released from the Navy early because of my opposition.


This "deliberation" was once again a complete lie. [Q]erry was "wounded" on March 13, 1969, on the Bay Hap River, but by March 17, 1969, at 7:42 a.m., his request for reassignment to the United States (having been typed up far away in An Thoi and signed by the commander there) was at the Navy Department in Washington. His subsequent request to leave the Navy late in 1969 mentions nothing about his "opposition to the war," but only his ambition to run for Congress.



What John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corst, Ph.D., fail to mention in the above excerpt from their book Unfit for Command (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004; pp. 93-4), is that Qerry was obviously referring to Vietnam Weeks™. Like dog years, they're only one-seventh of what they are in human terms. So those fourteen days are really just two. (Yeah, that's it.)

Qerry then tries to run for Congress, tells the Harvard Crimson that he wants to see all our Armed Forces under UN command, drops out before the primary election, and goes on to become such a reliable useful idiot for North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh that the latter erects a special monument to Hanoi John in that communist country's War Crimes Museum (now called the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum). Quite a record, indeed.

As Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry tries to flop around in this Noah-like flood of truth rising ever higher during the next forty days and nights before Election/Veterans Day, expect him to flip his top when he discovers that the very same Qlinton Qronies he's been taking on two-by-two aboard his campaign swiftless sinking boat, have negotiated two appearances in the presidential debates which don't include him.



NOW who's reporting for duty?

Bookmark and Share    

Qerry supporters assault small child

 

This is something I would never even consider making up. Truth, in this case, is more ugly, extreme and dangerous than any fiction.


Three-year-old Sophia Parlock cries while seated on the shoulders of her father, Phil Parlock, after having their Bush-Cheney sign torn up by Kerry-Edwards supporters on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at the Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va. (AP Photo/Randy Snyder) (via Heads Bunker)


D
esperation is no excuse for assaulting a little girl, snatching away and ripping up her sign. Her cries of terror and traumatic tears will be emblazoned in the hearts of every decent American who sees this, long after al-Qerry, his campaign and his nazi stormtroopers are, come Election/Veterans Day, completely rejected out of hand as the mean spirited, abusive baby-beating, America-hating, radical extremist lowlifes that they are. They've earned absolutely no place or position of any power whatsoever in this country with their depraved acts and way of thinking that says it's OK to bully, threaten, frighten, and badly rough up little girls. No landslide loss, no matter how unprecedented, will mete out to them anywhere near the full measure of justice they deserve for committing such a horrendous crime against this one small and now physically and emotionally harmed child.
Bookmark and Share    

Qerry Documents Faxed To CBS

 

CBS's 60 Minutes II received copies of JFQ's journal, all of which came from his own personal files. Whether they're authentic or not, the facts based on them raise quite a number of very serious questions.


6
0 Minutes II exclusive. (Part 1 in a series.)

Below is the JFQ journal post, dated 03 December 1968. It is his contemporaneous account of the circumstances surrounding his first tiny scratch wound in Vietnam.

Note: CBS News' own experts have expertly determined that this document was not printed either using Microsoft® Word™ or as a post on anyone's Web log.

09/15/2004   17:76   5647382910     CBS NEWS     PAGE 02
Journal of John Forbes Kerry
Category: Vietnam

03 December 1968

1st DAY OF COMBAT—I THINK

I don’t know how my new Selectric Composer typewriter survived what I think was an encounter yesterday with Viet Cong Freedom Fighters, but it seems to still be in good working order, as my printing this post on it can attest. I even managed to save the special interchangeable ball that allows me to print superscripts. How clever am I?

Anyway, about the encounter. We were patroling at night up the river when we came upon something. I don’t know exactly what it was because it was so dark. As you know from my previous posts, the Admiral of the Navy put me in charge of the entire river, as Special Commando CIA Operative, so I was looking for enemy things at which we could fire using our secret 50 caliber machine gun.

Three of us were in a small boat when, all of a sudden, what sounded like a twig breaking pierced the jungle silence. “CYA!” I screamed at my men, and immediately opened fire. When my gun jammed I abu grabbed a grenade launcher and let ’em have it.

I must have got ‘em all because there wasn’t any shooting back after I finished firing. However, I got severely wounded on my arm from what I think was extremely withering hostile enemy fire. Looks like it’s PH time, if you know what I mean.;-)

The next day, my men claimed they couldn’t even see my wound when I lifted my Band Aid® to show them. I assured them it was there and that I deserved a Purp.


JOHN KERRY
Lt. Junior grade

Bookmark and Share    

Liberal Utopia

LC Local 666, VRWC
Solidarity!
V A
Victory
Blog
Never Submit

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


LUmail

Liberal Utopia
WWW


Site Feed

Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email

Posts

  Wednesday, September 29, 2004
  Monday, September 27, 2004
  Sunday, September 26, 2004
  Saturday, September 25, 2004
  Wednesday, September 22, 2004
  Tuesday, September 21, 2004
  Saturday, September 18, 2004

Archives

March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017





G o o g l e
b o m b s
miserable failure
culture of corruption
sus barbatus
unelectable
wicked witch of the east
liberals
peckerwood
jew
great president