loading...

 

Liberal Utopia

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

Losing Our Losing Impression

 

Dictatorats and terrorists aren't impressed by how well we lose, only by how much.


A
l'mericans aren't stupid either, to be sure. Unconscionably misinformed by the Demoqratstreamwater-carrying media whose repetitiously negative press given to anyone not within the DSM's DWCM's preferred party this election would understandably stupefy all but the most hardy, yes. But stupid? No.

As for blame, it's entirely pointless now. It doesn't matter anymore that we could've got — and were getting and getting and getting — a lot more accomplished for our country with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress than we could even dream in our most feverish states of ever getting with DeMe!Me!Me!Me!Me!ocrats in control of either. That's comparatively crisp, clean water under the comparatively sturdy, shining bridge. Neither does it help matters much to dwell on why anyone in his right mind could not see that the task of protecting our nation and families will be infinitely more difficult for all of us once the latter nightmare comes to pass. That two-year, toxic sludge will start oozing under an increasingly dilapidated bridge soon enough. How we and our nation cope with, even survive such is all that matters.

Demotricksterats, had they lost, would be moonbattily barking away about Diebold electronic voting machines being rigged, minority voters being intimidated or harassed, "social progress" being "set back (fill in any number of) years," something about the country being "fundamentally wrong," and, of course, the majority of her people being stupid, lazy, gullible, misled, scared, jingoistic, xenophobic, homophobic, insanely religious, warmongers, "dragged into a state of abject despotism," or mean. Given the way voters decided a number of referendum issues this election too (Tammy Bruce), they may still be saying much of that. The reasons people vote the way they do, however, changes with the wind — a wind that's kicked up more often by shifting circumstances beyond the control of even Karl Rove's secret bank of evil mind-control machines, than by candidates' speeches, campaign advertisements, blog posts, or media hit pieces. Although our democratic process is necessarily and properly a subjective one when it comes to each voter, how all of them voted — every decision they made as a whole — is the cold, hard, objective fact everyone must figure out how to live with if we're to win what's much more important to us here and now than any election: this war.

To paraphrase JoHa!noi al-Qerry, if anyone thinks a citizen would find reliable the more than weak, appeasing, traitorous "leaders" of the Demoqrats and not
“And now is an opportunity to do generations a favor, by coming together and whipping terrorism; hunting it down, finding it and holding them accountable. The nation must understand, this is now the focus of my administration.”
a president who's actually committed to us totally winning World War IV, they're crazy. Better yet, to quote Ann Coulter,

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years.


Better than even that, to quote a former Democrat quoting John F. Kennedy who

summed up our national conscience best when he said:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
I believe it is our duty as a free people to make this our national motto. Kennedy does not suggest the path will be easy, but it is noble, just and right. I simply do not see this sentiment in today's Democrat Party. I wish I did.


Does wishy-washiness win wars? A wishy-washer never would've decided that our dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan is the only thing that can forever break its will to fight and totally win the Second World War. A wishy-washer never would've decided that our storming the heavily fortified beaches of northern France is the only thing that can permanently drive out the fascists occupying it and push them back all the way to their ultimate defeat.

Until we completely crush all the forces of malignant brutalism who attacked or would attack our and our allies' major cities, killing hundreds, even thousands of us at a time while wreaking on us far-reaching, even unprecedented destruction, there's no place for wishy-washiness in this World War either. President Bush has always understood this. The new Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of the Senate and House never have (including when the former was wanting members of their party to wrap themselves in the flag at our military bases).

Can't we just get by with telling ourselves over and over "there is no war"? If not, would it really be so bad if we did lose it?

Don't ask the news media anti-Bush propagandists. They feel there are, in the selfish interests of their "profession," far more juicier stories to boost their ratings and revenues awaiting them from our country's losses than ever from her victories. In just one of the latest examples: ABC, while crowing about a very flimsy bodies-per-day estimate, labels our Iraq policy "uncertain," then without any sense of irony "reports" that such uncertainty may help give al-Qaeda the civil war it desperately wants there:

After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.

Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available.

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.



You've never heard the same level of crowing from Anti-Bush Corp. after any of the numerous times we captured or killed our enemy's secretaries of death and destruction or his nihilist suicide advisors:

The CIA claims that 5,000 terrorists have been captured or killed since 9/11 — a nice, even, 1,000 per year, or roughly three per day. (If you're reading this at breakfast, chances are we'll have two more by dinner.)

And some of them are big, big fish: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida, Hambali, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abd Rahim Nashiri, Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein, Yazid Sufaat, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (KSM's nephew). And those are just the guys we've captured. The ones "not so lucky," to use Bush's preferred phrase, include Mohammed Atef, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hamza Rabia, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, Karim Mejjati, Abu Ali Harithi...

It's sad to say, but unless your name is bin Laden, Zawahiri, or Zarqawi, many folks assume you're a no big deal when it comes to al Qaeda. Catching Luay Saqa in Turkey last year was a big deal — he was al Qaeda's top man in the region, he was plotting to blow up Israeli cruise liners, and allegedly had facial surgery to disguise his appearance. Sad to say, almost nobody in America has any idea who this guy is, and the media paid no attention.



We never captured or killed Hitler during WWII, either, but still somehow managed to achieve the very real Victory in Europe. We never captured or killed Emperor Hirohito before that war was over — we even intentionally left him on the throne as a figurehead following his surrender — but achieved Victory in Japan as well.

Don't ask Democrappeaserats, either. With their ever litigious mentality emotionality, Demolawyerats feel we can trial-court our enemy into defeat. They venture, after ignoring all evidence to the contrary, that the enemy either is civilized like us or can be civilized like us with enough correction, counseling, and therapy. If only we would sue the enemy or, if some more serious offense is involved, arrest and try him, he'll eventually come around to our way of "thinking" and want to behave and to treat us as nicely as we've treated him. Ahh. Of course, we've already seen how that process worked last time it was tried:

911skyline.jpg


Attempting to apply any such legalistic considerations to wars where the final outcome must mean nothing short of the total destruction of one "party" before it can be said the other has truly prevailed, is an impossibility. Global wars affecting the survival of nations aren't a series of tit for tats, all in equal proportions, with each action working to restore some just balance. There must be a TIT! for tat before any can really end in victory. No settlement besides one side or the other's unconditional surrender will finally close that case. In the alternative, motions that the plaintiff or defendant be summarily put to death would never be entertained. Plus no side has standing for an appeal on the merits after it literally quits standing. In short, these applications of law are all outside its competence and recognition with respect to World War IV: Lex non cogit impossibilia.

Don't even ask any members of the Republican Party. They're all in class right now. Try January 3, 2009, when it may or may not be letting out.

The only one who can answer whether we can get by pretending there's no war or whether our losing it would be all that bad is our enemy — although it won't come in any words since he's not using any for it. He'll let us write that answer down in our history books the next time we give him any chance to utter it.

Are we going to give the enemy that kind of chance?

To be continued...

Bookmark and Share    

Major Miracle

 

Either will do, Dear Lord.


F
irst, if it be His will.

Second, either:

Major Miracle A. The "moderate to conservative" freshmen Democrats, being actual moderates to conservatives, all hit the brick wall of Nanny-state Pigheadsi Dhimmitudic Party obstructionism, become so frustrated about not getting anything done that they believe they have no choice but to all Do-A-Jeffords® and become Independents or Republicans in order to make the two in both our House and Senate a coalition majority raring to win a total and permanent victory this World War. It is, in my puny view, the most preferred major miracle it will take to keep us from losing the war or chalking up another undecided. Or,

Major Miracle B. President Bush invokes his constitutional authority under Article II, Section 3, to declare an "extraordinary Occasion" and convene on or around December 8 both houses of Congress in order to request a declaration of full-scale war with nukes against the Islamaniac Republic of Iran. The lame duck Congress passes it, we obliterate Iran and their little dog Syria, too, and force both countries to surrender unconditionally before the Dhimmiqrats take over either house. World War IV will be over with our side emerging totally and permanently victorious, leaving Dhimmiqrats nothing to do but to try messing up the subsequent Lasting Peace.

Again, if either be His will.

Bookmark and Share    

Congratulations, al-Qaeda

 

Save our souls, Lord.


I
had counted, al-Qeada, on at least a majority of my fellow voters in each of our states to help me protect my family from you. But when and where it counted most, they let me down. They let us all down.

A people determined to forget what you did to us as well as to the families of three thousand of our neighbors — a pampered, spoiled people who treats almost everything like it was some game created for their personal gain or amusement, or some episode of another TV-reality show that entertains them for a while but in the end doesn't really matter — a self-absorbed, unserious people that, if they don't like what they're seeing, just changes the channel or pops in their favorite DVD, feeling none of it really affects them, or pops a disfavored "bum's" head and changes a Congress just as insensibly — such a people neither any of them nor I have the right to ever again call Americans.

You knew you had no hope of destroying us yourself from without. You knew that's something we'd have to do ourselves, from within. The only thing it cost you were a few tens of thousands of your men. Men you'll now have no trouble replacing given what's about to transpire:

It's too late to warn ourselves that our country has never emerged clearly victorious from a major war during which the White House or either house of our Congress changed parties. It's clearly not as if most of the people who reside here would've done anything other than get quickly bored by such historical facts, anyway, just as they will about these:

A majority vote of the House of Representatives is all that it takes to impeach a president for any reason, or to deny any passage of funds for this World War. Once those are done, the game will turn to higher taxes for more socialism, to "protecting undocumented workers" and leaving our borders vulnerable to not just them but you, and to forgetting as quickly as possible what we as a people had vowed once never to.

It's worse because doing everything it takes to truly protect our families is now something we've entrusted more to your desires and intentions than to our own. I know it's not only selfish but extremely foolish to ask that those include not attacking this or that city with a radiological bomb or worse because my family happens to live in them. It's what you're bound to do more than ever exactly because the people you call your enemy have chosen to make it easier for you. Besides, it's not as if corpse-filled streets running through whole city blocks or neighborhoods lying completely devastated is another video they won't soon try to turn off also.

I began this blog on March 11, 2004. I seriously doubt there are more than a few left in this country who still remember that date's significance. I started it with the sincere hope and prayer that it would, even if only in a small way, help stave off the natural inclination of any people caught in a desperate war to retreat en masse from the reality of its hardships and pains and to seek at least an illusion of normalcy and comfort — a self-induced, self-serving "utopia," if you will. I am looking only in the mirror when I say, although the people residing inside this country's borders waited a full five years before doing what the Spanish did after just five days, my own best efforts weren't good enough. Total and lasting victory is now out of reach for both peoples. Nothing short of a major miracle will change that.

You knew what it took to manipulate us too into giving you what you wanted most. Consequently, there's only one clear winner emerging from Tuesday's elections, and it isn't any of us.

It's why you're marking 15 Shawwal 1427 or 16 Aban 1385 (7 November 2006, on our calendar) in your history books as Victory in Terrorism Day.

Bookmark and Share    

A United Government Wins Wars

 

Not just common sense, but an historical fact.


O
ur republic's major wars and conflicts, along with each of their results for us and who was president and who controlled the House and Senate at the time, are shown below in the order of their conclusion.

Major Wars of the United States
Abbreviations
 Results
Lloss
Uunclear (concluded under one or more of the following conditions: enemy wasn't totally vanquished, none of his territory was acquired or extensively occupied at the end of hostilities, he signed no formal surrender or permanent peace treaty, or the conflict resulted in a stalemate or a return to the status quo ante)
Vvictory (clear conclusion)
 Parties
DDemocrats, Iranians
DRDemocratic-Republicans
FFederalists
OOthers, Independents
RRepublicans, Unionists
WWhigs
ResultWarPresidentCongressHouseSenate
VWar of 1812
18 Jun 1812 - 16 Feb 1815
James Madison
4 Mar 1809 - 4 Mar 1817
DRTwelfth
4 Nov 1811 - 3 Mar 1813
108
36
DR
F
30
6
DR
F
Thirteenth
24 May 1813 - 3 Mar 1815
112
68
DR
F
28
8
DR
F
VMexican-American War
13 May 1846 - 2 Feb 1848
James Polk
4 Mar 1845 - 4 Mar 1849
DTwenty Ninth
1 Dec 1845 - 3 Mar 1847
143
77
6
D
W
O
34
22
D
W
Thirtieth*
6 Dec 1847 - 3 Mar 1849
115
108
4
W
D
O
38
21
1
D**
W
O
VCivil War
12 Apr 1861 - 9 Apr 1865
Abraham Lincoln
4 Mar 1861 - 15 Apr 1865
RThirty Seventh
4 Jul 1861 - 3 Mar 1863
106
42
28
R
D
O
31
11
7
R
D
O
Thirty Eighth
7 Dec 1863 - 3 Mar 1865
103
80
R
D
39
12
R
D
Thirty Ninth*
4 Dec 1865 - 3 Mar 1867
145
46
R
D
42
10
R
D
VSpanish-American War
21 Apr - 10 Dec 1898
William McKinley
4 Mar 1897 - 14 Sep 1901
RFifty Fifth
15 Mar 1897 - 3 Mar 1899
206
134
16
R
D
O
46
34
12
R
D
O
VWorld War I
6 Apr 1917 - 11 Nov 1918
Woodrow Wilson
4 Mar 1913 - 4 Mar 1921
DSixty Fifth
2 Apr 1917 - 3 Mar 1919
210
216
9
D¹
R
O
53
42
1
D
R
O
VWorld War II
8 Dec 1941 - 2 Sep 1945
Franklin Roosevelt
4 Mar 1933 - 12 Apr 1945
DSeventy Seventh
3 Jan 1941 - 16 Dec 1942
267
162
6
D
R
O
66
28
2
D
R
O
Seventy Eighth
6 Jan 1943 - 19 Dec 1944
222
209
4
D
R
O
57
38
1
D
R
O
Harry Truman
12 Apr 1945 - 20 Jan 1953
DSeventy Ninth
3 Jan 1945 - 2 Aug 1946
243
190
2
D
R
O
57
38
1
D
R
O
UKorean War
25 Jun 1950 - 27 Jul 1953
Harry TrumanDEighty First
3 Jan 1949 - 2 Jan 1951
263
171
1
D
R
O
54
42
D
R
Eighty Second
3 Jan 1951 - 7 Jul 1952
234
199
2
D
R
O
48
47
1
D
R
O
Dwight Eisenhower
20 Jan 1953 - 20 Jan 1961
REighty Third
3 Jan 1953 - 2 Dec 1954
221
213
1
R
D
O
48
46
2
R
D
O
LVietnam War
7 Aug 1964 - 30 Apr 1975
Lyndon Johnson
22 Nov 1963 - 20 Jan 1969
DEighty Eighth
9 Jan 1963 - 2 Oct 1964
258
176
D
R
67
33
D
R
Eighty Ninth
4 Jan 1965 - 22 Oct 1966
295
140
D
R
68
32
D
R
Ninetieth
10 Jan 1967 - 14 Oct 1968
246
187
D
R
64
36
D
R
Richard Nixon
20 Jan 1969 - 9 Aug 1974
RNinety First
3 Jan 1969 - 2 Jan 1971
243
192
D
R
58
42
D
R
Ninety Second
21 Jan 1971 - 18 Oct 1972
255
180
D
R
54
44
2
D
R
O
Gerald Ford
9 Aug 1974 - 20 Jan 1977
RNinety Third
3 Jan 1973 - 20 Dec 1974
242
192
1
D
R
O
56
42
2
D
R
O
Ninety Fourth
14 Jan 1975 - 1 Oct 1976
291
144
D
R
61
37
2
D
R
O
UPersian Gulf War
Desert Storm
15 Jan - 6 Apr 1991
George H.W. Bush
20 Jan 1989 - 20 Jan 1993
ROne Hundred Second
3 Jan 1991 - 9 Oct 1992
267
167
D
R
56
44
D
R
UWorld War III
Cold War
2 Mar 1946² - 25 Dec 1991
Harry TrumanDSeventy Ninth D D
Eightieth
3 Jan 1947 - 31 Dec 1948
246
188
1
R
D
O
51
45
R
D
Eighty First D D
Eighty Second D D
Dwight EisenhowerREighty Third
3 Jan 1953 - 2 Dec 1954
 R R
Eighty Fourth
5 Jan 1955 - 27 Jul 1956
232
203
D
R
48
47
1
D
R
O
Eighty Fifth
3 Jan 1957 - 24 Aug 1958
234
201
D
R
49
47
D
R
Eighty Sixth
7 Jan 1959 - 1 Sep 1960
283
153
D
R
64
34
D
R
John Kennedy
20 Jan 1961 - 22 Nov 1963
DEighty Seventh
3 Jan 1961 - 12 Oct 1962
262
175
D
R
64
36
D
R
Lyndon JohnsonDEighty Eighth D D
Eighty Ninth D D
Ninetieth D D
Richard NixonRNinety First D D
Ninety Second D D
Gerald FordRNinety Third D D
Ninety Fourth D D
Dhimmi al-Qarter
20 Jan 1977 - 20 Jan 1981
DNinety Fifth
4 Jan 1977 - 15 Oct 1978
292
143
D
R
61
38
1
D
R
O
Ninety Sixth
15 Jan 1979 - 16 Dec 1980
277
158
D
R
58
41
1
D
R
O
Ronald Reagan
20 Jan 1981 - 20 Jan 1989
RNinety Seventh
25 Jan 1981 - 23 Dec 1982
242
192
1
D
R
O
53
46
1
R
D
O
Ninety Eighth
3 Jan 1983 - 12 Oct 1984
269
166
D
R
54
46
R
D
Ninety Ninth
3 Jan 1985 - 18 Oct 1986
253
182
D
R
53
47
R
D
One Hundredth
6 Jan 1987 - 22 Oct 1988
258
177
D
R
55
45
D
R
George H.W. BushROne Hundred First
3 Jan 1989 - 28 Oct 1990
260
175
D
R
55
45
D
R
One Hundred Second D D
VWorld War IV
Enduring Freedom
Iraqi Freedom
Pers-Syrian Freedom
Korean Freedom

18 Sep 2001 - ?
George W. Bush
20 Jan 2001 - 20 Jan 2009
ROne Hundred Seventh
3 Jan 2001 - 15 Nov 2002
221
212
2
R
D
O
50
48
2
R
D³
O
One Hundred Eighth
7 Jan 2003 - 7 Dec 2004
229
204
1
R
D
O
51
48
1
R
D
O
One Hundred Ninth
4 Jan 2005 - ? 2006
232
202
1
R
D
O
55
44
1
R
D
O
* Hostilities ended before first meeting of new Congress.
** Peace treaty ratified during party's control of Senate.
¹ Coalition majority.
² See Michael B. Bishku, "Turkey and Iran during the cold war," Journal of Third World Studies, Spring 1999.
³ On November 5, 2002, Senator James Talent (R-MO) was elected, bringing to an ignominious end the Dhimmiqrats' 17-month, wholly undemocratic, childish, dastardly siege they laid against the American people's Senate.
sources: The History Channel, The History Guy, Naval Historical Center, AmericanHeritage.com.


Historically, our nation wins a major war only when, throughout the hostilities, the same political party has a member as president and is democratically in control of both houses of our Congress. If this situation in any way changes before the end of hostilities, our side has no chance of emerging clearly victorious from that war.

Divided government may be preferable during peacetime. It's the very last thing we need when our country's trying to win a major war in which all our freedoms and America's survival are at stake.

Bookmark and Share    

USAma-bin-laden TODAY® calls for defense secretary's resignation

 

Saves al-Qaeda the trouble of having to publish yet another tape calling for the same thing.


[The insurgents in Iraq] are increasing in number and strength — so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.


A
l-Qaeda's No. 1 said this. And so have the Donothingrats:

Al-Qaeda's No. 1 says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsefeld is a failure. And so do the Demusefulidiot Party's leaders.

Al-Qaeda's No. 1 says our country is losing the war. And so do the Demoloserats.

Al-Qaeda's No. 1 says "Bush does not have a plan." And so do his "sensible people" in the Democrash-n-burnic Party.

Al-Qaeda's No. 1 says Secretary Rumsfeld's defeat too "is just a matter of time." And USA TODAY's sister publication Military Gannett Co. Times, like the Demobackstabberat Party elite, says that time is now.

USA TODAY writers — several of them at least — also write for a newspaper liberal-propagandizing waste of wood pulp which is "declaring this defeat" of Secretary Rumsfeld. What a lame excuse for a false, dirty-tricking October November Surprise.

Of course there's nothing new about the Demediaqrat Party, its newspaper confederates, and Osama bin Laden all being on the same side of one or more major issues affecting our national security.

Fortunately for America our Secretary of Defense, as he did on this year's anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, contradicts everything the enemy and his aiders and comforters in the DeMSMogiveuprat Party have said:

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately.

Consider that in three years Iraq has gone from enduring a brutal dictatorship to electing a provisional government to ratifying a new constitution written by Iraqis to electing a permanent government last December. In each of these elections, the number of voters participating has increased significantly — from 8.5 million in the January 2005 election to nearly 12 million in the December election — in defiance of terrorists' threats and attacks.

One of the most important developments over the past year has been the increasing participation of Iraq's Sunni community in the political process. In the volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis are an overwhelming majority, voter turnout grew from 2 percent in January to 86 percent in December. Sunni sheiks and religious leaders who previously had been sympathetic to the insurgency are today meeting with coalition representatives, encouraging Iraqis to join the security forces and waging what violent extremists such as Abu al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda followers recognize as a "large-scale war" against them.

The terrorists are determined to stoke sectarian tension and are attempting to spark a civil war. But despite the many acts of violence and provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict. We saw this last month after the attack on the Shiite shrine in Samarra, when leaders of Iraq's various political parties and religious groups condemned the violence and called for calm.

Another significant transformation has been in the size, capability and responsibility of Iraqi security forces. And this is vitally important, because it is Iraqis, after all, who must build and secure their own nation.

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces — not U.S. or coalition troops — that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today — at the terrorist threat we face — can come to only one conclusion: Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.



It's not our wartime defense secretary, but Defeatistic Party members in our Congress who must go.

Bookmark and Share    

From the e-suggestion box

 

If only it had been "you shouldn't take be so long"....


Subject: your tactics
From:
K . . . B . . . <kb . . . @>
Date: 11/23/05, 12:46 PM

Your site would be better without using the 3 typical republican right-wing tactics.

Which are....

1. They immediately classify the person as a stark raving mad liberal, a collect-o-leftivist,



T
M!

...or some other kind of inhuman entity.


Especially this.

This seems to be the labeling game most played by the right wing.


It doesn't seem that way at all:

LabelingGame™ Scores
Dec. 1, 2005
and(Bush
or Rumsfeld
or Rice)
(Kerry
or Kennedy
or Clinton)
A**hole2,010,0001,750,000
Dumba**776,000412,000
S**thead102,00058,600
Traitor1,550,0001,660,000
Liar3,410,0002,090,000
Idiot6,960,0003,990,000
Retard2,200,000600,000
Moron1,980,0002,100,000
Misleader243,000168,000
Criminal25,600,00018,200,000
total44,831,00031,028,600

“Like I said. The Republican party is the party of liars, idiots, and lemmings. And don't forget traitors too. They can't handle the truth, so they'd rather just make s**t up. And by the way, I hear we're winning in Iraq.”
– [Anti]AMERICAblog.con


Just in these examples alone, it's apparent that collect-o-leftivists play the labeling game at least 44 percent more often than "repugs" do.* The only labels where the latter even begin to edge out the former are "traitor" and "moron." But it's a good start. More examples of Lefty Love® are here (Point Five) and here, with some left over for The Children.

Classify your enemy into something so horrible that whatever he says can't possibly be believed no matter how many facts he comes up with.


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.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
– U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3
It would be possible to believe him if he ever bothered to come up with any facts at all. Thankfully, most Americans still refuse to ever take too seriously anyone who resorts to factually baseless accusations and name-calling or who predicates all their beliefs on how he feels or how others may perceive him. Especially when moonbats like former Pacifica radio darling Craig Hulet uses "facts" that amount to pretending the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American soil never happened:

Beginning with the much ballyhooed report recently in the mainstream media, "Patterns of Global Terrorism" released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counter-terrorism on April 30, 2003, we shall take a closer look at what we hear and what we ought to be told in proper fashion. Beginning with the section titled, "The Year in Review":

"International terrorists conducted 199 attacks in 2002, a significant drop (44%) from the 355 attacks recorded during 2001. A total of 725 persons were killed in last year's attacks, far fewer than the 3,295 persons killed the previous year, which included the thousands of fatalities resulting from the September 11 attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania."

Deduct the number of fatalities due to 9/11 and we actually have had an increase in typical terrorist attacks whereby persons were killed: some 300 during 2001 compared to 725 during 2002! Which is better than double the number of deaths! What this says is that while the number of "incidents" have decreased their deadliness has "increased" better than twofold.



Figures don't lie, but liars figure! Assuredly the families of those whom the international terrorists hideously slaughtered wish they could just "deduct" this fact as conveniently from their memories and calculations as Disserats do.

2. The next strategy is to say that they are unpatriotic and that they are aiding and abetting the enemy. If find this extremely disgusting. While I might not agree with George Bush or his policies I would hardly go to the extreme to say that he is unpatriotic and is promoting terrorism.



While you might not go to such extreme, leaders of the DeMe!-Me!-Me!-Me!-Me!-Me!-Me!-Me!-Me!-ocrazic Party do so regularly.

According to Mount Goritoba, President Bush "has (patriotically?) brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world... (and) deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon"; he "decided not to honor the Geneva Convention... (or) the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts (or) 'a decent respect for the opinion of mankind'... (or) the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq... (or) our fallen dead by attending [disruptively barging in on] any funerals or even by permitting (exploitable) photos of their flag-draped coffins"; his "administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II" and has abandoned "the long successful (sic) strategy of containment... in favor of the new strategy of 'preemption'" and "asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so"; and "the abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th." Then he says that George Bush is, in effect, promoting terrorism:

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation — because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.



Perhaps HAL "e-Brown Shirt Scare" Gorebot was not saying our country's president is unpatriotic when he screamed that George Bush "betrayed this country! he played on our fears!" in February 2004, at a rally for Tennessee Demoonbats. (Audio of "Gore, unleashed" is here.) Then again, I realize liberals don't consider betraying this country to be unpatriotic.

There's also the head Dhimm al-Qrat himself, Howler Dean, and the "interesting theory" he did his darndest to help propagate, that BushKnew!™ the September 11th terrorist attacks would happen but — out of a sense of patriotism? — did nothing to prevent it. When Wailin' Deannin's not sneering how "We need to buy back our government from the corporations that have paid George Bush to run it," he's ranting about "We're not going to let those who disagree with us shout us down under a banner of false patriotism" and outright lying with "I'd like a commander-in-chief who supports our soldiers and our veterans, instead of cutting their hardship pay when they're abroad, and their health benefits when they get home." Add to all that this gem:

I think there are some similarities between George Bush's Administration and Richard Nixon's Administration: a tremendous cynicism about the future of the country; a lack of ability to instill hope in the American people; a war which doesn't have clear principles behind it; and a group of people around the President whose main allegiance is to each other and their ideology rather than to the United States.


But he's not saying they're unpatriotic!

You won't have to ride shotgun in Qaptain al-Qennedy's Qarsub either to hear bingeful bleatings about Iraq being "a fraud made up in Texas to give Republicans a political boost" — another "interesting theory"? — as well as being "George Bush's Vietnam." The latter, by the way, was seconded by none other than terrorist-inciter Friend of America Muqtada al-Sadr. Among the Oldsmobile water-test driver's dipsomaniac drivel are slurrings that our Troops "are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire"; that "this Administration is indeed leading this country to a perilous place," "has broken faith with the American people, aided and abetted by a Congressional majority willing to pursue ideology at any price, even the price of distorting the truth," and "on issue after issue, they have moved brazenly to impose their agenda on America and on the world... (pursuing) their goals at the expense of urgent national and human needs and at the expense of the truth" and "have put the state of our union at risk" — as quoted in substantial part on terrorist-sympathizer Friend of America Aljazeera; that "American military's continued presence in Iraq is fanning the flames of conflict" — i.e., promoting terrorism; that George Bush "reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought" — uttered while our Troops are in the middle of fighting that war; that "our troops are paying with their lives because their commander in chief let them down" — how's that for boosting their morale!; that "Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management" — ibid!; that "the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush"; and that "no (hearing on a) 6th circuit nominee (should) be scheduled until after the Michigan case is decided"...oops, wrong conspiracy. However, he never once accused our Troops' commander-in-chief of being unpatriotic!

On the other hand, House insurgency leader Non-sí Pinhead-sí's disagreements with George Bush and his policies extend to calling him "incompetent," saying "in fact, he's not a leader," "he's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon," "he has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops," his capacity to lead "has never been there," he has brought unchanging "shallowness... to the office," and "the emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality? Pull the curtain back.... (His) activities, his decisions, the results of his actions undermine his leadership, not my statements. My statements are just a statement of fact." For those who don't have the latest Liberalese-English dictionary, I'll translate: "Fact" means any opinion, accusation, prediction, or just plain gibberish spoken or written by a liberal — especially if she's billing us taxpayers a $1,000,000 to help fund her longtime adviser's inaptly-named Center for Public Service and the Common Good, or setting up some strawbush with her lying, hearsay account of what our president allegedly said and knocking him down as "oblivious, in denial, dangerous." This from the same person who said in June 2005 that "President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President [of what? — General Motors? WalMart? Starbucks? or all of them under some command-economy Communal States of America?]" and "continues to be the first President to lose jobs on his watch since Herbert Hoover," despite these real facts showing steady growth from under 144 to over 150 million persons in America's civilian labor force:

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor


Talk about oblivious, in denial, dangerous. This is how Sag Frag Nag expresses her disagreements with our president.

Then back on the other side of Capitol Hill there's Dirtflingerat leader Scary Screed, also muddying the waters and poisoning the well with these MoveOn(Already!).orgrunted remarks he flung at our wartime president: "I think (sic) this guy is a loser. I think (sic) President Bush is doing a bad job. He's driving this country into bankruptcy. He's got us in this intractable war in Iraq where we now have about 1,600 American soldiers dead and another 15,000 injured." Also, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country... All Americans should be concerned, not just because he lied to me or the people of Nevada and indeed all Americans, but because the President's decision threatens Americans' lives." No, no insulting caricatures there at all.

Such extremist vitriol, whether it be about un-Americanism or practically anything else, is nothing new from libressives. However, it's not about mere disagreement. Not too long ago they were in complete agreement regarding Sodamn Insane's persistent deceitfulness and the threat he would continually pose to us and our vital interests if we allowed him to remain in power. The same assessment put forward by President Bush just four years later. It isn't about merely disagreeing with this president either. He's not running again for anything. In 27 months, he won't even be in office anymore. Who will progerals have to blame and bash then? Nor is it really about offering the American people any rational, viable alternative to his policies — TedDUI's Chappaquiddic Plan and Hanoi John F'in' Globaltester al-Qerry's "replace our child-terrorizing troops with their child-terrorizing troops" proposal notwithstanding. It's all solely about power. Always has been with the Demegalomaniac Party.

Our forebears spent 150 years building up this nation — years of hard living, suffering, sacrifice, and always dreaming — before liberals started to take over. Everything our founders and their posterity diligently worked for finally paid off, as ours reached heights no other country before had. In eight generations, we started from hugging one coastline of a continent to extending completely across it. We scratched out and fashioned marvels of technology and self-government to help us do it. We weren't trying to build a utopia. Americans back then were generally much too realistic and practical to believe that could or ever will happen. What they did create was a union of ideals and reality more perfect than any nation ever had known or could know; and the country they built up was one built to last.

As close to perfection as any large population of human beings could make her, the United States of America still contained challenges. Demoslaverats, true to their racist roots, desperately tried to undermine and betray the very freedoms Republicans had fought long and hard to secure for all Americans. The Republican Party started the civil rights movement in this country to help minorities at a time when Demobigots were busily finding ways to trample those rights under the heel of their burgeoning Dem Crow Movement™. Exploiting and keeping down persons of color even back then, the Donkasshat Party and their followers continually harassed and hounded our country's African-American Republican office holders almost as badly as they're doing today. Speaking of today, it also took Republicans to eliminate the last vestiges of Dem Crow in Georgia once and for all — an act that Demopanderats, who previously controlled the state for over a century, had steadfastly refused to do.

The first progressives in this country were Republicans as well. These original maverick Republicans officially formed a Progressive Party long before Demolibbers even thought of purloining that term. But like many mavericks before and since, their heads became overly big and they ended up thinking way too much of themselves to do anyone any real good. As a result, they bullheadedly fractured the Republican Party; and our nation ended up with a federal income tax, a federal reserve system, popularly elected senators, and, even worse, a Demospotic House and Senate and the only Demoracist besides Grover Cleveland to be elected president after the Civil War. Speaking of war, it was that president who unilaterally invaded the same country one of his Demowarmonger predecessors had seven decades earlier, who unilaterally invaded Russia, and who plunged our country for the very first time directly into global war. But getting us into world wars, from either passive neglect or effective inaction, is what Dembivalent presidents seem to do best anyway — with Wilson being the first.

Less than a week after Republicans trounced the Demonhawks in both houses of Congress on November 5, 1918, Wilson's "peace without victory" armistice halted the Great War. Less than a year later, Wilson's disabling stroke halted his presidency. The United States of America was once again prosperous and at peace. But that condition was doomed the moment the Dingbatic Party set out to single-handedly usher in our country's Dark Ages of Liberalism®.

What started out in October 1929 as a long-overdue correction of a vastly inflated stock market — the Dow Jones Industrials Index's annual high and low averages rising in value 218.7% from 1922 to 1929, then losing 73% of their value from 1929 to 1932 — accompanied by a general recession, wound up becoming a full-blown Depression (with a capital D!) lasting nearly a decade mostly under a completely Democlueless watch. Although exacerbated by the Demmunist-established Federal Reserve's "deliberate, preemptive strike" that, the Fed itself admits, "may have contributed one of the main impulses for the Great [with a capital G!] Depression," anti-capitalism Demagogic Party members wasted no time seizing upon this downturn as offering proof of Karl Marx's "expectation of ultimate capitalist instability and collapse" and of the need for extensive government control of our economy. Buying into this mantra, panicked voters in 1930 elected an equally panicked Demosocialist House of Representatives — led by the "terrible, table-thumping" John "Bloody Knuckles" Garner — and an all but equally divided Senate, initiating a rush to command economy that culminated in "New" Dealerats' hegemonic control of both houses of Congress and the presidency on DAOL®-Day, a.k.a. March 4, 1933. The results: Our Gross Domestic Product miserably failed to achieve a full recovery until 1941 — the very year yet another Demo-sandhead got us into yet another bloody global war. Nor did the Dow Jones Industrials Index itself achieve such recovery until after another Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, entered office in 1953. Even with the villainy attached to the pre-DAOL® Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, successive Diberal majorities in Congress happily kept this protectionist measure on the statute books throughout The (with a capital T!) Great Depression.

As mentioned, with another Demogressive president came another devastating world war. The idea of preemptively striking an increasingly aggressive Japan even after its blatant invasions of Manchuria then China, Italy even after its blatant invasion of Ethiopia, or Germany even after its blatant invasions of the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, then the rest of Czechoslovakia, was rejected out of hand back then by Dawdlerats almost as completely as they're rejecting it now. The results of that rejection: 2,094 American Troops killed and 3,440 wounded in action per week during nearly four years of continuous combat. However, no sooner was that preventable global war over than the next Dewarmakerats got us into the next ones.

Hellish-haberdasher Harry Snoperiod Truman alienated our ally the Soviet Union and got us into the not so very cold World War III. (Republican President Reagan got us out.) Not content with alienating just a single country on that continent, he created the even longer Middle East Crisis when he unilaterally proclaimed the United States' recognition of the state of Israel without first using diplomacy or consulting with "allies" like Phwance to secure the support of Israel's neighbors. (Republican President Bush is getting those neighbors to drive a more peacefully scenic route than the last Dumboqrat pweezeedunce's Road Map to the Mediterranean Sea.) He then rushed us into war in Korea. (Republican President Eisenhower got us out.) His Drearyrat successors John Fitzcamelot Kennedy and Lyndon Bane-to-us Johnson both lied to the American people about the justifications for their getting our country in a protracted Vietnam War, and 58,195 of our Troops died. (Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford got us out when it became unsurprisingly clear that the Demcowardic-cutandrun Congress had no guts to finish the job.) James Hurlchunks al-Qarter responded to the Soviet Union's blatant invasion of Afghanistan by ordering a massive retaliatory strike our sports athletes' massive retreat from the 1980 Olympics. (He sure got us out of that quagmire — whew!) Last and certainly the least of the Defeatistrat pwezuhdints, BiIsIs al-Qlinton distracted himself from World War IV — the current war, which bin Laden declared on us in 1996 — by publicly attacking a woman he privately attacked — "allegedly" — and by staining the office of the presidency — literally — with his seminal lies that plunged our nation into an intractable quagmiresky. The naked emperor mainly fondled interns while Americans burned in an otherwise preventable and unnecessary war. (Thankfully, Republican President Bush is doing everything it takes to not just get us out but decisively win this one, too.)

Granted, after the October 2000 sneak attack on one of our military vessels, the USS Cole, which killed 17 Sailors and would've sunk the ship had it not been for the valiant efforts and of her brave crew, Qlinton did launch a... criminal investigation! Indeed, bin Laden's latest act of war against the United States didn't even cost him a pup tent this time because al-Qlinton's attorney general felt that any such "retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it (i.e., the proposed Operation Pop Puptent)." Moreover, to better emulate his domestic hero Kennedy, who allowed America's communist adversaries to construct the Berlin Wall, Billjob allowed his justice department to construct a wall of its own:

Osama bin Laden couldn't have drafted better rules for ensuring that his operatives could plan in peace than intelligence guidelines drafted in 1995 by then-Attorney General Janet Reno and immediately dubbed "the Wall." It is by now a truism that terrorism will be foiled only by unfettered information-sharing and collaboration. The Wall guaranteed the opposite....

The ink had barely dried on the Reno guidelines before America's anti-terror operations suffered a nervous breakdown. Not only did information-sharing stop almost completely, but Justice Department bureaucrats, in full risk-averse mode, started imposing ever higher probable-cause standards on wiretap requests before they would even approach the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court for approval.

The practical result? "We absolutely were unable to check people out," angrily recalls James Kallstrom, former head of the FBI's New York office.



(Heather MacDonald, "FBI Handcuffed," New York Post, October 27, 2002.) No doubt it's why the Liberalese-English dictionary's translation for "military attack" is "arrest warrant." Unsurprisingly, also, Qlinton's party — not his interns' Kneepads Club Ten-Year reunion, but the politically obstructionist one running around Congress desperately trying to sabotage every effective war effort that's been bringing our country's horrifically fascist, sneak-attacking enemies to their knees — would like nothing better than to see its Suicide Wall® rebuilt.

Just to be fair, Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did get us into as well as out of Grenada and Panama, respectively, just long enough to topple dictatorships that were directly threatening our security or interests. Of course, it would've been more than justifiably nice had the latter been able to finish the job in Iraq after it blatantly went into and got promptly kicked out of Kuwait — insofar as a nation that violates, without warning or provocation, another nation's sovereignty forfeits its own. Had both houses of Congress at the time not been controlled by Demochickenrats eager as ever to cut the purse strings on any such assurance of lasting peace, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its support of terrorists wouldn't be an issue and millions more Saddam-opposing Iraqis would be alive today. At least communists outside this country weren't so dense:

In 1991, a somber Chairman Gorbachev showed a classified presentation to the Politburo, of US forces in action during the Gulf War. After the end of the film, Gorbachev solemnly informed the stunned room that 'we cannot possibly defeat a force such as this.' At about the same time, whatever the Mandarin equivalent of 'oh crap' was making the rounds in Beijing, as so many of the cutting-edge weapons Saddam bought from China failed to even slow down American tanks and infantry. In 2003, just to reinforce the message, even newer Chinese weapons proved equally ineffective in combat conditions against the US. It's not just that American material is still superior, but that US battle doctrine and training was immeasurably superior to anything even guessed at in other countries. Other countries grow and improve, but US doctrine and training leaps. This is in part due to the all-volunteer character of American military, but also the career perspective many US soldiers take towards their work, and the commitment by the majority of one major political party to supply, train, and prepare for necessary actions.


The bottom line is the Deaduckorat Party and its leaders, supporters, and followers are nothing but bad news, both as bearers and as causes of it. Its glorious history is exclusively one of institutionalized slavery and racism, World Wars and The Great Depression, whole populations herded into CCCP Camps and Internment Camps, nuclear bombs and bombings, lost democracies and lost nuclear secrets, rampant censorship and Red China, loyalty oaths and subversives lists, Middle East and Missile Crises, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin and mountainous quagmire, Berlin Wall (torn down, incidentally, only after Republican President Reagan demanded it be) and The Wall, twenty percent inflation and two impeached presidents, Malaise & Malarky, Useless Nitwits and useful idiots, lies about blue dresses® and budget surplusses deficits, World Record Tax Hike as in World. Record. Tax. Hike., despicable pardons for crooks and deadly pretties for China, and, inter alia, all known efforts in this country toward effecting that institution of slavish dependency on humongous government commonly known as Socialism. Or more precisely, Slavery; this time consisting of a public master rather than any private one.

That's its past. A reasonable person might say those leaders, supporters, and followers have at least learned something from it by now; such as how intimately connected the Dumboratic Party's chronically miserable failures at the ballot box are with their own scant recognition of its increasingly drastic need for wholesale reform. Were there anything comparably reasonable about them, he might be right. The good news for America, if not the entire world, is that their present words and deeds simply portend more of the same from as well as for them, so that by the time reality finally hits their last surviving comrades — say around the year 2058 — the word Democrat, like Whig and Federalist, will exist as only some long obscured footnote in the history of the United States.
Right now, however, it comes down to one thing for me and one thing only: WINNING. In that respect, it's important that everything Democrats do, say, represent and put forward be focused on winning. The issue I have with Howard Dean is that truthfulness and winning are not always aligned.... It's his job and the job of other Democratic leaders to stay focused on the goal [of WINNING!].

– Drably Qos's RenaRF,
December 9, 2005

Trying to go out with both a whimper and a bang, the Deunhingedrat Party and its adherents have recently been launching all their V.2 Vengeance weapons at AnythingBush in hopes of taking him down with them. Seeing them so committed, in fact, to decapitating our country's top command and control structure so al-Qaeda itself won't have to bother, Abblob Muchael al-Zarmooron, the widely renowned wide-end seen seated on the presidential bench at the Demoorecrats' post-national convention in Boston just weeks after being embraced by them at their preview one in Washington, D.C., has even offered to sell his cherished 2000 shares of Halliburton stock and donate the proceeds to their Operation Vendetta campaign if he ever felt it would work.

Thus, "Remember the al-Qlintono!" goes the only war cry reputed to be such a cry ever screeched by Dhimmoonbats during this War. While nothing is more important to them than seizing power so they can again have a feeling of absolute control over all our lives, their extreme obsession with getting back at the Republican Party for having impeached their pwezudinski seven years ago is a close, related second. It's an eye for an eye, and "what goes around comes around, stupid" stragedy. In their view no terrorist threat, no natural disaster, no economic malady requires any solution other than using it as a means for assigning whatever blame best helps the Dismalratic Party achieve that end. For this reason Dhimmicrook leaders have been feverishly hoping for death, destruction, mayhem, and collapse; anything these opportunists feel their Comrade "Workers" in the media can somehow manipulate into another story hit piece aimed at pushing President Bush's poll numbers down enough to leave him vulnerable to at least one of their many flimsy and trumped-up impeachment charges. Trouble with their ploy is that it only turns into a lopsided form of Mutually Assured Destruction which leaves Dodorats faring much worse, that even at his lowest point in a Wall Street Journal poll President Bush's approval rating was 36% higher than congressional Dingyrats, while the latter haven't received more than a 34% positive rating since June of last year 2004 2003. It's also the reason DeMud-O-Maticrats keep losing elections. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Delusions-of-godhood Party. That's hardly an optimistic platform around which anyone other than flaming out moonbats are apt to rally.

Not surprisingly, Desperatic attempts to scalp our president and hack his administration to death with such mutilative hatchet jobs have miserably failed to win them any new support beyond what they're receiving from the islamofascist-beheader community. That's because the target spotters for their V-spew mudrockets — i.e., each and every is-steamed member of the LibBiasStream Media, whose demise as sole monopolizer of our perceptions has been scientifically termed a Good Thing™ — invariably come up short in their ability to help Demofanatics reach their mark. What would be surprising is that anyone else at all still finds those spotters' readings reliable, especially after seeing the Chew Chorkle Chimes' "missing explosives!" report October-surprise chicanery that so very well befits a graying propaganda ministry permanently imprinted with record miserable failures to substantively exorcise the ghost of Jayson Blair; the forged "BushAWOL!" memos foisted on the public by See-BS's SadDan RaTHer; the unflushable blood covering the al-jazeernalists' false-reporting hands at NewSpeak (magazine's "new" motto: We lied, people died, blah blah blah. Like we care.) as its senior editor four-flusher excretes his hypocritical Bush=Hitler!! harangues and its contributing one her fifthcolumnistic ImpeachBush!! L³s; the special SaddamAccess-for-SpikedStories program run by See-spiNspiN's news omissions chief Eason Jordan (fired only after his slanderous claim that our Troops intentionally target "journalists") leaving that enemy-aider network susceptible to, and a spreader to Ms.NBC et al. of, the Cliftmouth Elcubo Virus (commonly diagnosed as Transparent Motives Syndrome) as well as prone to being anger-mismanagement coaches to its BlameBush, Inc. guests; the Asshaturated Press' canned boo-track added to its coverage of a Bush/Cheney campaign rally in Wisconsin right after where the president wished the sick Slickster al-Qlinton a speedy recovery; the AP wire about "kidnapped" John Adam Special Ops GI Cody ("insurgent" background flag sold separately); the Washingspin Toast's complete omission of total dead terrorists from its one-sided KIA Scoreboard® splattered across Page A1 before burying on Page A13 the history-making popular ratification of the most democratic constitution in the Arab World (surely the Public's Right To Know® also demands disclosing "the extent to which we have damaged the enemy and limited his ability to continue to be aggressive" so we may indeed be fully informed); and the ABCNBCCBS nightly news' blatantly anti-Bush, pro-al-Qerry reporting in early 2004 (for any "incumbent bias" theorists out there, LU in conjunction with PBS proudly presents: The Qlinton Reeleqtion Qampaign Happy-Go-Lucky Traveling Sunshine Tour of 1996 which surely came to a utopia near you). I would add "but don't call them liberal!" except that when tenured-track professors in UCLA and Stanford's political science departments start concluding you are, there's simply no point.

So how much trustworthiness has all such rigorously full-fledged multilayered fact checking earned them? To quote Madamleader Peloose-screwy, you be the judge:



The once mighty Media-Demdustrial Complex, which had ruled America virtually without challenge for six decades, is thankfully no more.
A Party Rooted in Racism
Howler Dean, Deracistcrat National Committee Scareperson: “We must come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived (Hurricane Katrina) and who did not.”
In non-Liberalese: “Poor old black people are too stupid to survive natural disasters without rich whitey’s help.”
Dean: “You think the Republicans could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”
In non-Liberalese: “I feel pandering to you people of color and scaring you is good; it helps me keep you all in line — the ‘D’ voting line, that is.”
Raycist Naggin’, New Orleans MayAndButOr: “I don’t care what people are saying in Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day.... This city will be a majority African-American city. It’s the way God wants it to be. You can’t have it no other way.”
In non-Liberalese: “Whitey won’t re-elect me — so hurry back, bros.”
Like any other wounded, cornered, emotions-driven animal, it has regressed to snarling and lashing out with an incomparably mean vindictiveness at whatever or whoever it feels is responsible for the hopeless doom and gloom it's experiencing. Moreover, seeing itself surrounded by nothing else, and sensing how only copious amounts of both lay ahead for it, it's stuck on stupidly assuming that things must be equally bad beyond the shrinking, untenable patch of ground on which it's now making its final stand, and under which it knows will soon be berthed its final resting place. This explains the general feeling among the collapsed Complex's Libressive al-Amo's dwindling rank of desperate, extremist defenders and hangers-on, in typical defiance of all reality, that Iraq and our economy are even worse basket cases than they are, and why they all are clearly out of the mainstream.

Certainly, if all these rabid moonbats did was peaceably hang from the rotting rafters of their dilapidated progeral mission, venturing out only in the dead of night to gobble up fruits and various detestable insects, instead of fighting tooth and nail poisonous fang and claw just to stay relevantly alive long enough to massively infect, maim, and kill politically — even physically injure and intimidate — as many within their reach as they can before they go off to that Great Government Slice of Family Income Pie in the Sky, our country could tolerate such infestation there. Because they are undeniably trapped and dying, however, the hate-filled few still clinging to the remnants of that libressive chapel feel they have nothing whatsoever to lose. No consideration for others, no stricture of decency, no deference to any truth will bind their hands talons as they "move on" slashing to pieces everyone and everything that stands in their way. This is what makes Dementedrats and their legions lesions of followers dangerous to America and all her citizens.
“You have to admit, Bush, that you have been defeated in Iraq”
Ayman al-Zawahiri (1951-2006?),
Al Qaeda's No. 2

So there they are, desiring to impeach a U.S. president right in the middle of a World War that America's fighting for her life to win. This brilliant plan, gleefully reported by al-Jazeera in June 2005, of Botox's Best. Buyer. Ever. Award winner J. Flopface al-Qerry and others, is not only extreme but extremely foolish in that suits our enemy's purposes exceedingly well. It's also the best reason of all to increase Republican numbers in both our House of Representatives and our Senate this Tuesday.
“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you knowha'm talkin' about.”
Ma Pot-KKKettle al-Qlinton
Canaan Baptist Church of Christ, Harlem
Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Of course, the Deludedrats' ultimate goal is seizing total power, including their undemocratic takeover of our entire executive branch. The details are predictably simple(-minded): Use lies, fear, and any other ends-justified means to get majorities in both houses of Congress, who in turn will vote to get rid of our president and our vice-president at the same time so their own Dictatorat Speaker of the House will be named Acting President. Once Acting President Naggy Peloogy (take a good, long, hard look at that again, then continue after the shivering subsides to tolerable levels) and her congressionally appointed Vice President Ticked Turbaned take office, she'll order a complete, immediate withdrawal of our armed forces from Iraq, a full pardon for and release of all terrorists "political prisoners" held at Guantanamo Bay, a commencement of suddender "peace" negotiations with terrorist "insurgent" leaders Osama Pig Ladin and ABeheader al-Zitcoward's successor, and a unilateral, global cease-fire and offer of amnesty as a show of weakness & dhimmitude "good faith."
I actually did vote for the original Patriot Act before I voted to kill it.
– Waffleader Reid
The Dhimmi-controlled Congress will repeal kill the USA PATRIOT Act and every tax cut. The wall® separating police and national security will be rebuilt. It's not much more far-fetched to imagine have nightmares about, even, that after the Peloopi Administration installs a new attorney general, United Airlines Flight 93 passengers Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, and Sandy Bradshaw would be posthumously charged with reckless endangerment of an aircraft, menacing, practicing law enforcement without a license, and using racial slurs against, and otherwise attempting to violate the civil rights of "fellow passengers" Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed Al Haznawi, Saeed Al Ghamdi, and Ahmed Al Nami.

That's the way Lawyerats view practically everything, including this World War: It's not a war. There is no terrorist threat or it's been exaggerated. Our president must act like a District Attorney, not as commander-in-chief. He must have warrants to search bin Laden's cave or tap his satellite phone calls into our country. Grand juries must indict al-Qaeda's No. 1 and his "alleged" co-conspirators before our DA-in-chief may charge and hold any of them as suspects. Every piece of evidence must be presented in open court and cross-examined by defendant's counsel. No sentence may be imposed, no action may be taken unless a petit jury, composed of at least a majority of minorities from the muslim community, unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. There must be appeals and motions and habeas corpus proceedings out the ying yang before one bomb may be dropped on any "alleged" terrorist's head. Consequently, liberals would be ecstatically happy if we simply pulled our Soldiers out of Iraq and replaced them all with licensed attorneys at law. There are more than 1,084,504 of them in the U.S.; so reinstituting the draft for just a tenth of our lawyers and sending them over there is doable. They can sue, try, and appoint counsel for terrorists "criminal defendants" to their "hearts'" content. We'll lose the war. But at least the Lawyerats will be awarded their attorney's fees.

Joyfully thank our merciful Father in Heaven that the dhimmitudic party's retained associates in the LibBS Media are in no credible position to effectively help it attain any of these goals. Like that party's V.1 vengeful salvos of—

"BushKnew! ImpeachBush!!" (2002)
From the Demuckrat.con's petition "Investigate and Impeach Bush for Failing to Act on 911 Warnings And then Lying About It":

Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes

From the actual August 6, 2001, "warnings":

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a XHXJXFXQX service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Must've missed those radio messages from the terrorist hijackers on September 11, 2001, demanding "you release our Shaykh and we'll spare your World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Capitol buildings."

"BushWarmonged! ImpeachBushCheneyRumsfeldAshcroft!!" (2003)
From former Dhimmi cabinet officer and current dictator-defender Ramsey Qlark's screed:

Authorizing daily intrusions into the airspace of Iraq by U.S. military aircraft in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq

From the U.S. Commission on Clue:

We were still at war with Iraq. The 1991 cease-fire agreement signed by Saddam himself, which authorized those "intrusions" to enforce the agreed upon No-Fly Zone, and which was violated every time the dictator's military targeted or fired on our aircraft, was not a peace treaty.

Allowing that Twelve Years War thingy with Saddam to drag out into a Thirteen Years War and beyond is not a sound way to end the constant threats his regime posed to international peace and security and to our armed forces.

"BushMisled! ImpeachBush!!" (2003)
From stray signals leaking out through the pointy top of Bob Graham's tinfoil hat:

[The president's 16-word State of the Union address reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger] was central because the rationale of going to war was that the United States' people were under an imminent [sic] threat.

From the official findings of the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's state of the union address of 2003 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well founded.

That is, supported by a second, independent source. Not Rocco "Giacomo" Martino, whom Fwance paid to plant forged documents so it could later reveal them as such, in hopes of undermining the case for war against its bestest Oil-for-PalaceBunkers buddy Saddam. Also, according to MediaMudders, "Bush never uttered the phrase 'imminent threat'" as Boobie claims.

"BushLied! ImpeachBush!! ImpeachRumsfeld!!" (2004)
From Representertive Chucky deRangedl's resolution:

Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, urged and oversaw the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false premise that the United States was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack [sic] against the United States.

From the "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction":

There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD production after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted. All sources suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.

As Secretary Rumsfeld asks, "When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat?" The Butcherer of Baghdad knew his "experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard [gas] within six months" and "VX and Sarin production were more complicated and would take longer." They weren't planning those for the dessert buffets at Iraq's impending Sanctions Eroded & Lifted Day® festival. Also see, "Al Qaeda Operative Busted In Iraq" during major combat operations. Perhaps he'd been there to just make picnic baskets for that festival.

"BushFixed! ImpeachBush!!" (2005)
From Abjohn al-zaQonyers, dean of the Racist Qauqus:

In response to the [Dhimmiqrat staffers'] Report [grandstandingly titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Secondhand Biketrail Thirdhand Dirtpath Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retributions and Cover-ups in the Iraq War"], I have already taken several initial steps. First, I have introduced a resolution creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses.

From the Travel Warning issued by our Statements-o-clue Department™ recommending that Americans avoid travel to al-zaQonyers' congressional district:

The Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, Michigan metropolitan division (MD) is the United States' most dangerous, with Detroit ranking No. 2 overall among U.S. cities as well as No. 5 in homicides per capita among cities with more than 100,000 residents. Large portions of this MD and their surviving residents are represented in Congress by Abjohn "ImeachBush!!" al-zaQonyers; but that may be only a coincidence. In Detroit alone there were 374 homicides in 2005, 384 in 2004, and 366 in 2003. Although well below the estimated 10,000 persons cold-bloodedly murdered every year by the former Sadism Hussein regime in Iraq, if that country had experienced Detroit's 40 per 100,000 homicide rate the figure would be even higher (i.e., 10,430). Of course, after the fall of that tyranny (in Iraq), Iraq has been a much safer place to live than Detroit ever was during the past three years.

The 30,000+ Iraqis who never wound up in any of Iraq's mass graves, due to the Bush Administration's "misconduct," have much more to be thankful for than the families of the actual 1124 American victims who wound up in Detroit's slightly more spread out version. If al-zaQonyers had shown as much concern for investigating his own city's problems as he claims he does regarding the Iraq war, there'd likely be fewer grieving American families within the congressional district war zone he "represents."


the dysfunctional LibBS Media's proven incompetence to arm, target, or launch any Dhimmavengerat mud missile ensures that the Disarrayic Party leaders' V.2 series will all crash-land as dismally malfunctioning duds too. This includes one of the latest of their BushHorreur-du-jour! ImpeachBush!! tantrums, by which they once again get to demonstrate to the American electorate those qualities of a typical three-year-old — stamping his feet, yelling at the top of his lungs, jealous of his playmates, throwing and breaking things or outright lying to get his way or escape punishment for his misbehavior, then screaming bloody murder when he doesn't get his way, along with every other undisciplined, unreasonable, arbitrary, and mendacious tendency normally associated with an undeveloped mind — all of which they possess in unmitigated abundance, but without any of his mitigating cuteness or his innate potential to move on and progress past such crybaby phase — for which they all have become widely known and loathed. In the words of Her Nibs, you knowha'm talkin' about. It's the BushSpied! ImpeachBush!! one.

Yes, Bush spied on our enemies, Demoonbats cried "BusHitler!"; and no one is surprised Democriers lied when they agreed several years ago that every president, in time of war or not, has the constitutional authority — even sworn obligation — to spy on our murderous, dangerous enemies whoever and wherever they are, and on whomever they're communicating with, in order to protect and defend American lives. It was Qlintoon himself who, by mere executive order, abandoned the statutory 72-hour post hoc notification requirement (America's Anchorman) for national security wiretaps, and unilaterally replaced it with an administrative "up to one year" one. Nonetheless, searches of any foreign-originating communications by our enemy, whose war plan still includes attacking our country again, are not simply criminal law enforcement or courtroom matters.
  What is the Dem message here? “Oh my gosh, that evil Bush is spying on Al Qaeda and anyone who talks to them — as Democrats, we will never do that!”
  Good luck. Let us know how that works out in '06.
JustOneMinute
Shameless Self-Promotion
They are primarily national defense and military intelligence-gathering operations:

It appears clear that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not apply to surveillance and searches undertaken to protect the national security from external threats. Surveillance of terrorists could be undertaken within two distinct legal regimes. The first is the regular criminal justice system, in which the government may seek a warrant to conduct surveillance of a terrorist suspect's voice or electronic communications by presenting sufficient evidence of probable cause to an Article III judge. Surveillance undertaken in this manner would be no different than that used against organized crime groups or drug cartels operating within the United States. A second method, however, could present itself when terrorists undertake direct operations within the territorial United States. During wartime, the military engages in searches and surveillance without a warrant. We do not, for example, require the armed forces to seek a warrant when it conducts visual or electronic surveillance of enemy forces or of a battlefield, or when it searches buildings, houses, and vehicles for the enemy. Nor must military operations within the United States operate under a different rule. Were enemy forces to actually invade and operate on the territory of the United States, the Constitution would not require a search warrant for the military to conduct surveillance of the enemy. Every search or observation of confederate forces during the Civil War, for example, did not require a warrant. Therefore, if al Qaeda forces organize and carry out missions to attack civilian or military targets within the United States, government surveillance of terrorists would not be law enforcement so much as military operations. In such circumstances, when the government is not pursuing an ordinary criminal law enforcement objective, the Fourth Amendment requires no search warrant.

The principle that searches undertaken to protect the national security are not subject to the warrant requirement has been recognized by the lower federal courts, if not yet by the Supreme Court. When it first applied the Fourth Amendment to electronic surveillance, the Supreme Court specifically refused to extend its analysis to include domestic searches that were conducted for national security purposes. In United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ("Keith"), however, the Court held that the warrant requirement should apply to cases of terrorism by purely domestic groups. The court explicitly noted, however, that it was not considering the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers within or without the country. After Keith, lower courts found that when the government conducts a search, for national security reasons, of a foreign power or its agents, it need not meet the same requirements that would normally apply in the context of criminal law enforcement. In United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, for example, the Fourth Circuit observed that "the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following Keith, 'unduly frustrate,' the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities."



Even former Qlinton Abomination associate attorney general John Schmidt agrees, citing both the congressional testimony of The Wall® builder herself Abjamie al-zarGorelicker that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," and the recent Court of Review decision that not even this pre-World War IV law can "encroach upon the president's constitutional power." It's why his former boss felt she could even raid the home of an American citizen without ever obtaining a search warrant, as Patrick S. Poole explains:

After Janet Reno approved a warrantless physical search of CIA spy Aldrich Ames' Arlington, Virginia home in October 1993 [So what that she did it to catch a dangerous spy; maybe she should've been impeached or something. —LR], the Department of Justice made a request to Congress that the authority of FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] be expanded to include physical searches. Congress obliged by including authorization for an expansion of FISC powers in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1995.

President Clinton implemented the new powers through Executive Order 12949. Apart from giving the FISC physical search powers, the executive order also authorized the Attorney General "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978]."

This expansion also included the power for evidence gathered in FISA surveillance and searches to be used in criminal proceedings. However, all information regarding the order and any evidence obtained under the order are permanently sealed and classified "top secret." The effect of this provision has been that US citizens are being charged with crimes in federal court and not allowed to review the evidence against them, nor are their attorneys permitted to see the warrants that authorized the search.

The FISA statute requires the Attorney General to submit a report each year to the Administrative Office of the US Courts, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate detailing the number of applications from the FBI and NSA requesting surveillance/and or physical searches, the number of orders approved and the number of applications modified or denied by the FISC. Table I [FISA Surveillance and Physical Search Orders 1979-1997; based on the Annual Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Reports to Congress, 1979-1997] displays the number of orders approved by the FISC for each year since FISA was signed into law. To date [1998], the government enjoys a perfect record in regards to application approvals, for no request has ever been rejected by the court.... [T]he sparing use of the court's authority in the last few years of the Carter Administration is contrasted with the increase of FISC orders during the Reagan Administration. It may be reasonable to assume that this trend was a direct result of terrorist activity targeting American citizens abroad during this period of time. A slight decline in the number of court orders occurs in 1987, mirroring a decrease in terrorist activity after the US bombing of Tripoli, Libya in 1986. A general stabilization occurs in the remainder of the Reagan Administration and throughout the Bush Administration, which included the Persian Gulf War period.

However, a sharp increase in FISC orders has occurred since the ascendance of the Clinton Administration, with no apparent return to 1980s levels. This frightening increase in the use of the FISC by the present administration is compounded by the fact that in recent years the FISC has approved more applications than the whole of the entire federal judiciary. In 1996, the FISC approved 839 applications, while all federal judges combined approved only 538 requests. During 1997, federal judges approved 569 surveillance and search requests to investigate criminal activity, while the FISC approved 749 applications for investigations without any criminal predicate.



Under Sliq WiIsIsy the situation was even worse. Which explains why Demohypocrats were clamoring just as vocally back then for Qlinton's impeachment. Oh, wait. It turns out they weren't.

No, the president's exercise of his inherently constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence and thus defend our nation against further attacks is not, outside moonbatty leftists' dead brains, any kind of offense or abuse; especially when it has been expressly confirmed and authorized by the Congress of the United States.** What is an offense and abuse is the Spew Pork Rinds, Senator Abjay al-zarRockefeller (D-AQ), a judge on the FISA court — the same one who, in typical three-year-old fashion, puffed his cheeks and stormed out, taking what's left of his Qlintonista marbles with him? — and a "whistleblower" paranoid psychotic, all disclosing to those foreign enemies any sources or methods that must remain secret if we're to defeat them.

The positive message here is the adults in all three branches of our federal government hold that national security outweighs our enemies' privacy "rights," whether those enemies be terrorists like bin Laden or their supporters and enablers. This contrasts with the messages of barking demoonbats who claim officials in that government are really the enemy. Take, for example, the particularly egregious tinfoilage fabrication by none other than The Most Trusted Man in America Ithaca NY™: "In fact, I'm a little inclined to think (sic) that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing (October 29, 2004 videotaped "Message to Americans," as sanitizedly translated by CNN)." In actual fact, the messages from bin Laden and the Dhimms are menacingly similar:

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
[Halliburton's Iraq contract] looks like naked favoritism [and] undermines the Bush administration's portrayal of the war as a campaign for disarmament and democracy, not lucre. (DNC Times)

I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq. (Abdan Mu"Bob" al-Zargrahami, Demator from Florida)

The policy of the White House... demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations — whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war. The cost in human lives. The cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less. The cost to our economy. But the most important question at this time, now that we're toward the end of it, is what is the cost to the war on terrorism? (MadAmLeader PACloosie)

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars. And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan — with Allah's permission.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
This President has claimed the right for his executive branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific [sic] warning of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11. (al-Gore)

So [Bush Sr.] took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
First of all, had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had business that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it. (Hanoi John 40-Minutesman al-Qerry)

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations — all praise is due to Allah.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
But as we also now know beyond doubt, [Saddam] did not pose the kind of immediate threat to our national security that could possibly justify a unilateral, preventive war without the broad support of the international community. There was no reason whatsoever to go to war when we did, in the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. (Oceansmobile al-Qennedy)

And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans [e.g., al-Qennedy] warned Bush before the war and told him: "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction — assuming they exist — is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
The President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and stubborn ideology. No amount of Presidential rhetoric or preposterous campaign spin can conceal the truth about the steady downward spiral in our national security since President Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq. If this election is decided on the question of whether America is safer because of President George Bush, John Kerry will win in a landslide. (ibid.)

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
The New York Times said the [July 2004 National Intelligence Estimate] "spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq".... In other words, the best-case scenario, between now and the end of 2005 — is that our soldiers will be bogged down in a continuing quagmire with no end in sight.... The outlook is bleak [sic], and it's easy to understand why. It's because the number of insurgents has gone up. The number of their attacks on our troops has gone up. The sophistication of the attacks has gone up. The number of our soldiers killed or wounded has gone up. The number of hostages seized and even savagely executed has gone up. (ibid.)

So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
The war in Iraq has become a recruiting bonanza for terrorists who use it as their damning indictment of U.S. policy. The massive casualties suffered by civilians in Iraq and the horrible TV footage of women and children being pulled dead or injured from the rubble of their homes has been a propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden beyond his wildest dreams. (al-Bore)

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind. The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced. I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.... In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.... And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children. And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
[President Bush was] selected, not elected.... [His machine tries] to depress the [voter] turnout. But, you know, you have got to hand it to them. These people are ruthless and they are relentless. (Abhill Murod al-Zarqlinti, Demator from Blue York)

Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process. There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.... He also received the most [sic] votes in Florida. (Abjim Murl al-Zarqarteri, Dempeanut from Demparallel Universe)

We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the [2004] Ohio presidential election.... In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. (John ImpeachBush!! al-Qonyers, Demosaur from Michigan)

In addition, Bush [Sr.] sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops, because he would not heed the advice of his own State Department [aka Foggy Bottom]. (Comradeleader "Youbethejudge" Pilowski)

This was a war of choice that the Administration went into.... They went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix now.... There's quicksand over there.... We said [the Iraqis] would have elections, and now [seven months before Iraq's first nationwide elections] we cannot determine what the outcome of those elections would be.... And that's why I come back to my criticism of the president. It's a question of judgment. And in order to have the judgment about whose judgment you trust, you have to have some level of experience and knowledge about the situation and not fall prey to those who would exploit our country for their purposes, in terms of why we should go into Iraq. (ibid., on NBC News' Meet the Press)

And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
In fact, for Democrats, it is still the economy, stupid.... The first issue on [American] voters' minds was the lousy economy. (DNC Prospect)

It is the American people and their economy[, stupid "infidel"].

Dem LadenratsBin Laden
Every day we see a culture of corruption, incompetence, and cronyism in Washington, D.C. (House Dhimmileader Nasty Nancy)

59 million Americans voted against Bush's four years of failure.... He is still acting like he has a mandate to pass his dangerous and ill-conceived agenda. (ibid.)

Meanwhile, the Katrina response remains plagued by cronyism; cronyism that gives jobs to the friends of the Bush Administration without qualifications for those jobs and cronyism that gives contracts to their corporate friends without bidding. In fact, in the days following Katrina, Republicans teamed up with Halliburton and other contractors to have a "Katrina Reconstruction Summit" in the Hart Senate Building to help government contractors profit from relief funds.... An ethical cloud hangs over the Capitol. (ibid.)

We need someone to make sure that money goes to rebuilding businesses, homes and lives, not for lining the pockets of well-connected contractors. (Senate Dhimmileader Dingy Harry)

We think [sic] that when Congress appropriates money for disaster relief, the advantage should be maximized for the victims, not for the same cast of characters that have been profiting from no-bid contracts in Iraq. [Halliburton subsidiary] Kellogg, Brown & Root... is the company that came up with those $100-per-bag laundry bills for work in Iraq. (Osama bin Osama Obamaaka Barack Obama, Demator of Illnoise)

We have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.... The Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is you.


Getting top terrorist leaders to agree with them is part of the al-DeaNCo's inclusive big-tent outreach initiative.
From the Aren't You Glad This Guy Wasn't / Won't Be Elected department
“The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world. .  .  . I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it.”
“If [62 percent of Ohioan voters democratically exercise their right to choose a marriage-preservation constitutional amendment]... that's un-American.”

Paul Hackett, another losing Demudslingerat candidate losing it

Is it out of love for their country these Demotraitorat leaders are adhering to views expressed by the enemy's propagandists? Or are giving him with that the very aid and comfort he requires to bolster his will to fight? If not, why are they doing it?
HRQ
A shady character.

Is it to push reform in politics? The person most vocally leading that charge from the pilot seat of their unbanned union-paid jet has turned it into a bluff: As Queen Joqer of the Dhimmiqard-stacked Qulture of Qorruption deck, Hilldabeast and her Qlinton 2000 Qampaign qronies have agreed in writing with the Federal Elections Commission's finding that "there was probable cause to believe New York Senate 2000 [a joint funding committee consisting of Hideously Rotten al-Qlinton's campaign, the Demoqratic Senatorial Qampaign Qommittee and the New York State Demoqratic Qommittee] and Andrew Grossman, in his official capacity as treasurer violated 2 U.S.S Sec 434(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and 11 D.F.R. Sec 102(c)(8)(i)(A)." The FEC fined Qlinton's qulturally qorrupt qronies $35,000, and ordered them to pay it by January 12, 2006, or face "a civil action for relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." It also ordered them to renounce their unlawfully false qampaign reports and admit that Her Nibs actually did receive $721,895 in qampaign qontributions which she miserably failed to report. (All candidates for federal office are required by law to fully and truthfully report their campaign finances to the FEC, including contributions received from supporters of Iran's Mad Mullahs.) She and her lame denials, "I don't recall" lies, and blatant hypocrisy are way beyond worn out. They are finally the subjects of corruption investigations and prosecutions. Helltopayee and her FuturePAC co-pilot are no aces in this Dhimmiqrat memory hole.

Is it to promote our country's victory in this World War? Given the near impossibility of trying to discern from even an extensive review of Dewafflerat leaders' public statements — much less any of their sound-byte packaged ones we usually read and hear — whether that's the reason, the best approach to finally solving this age-old mystery is likely the most direct. Let's ask them:

   Do you believe that our country is at war? ( ) Yes  ( ) No   
If no, why? 
If yes:
    Do you believe that our country should win the war? ( ) Yes  ( ) No
If no, why?  
If yes:
    Do you believe that the actions of Demoqrats and their leaders are, on the whole, making it harder for our country to win the war? ( ) Yes  ( ) No
If no, why? 


Any of them who checks all three Yes boxes should be congratulated on his escape from the Alternate Reality-Based Community of Loony Leftist Logicland. While we're waiting for their honest answers, and for our Sus Scrofa Airlines flights to the exclusive Hades Ski Resort & Lodge, let's try to discover why else Dhimmi leaders are parroting and therefore encouraging bin Laden.

It is For The Children®? In all seriousness, probably not, since both OBL and the Dhimmis knew or should have known it's not unusual for children to be aboard domestic passenger jets, including any that the former's cutthroats would try to hijack and use as skyscraper-destroying missiles. They also knew or should've have known that the innocent people those cutthroats intentionally target and kill include mothers, fathers, and guardians who would leave behind precious orphans and single-parent children.

Is it to help senior citizens, or minorities, or even the little guy? Being they're all bin Laden's targets too, giving that terrorist such encouragement provides none of them any comprehendible benefit.

Then is it to support the Troops? As much as bin Laden wants them out of Iraq — out of the whole Middle East, for that matter — before they successfully complete their mission of destroying the murderous enemies of its new, growing freedom and security as the best means of supporting and defending the long-term future our own (aka "democratic enlargement"; Weekly Standard), his aim — the same aim embraced by top Demotimetablerat leaders under what the New Republic dubs the Murtha plan "the Pelosi plan, with all the culturo-political baggage that entails" — is one with which the Troops themselves strongly disagree. This is evidenced by the number of our courageous Troops who are, unlike Worstington Compost's Baghdad bureau chiefs and many but not all other reporters, volunteering to return to or stay in Iraq, in many cases for a third, fourth, and even fifth combat tour — nominally 12 months of duty each by our Soldiers and 7 by our Marines. They include: U.S. Army Sergeant Christopher Ramirez (for a second then a third tour), Staff Sergeant Darren J. Cunningham (after having fought in Operation Desert Storm), Chief Warrant Officer Mitch Carver (after requesting to go back and help his fellow front-line Kiowa helicopter pilots), and Specialist Ricky Woods (for six months after serving a 15-month tour); Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Mark Phelan (for two combat tours); Navy Ensign Kelly Bowman (for a second tour this year); Marine Lieutenant Colonel Bob Zangas, retired (as a military liaison and press officer after fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom), Lance Corporal Steven W. Szwydek (after requesting to take the place of a soldier who had a family back home), Corporal Marc T. Ryan (for a third tour), Lance Corporal Kevin Waruinge (for a second tour), First Lieutenant Matthew Lynch (for a third tour), Corporal Josh Amstutz (after the enemy wounded him), Captain Raymond Lopes (after the enemy wounded him), Staff Sergeant Timothy La Sage (after the enemy wounded him), Lieutenant Colonel Victor Zillmer (as commander of the Army Corps of Engineers in Baghdad), Corporal Dmitry Petrenko (for a second tour), and Sergeant Eric R. Brueck (for a second tour); Air Force Technical Sergeant Jamie Dana; and Army National Guard Sergeant Riley S. King (after petitioning to stay deployed beyond his mandatory retirement age of 60), Specialist Anthony Acuna (for a six-month tour), Staff Sergeant Jeb Billings (for a second tour), and soldiers of the 1140th Engineer Battalion (for a second tour after transferring to the 110th Engineer Battalion). In addition, among our Troops' first-tour volunteers are Navy Captain Thom Merry (as a flight surgeon attached to Marine combat units), Marine Corporal Kyle J. Renehan (as an air traffic controller), Lance Corporal Levi Angell (after a tour in Kuwait), Corporal Neal Fischer, and Gunnery Sergeant Joseph Laney (looking forward to returning for second tour), and Marine Corps Reserve Corporal Brian Smith (after serving a tour in Japan, South Korea and the Philippines). Then there are the civilians who directly support our Troops and their mission and are volunteering to return to Iraq, including Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents, Army and Air Force Exchange Service employee Tina Nelson-Gardner, Captain Jonathan Powers, U.S. Army retired (as Orphans and Street Kids Project director), Baylor University political science professor Dr. William A. Mitchell (as higher-education consultant invited by Dohuk University to assist with the establishment of its Center for Democracy and Diplomacy), as well as Jim, a civilian contractor from Tennessee, and Colonel Wicks from Athens, Alabama who "returned voluntarily from retirement to serve in Iraq [as] a psychiatrist." These more than 35 profiles in courage are taken from just the first 100 (less than half a percent) of 27,900 Google search results. Their courage, love of country, and widespread disagreement with the Pelousy-Surrendercrat "Plan" is also evidenced by the 90 percent reenlistment rate among servicemen and women who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. What strikes a visitor to our Troops' front-line forward operating bases in the former is, to quote World Wrestling Entertainment Superstar Mick Foley, who with his intrepid crew actually visited sixteen of those, "the sense of purpose that our soldiers had. That they all believed that they were doing important work. And even though a lot of them were clearly frustrated and longing for home, they had a feeling that they were doing something important in Iraq." Dearest Lord comfort and bless all of them and their families.

Supporting someone in more than the vaguest, most wishy-washy of terms means supporting the things he's absolutely sure he wants to do also. That is, a supporter usually agrees wholeheartedly with the supportee's life decisions — unless the former feels the latter is a cluelessly miserable lout, in which case there's no real supporting going on. This is common sense. It needs no parsing. When one states, for example, "I support the Demoanerats but oppose their holding public office," despite knowing with metaphysical certainty it's far and above all else the one thing in life they eagerly cared doing, it takes little imagination to deduce how much they'd appreciate never receiving any offers of that kind of "support." Similarly, as much as each of us who sincerely supports our Troops wants them to come home — to come home always in honor, not ever in enforced disgrace — and as much as we want every one of them to do so as soon as possible, we know their express wish, conveyed most firmly by their acts, is to stay in Iraq as long as it takes to help our country accomplish all of her vital goals there: terrorists defeated, insurgency neutralized, the country peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, with institutions and resources for just self-government and ample self-defense — a full-fledged partner in the World War and an engine for the region's economic and democratic growth. Now that they're close to finishing the job they started in 2003, how much support would we be giving them and their families if we told them you can't, stop, let the forces of terror and tyranny undo everything you've heroically built for both our and the Iraqi people's good, and try not to think too hard or too often about all that time, effort, and sacrifice we feel you were only wasting over there? Further, after we abandon freedom-loving Iraqis for the second time in as many decades to such evil forces, what incentive will they have to ever trust us again, much less work with us in defeating those forces? How many of our Troops will lose their lives during combat in the inevitable but unnecessary Iraq War III after Saddumb — or worse — takes back that country? These very concerns are why our Troops' true supporters are unanimously rooting for America's quick and complete victory this go around, so there won't have to be another requiring even more sacrifice and loss. It's difficult to understand why most liberals of draft age, or soon to be of such age, aren't unanimously rooting for it too, if only to selfishly save their own 'tarded butts — the same butts that likely would be drafted in the event we don't get this unavoidable job done with our current deployment, and that would only load and water down our now exceptionally professional force of remarkably superior fighting men. Even so, while many of the younger liberals who're crying "bring our troops home!" are each softly adding "so no one will have any reason to send me over there too," they should know their elders, mentors, and leaders are doing their best every treasonable thing they can imagine to ensure that feeling turns out to be wrong too.

It is an inescapable fact that dissent and disunity among your enemy's political leaders strengthens your position, increases your will to fight him, creates opportunities for you to undermine his efforts and break his resolve from within, lets you move on weaknesses in his line otherwise denied to you, leaves him more vulnerable and less capable of effectively responding to distraction, confusion, and attack, and puts victory that much further in your grasp and only defeat in his. We the people of the United States are bin Laden's enemy. His al-Qaeda network and band of beheaders in Iraq, in America, and throughout the world have made all of us, not just President Bush, their targets. They have taken their fight to our cities and our homes. They know their only hope of defeating us in this World War is to give more and more of us a reason to give out, give in, and finally give up until enough of us do so. As the chorus of voices demanding retreat, negotiation, even surrender grow larger and louder they ring more sweetly in the terrorists' ears, each discordant strain only enhancing their own leaders' promises of victory. It's a song that drowns out all good news with harsh, angry sounds of second guessing, self-interested recrimination, impatience, and doubt. Only the terrorists' goals and those voices' demands are in harmony: They echo "Go home — come home — now!"

The real sour notes, however, are the ones we'll be playing if our Troops leave Iraq before they accomplish their history-making mission. Once the terrorists know they possess, after only three and a half years of using cowardly attacks and senseless violence to achieve their goal, a true ability to drive the United States prematurely out of one country, they'll not only work harder to drive us back farther but find it much easier to recruit willing "martyrs" to drive more or our planes, as well as our trains, ships, and trucks, into our workplaces and residences. How many of those potential recruits will hear "We forced the Americans to leave Iraq in dishonor and disgrace like they did in Vietnam, to break their word and abandon their puppets there, and to miserably fail at imposing their evil democracy on it" and be convinced that the winning side is actually al-Qaeda, especially its branch in the Land of the Two Rivers? How many terrorists will our hightailing it out of Iraq free up, letting al-Qaeda redeploy them to reinforce the ones now murdering and maiming civilians, policemen, and national army and Coalition troops in Afghanistan? Being the cowards that they are, unwilling to face life and its challenges or the fact they glamorize death and have deluded themselves with guaranteed "seats in paradise" from their own suicides and others' "righteous executions," making that their justification for preying on and using the weak to extort and attack the strong, the terrorists always take thuggish advantage of a nation's vulnerabilities and debilitating fears, believing they don't risk defeat confronting any whose leadership demonstrates what they would personally recognize as a cowardice that surpasses even theirs. Terrorists know they do risk it when they confront a people who rigidly, obstinately, resolutely, and stubbornly stands up to them.

Still, the greatest advantage terrorists genuinely have over us is time. After each of their attacks they can afford to wait patiently in the shadows, observing and adjusting to our response (or lack of it) in order to improve their plans for the next one. That's all they do. It's their career, their profession, their fervent life's work. Any matter short of producing our total destruction never occupies or concerns them. Nor are they detracted by "patriotic" dissenters in their ranks staging protests, obstructing their progress, leaking their secrets, demanding bin Laden's impeachment, and idiotically chanting "We support the terrorists but oppose the terrorism." Any who tried have literally lost their heads. Meanwhile they realize there's nothing like that 100% constant support for the war anywhere among those civilian populations they've entirely designated as their enemy combatants. Their hope is that the longer they remain a real threat to each such population, the better chance they have of wearing it out and whittling away its resolve until enough of its leaders conclude the best response, in terms of those leaders' political careers, is for that population to stand down and try to cocoon itself inside a wholly defensive position while at the same trying to avoid eating itself alive in there and excreting on whatever unsoiled liberties its members have left as it endures the resulting siege. At that point Bint Laden and his Brand of Butchers clearly become the War's winners.

What it all means is that unless we defeat the terrorists quickly — not in a generation or a decade, but in a matter of years, before President Bush's successor is sworn into office — and unless we are willing to take the bold actions necessary to make that happen, even when they may appear reckless or not altogether strictly proper in the judgment of America's adversaries or so-called allies — not only in Iraq, but also in Syria and then Iran, where the enemy continues to find support and haven — our country will never achieve complete victory, our children and grandchildren will grow up, compelled to bear that unduly protracted burden of fighting the same World War, and our rights here will evaporate as we voluntarily sacrifice them like some worthless abstraction in the face of those overwhelmingly real and present dangers to our families and society.

Knowing all this, as they must, why are Doublecrosserat leaders echoing the words and adhering to the goals of our enemy, therefore giving him aid and comfort? By process of elimination the answer can only be one thing: Their all-consuming, all-excluding, obsessional love of power. They want it back, all of it like they once had, "by any means necessary." Nothing and no one else matters. No one and nothing will be allowed to stand in their way as they try to get back that power either, even if it means resorting to "lawlessness that circumvent(s) government from doing their business." Whoever and whatever may come between them and that end must be savagely targeted and totally destroyed before they can "move on." In the process Dhimplodingrats have stood ignorant or become indifferent to how hurtful their overt acts are in this already grievous time of war, to the safety and morale of our nation's magnificently brave defenders. Because those acts directly bolster the enemy's will to fight, they make our Troops' job much more dangerous than it has to be, exposing each of them to far greater risk than would otherwise exist and putting all their lives in unconscionably worse jeopardy than before. As Senator John Ensign points out,

It is easy to pretend what we as elected officials say is not heard by the men and women on the front lines, or for that matter by our enemies, but listen to what [Marine Corps Reserve Gunnery Sergeant] Jon Carpenter, the Marine I talked about earlier, wrote before heading back to Iraq [after volunteering for a second tour]: "From experience, I can tell you how demoralizing all the criticism of the military and the dissension in the country is on the troops in Iraq. It also encourages the radical criminals and terrorists we are fighting over there to continue fighting in hopes we will pull out. We are doing the right thing there, we are winning, and the majority of the Iraqi citizens truly appreciate what we are doing for them."


Disloyalrat leaders don't care about any of this. It's all solely about power with them and always will be.

The fact Degressives, aided and abetted by lyingstream media liars' lies, are hurting our Troops and helping our enemy for so completely selfish, shallow, disdainful a reason is what's really disgusting.

Then there's the hypocrisy.
“All the news that’s sent a lift.”
NYSlimes Supported US Supporting Saddam in 1980s
On October 20, 1987, the Times editorialized: “Iran’s strategy is to divide its opponents through fear. A united front led by the United States and centered on the containment of Iran is the proper response.” In other words, the Times favored supporting Iraq’s cause even after it became aware of American support (reported in the Times by Bernard Gwertzmann on December 16, 1986) and international alarm about Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.
    But there’s more in the editorial: “So why should the United States get embroiled in a savage war between two lawless regimes? Because containing Iran is in the interest of the U.S., the Gulf States, Europe, and Japan. All look to America for leadership. If Iraq suddenly crumples, as is possible, it will be even harder to defend the oil-rich region against a victorious Iran.” The editorial even suggested the White House “needs to enlist Congressional and public support” for this policy.
Except from TimesWatch’s “Down the Memory Hole of the Iran-Iraq War” (MOOREWATCH).
Qlinton misled us about his going-it-alone miserable failures in Somalia (mission creep, refusal to consult with Congress, cut and run), in Haiti Voodooland (we still have Troops there, no sufficient exit strategy, no plan), in Bosnia (ditto), and in Kosovo (double ditto, "Qlinton lied, people died"). Yet not one Dhimmi leader ever demanded any investigation into "possible impeachable offenses" regarding those "mistakes." Nor does the Dhypocritic waffling stop there. Howie Deandong actually did say he favors preemption before he said he's against it; and he, U-Qar Qennedy, and other Dribblerat luminaries actually did say Iraq's dictatorship is a threat before they said it wasn't. Also, at Coretta Scott King's funeral political pep rally, al-zaQarter used the event to complain about warrantless surveillance without ever once mentioning the fact that he and al-Qlinton both ordered this very same "illegal" action. Worse still is the Demerratic Party leaders' double standard in criticizing President Bush's decision to make absolutely certain that SaWMDdam would nevermore be a threat to our country's security or vital interests, especially during the middle of a World War:

As severely as the president was criticized for not taking action — based on very flimsy information — to prevent the WTC attack, how much more would they be criticizing him for not taking action based on the preponderance of information about the probability of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Democrats are going to criticize this Republican president, regardless of what he does. Their criticism has little to do with the merits of any issue, and everything to do with public perception. The current criticism of the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the security of the United States, and everything to do with tarnishing the president sufficiently to gain some political advantage. [link added]



It is beyond disgusting that Demegalomaniac Party misleaders are making every effort to undermine the ability of our nation's sworn defenders to win for us a complete and final victory in this war, simply because those misleaders wish to see America turned into a hell in which they can rule rather than a heaven they must serve. It's beyond disturbing. It is, plainly put, being anti-America. And being anti-America, as talk show host and Texas Senate candidate Dan Patrick recently emphasized, is not being patriotic.

The only thing that can possibly be worse is failing to call it treason and the traitorous traitors who commit it the terrorist enablers, aiders, comforters, and abetters that they are. It is more unpatriotic to watch, read, and hear self-absorbed, power-obsessed liberals dangerously and recklessly promoting terrorism for so extremely selfish an end, and not call them on it.

I might say that his policies have not made America any saffer since, by invading Iraq, we have not been able to concentrate on other terrorism groups such as Hezbelloh and Islamic Jihad.


Although, by invading Iraq, there are no more $25,000 checks from Saddam paid to the order of families of Hezbelloh and Islamic Jihad murder-suicide bombers for attacking civilians. The same groups whose attacks have also claimed the lives of American citizens. Nor are anymore UN Bribes for Blindeyes Program® moneys being diverted into that checking account (Daily Alert).
Act of War
LU Post Within A Post
Long, long time ago in a LLLalaland far, far away...
AP: Denmark's intelligence agency behind assassination attempt of BiIsIs Qlinton
 

"The people who are saying this constitutes an act of war aren't very edumacated," says President Bush....


D
J Drummond's post about war planning, at Stolen Thunder, is a very useful survey of Qlinton-era threat projections presented to or by the several branches of our Armed Forces. In it the author contends that a state's egregious violations of international norms, such as attempted assassinations of other states' former presidents, "certainly meet the standard as acts of war." However, according to an all-knowing, moronically endowed, expert military and dating strategist at the Stick A Fork in It Times, "they tried to kill my daddy" doesn't at all constitute an act of war when that daddy happens to be a Republican former President of the United States of America. Which likely explains al-Qlinton's woefully inept response to one such assassination attempt that actually occurred — the one plotted and staged by the Iraqi Intelligence Service against George H.W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait on April 14, 1993.

How firmly would the Left hold this view if a Middle Eastern dictatorship, the Danes, or any other government tried to kill "their" pwezuhdint?

Also, by invading Iraq, that country is no longer officially listed as a state sponsor of terrorism and assassination plots (see right subpost). Finally, since invading Iraq, the number of Israeli civilians injured or killed in terrorist attacks by Hezbelloh and Islamic Jihad have plummeted. Knowing that al-Qaeda has had to divert men cowards and resources to Iraq, both of which we're capturing there in great numbers, thus weakening the international terrorist network even more, one has to wonder: What would all these ruthless ROP(MA) killers — those Left-touted "freedom fighters," "minutemen," or, as the Demoqrat-chaired Center for Strategic and International Studies calls them, "foreign volunteers", each loyal to the "dissident" bin Laden — be doing now if they weren't going to Iraq? Vacationing in San Francisco White Flagcisco or Jersey City?

The argument, prediction, even hope that invading Iraq would make us less safe or divert us from fighting islamofascism is not only as old as Operation Iraqi Freedom itself, but unsupported by actual events. Just a few highlights of our capturing terrorists and weakening al-Qaeda in Iraq include: 200 foreign "fighters" captured and the al-Qaida "Emir" of Husaybah killed; Iranian intelligence officers and their explosives captured; an al-Qaeda-in-Iraq leader and two suspected terrorists captured, and a terrorist sanctuary, weapons and equipment destroyed near Al Asad; eight suspected terrorists and their roadside-bomb material seized during Operation Sword; top al-Qaida leader Hasan "The Gatekeeper" Guhl and Ansar al Islam's second-in-command Husam "Firas" al Yemeni captured; four terrorists killed and four others captured during raid on al-Qaeda safe raided near Ramadi; al-Qaeda in Iraq affiliate Jaysh al-Mujahideen's recruiter and IED-cells leader Ahmad Ni'mah Khudayyir Abbas (aka Abu Shihab) captured; and Zitqoward's Baghdad operations chief Salah Salman Idaaj Matar al-Luhaybi (aka Abu Sayf), his military adviser Inad Mohammed al-Qais, and his lieutenant Ali Hamad Ardani Yasin al-Isawi captured. During these "distractions," we captured al-Qaeda's top strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri) and killed the head of al-Qaeda in Pakistan, Hamza Rabia, and the Russians killed Al-Qaida's commander in Chechnya, Abu Omar al-Saif. Our Armed Forces also captured, in Iraq, Palestine Liberation Front leader Mohammed Abbas, who cold-bloodedly murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, in 1985 after hijacking the cruise ship Achille Lauro, and who died of natural causes shortly after his capture. Moreover, at the same time Turncoat al-Qennedy was accusing our own government of giving al-Qaeda "free reign" to nuke us, coalition forces killed Daniel Pearl's beheader Amjad Hussain Farooqi, a notable member of al-Qaida. Far from being a diversion, Iraq has been the central battleground in this World War.

After our Armed Forces toppled the tyrannical Taliban regime that was harboring al-Qaeda's leaders in Afghanistan, many of them fled to Iraq and were harbored by Sickdam. Zitqoward himself, the head of "Al'Qieda in Iraq" (who'd still be Alive-n-Kickin' today if it were up to DeNoStomachRats but who's now Dead-n-Gone because Republicans stayed the course) was welcomed with open arms by Iraq's dictator and allowed to receive medical treatment there nearly a year before we finally went in and toppled that tyrannical regime too. Had we not done so, much of the al-Qaeda network would be ensconced in that same despot's embrace, free to come and go as they pleased while planning and building up resources for more attacks outside Iraq. The King of Jordan says Saddam refused to extradite Zitqoward, while Iraqi's premier claims a direct connection between the two. Under this cozy arrangement al-Qaeda would've had, at the very least, a base from which to launch major strikes against our forces back in Afghanistan; or, at most, one where they may work in peace toward finishing the job of destroying our nation's Capitol and Pentagon buildings.

Had we not invaded Iraq, the alternative — our continuing, continuous attempts to contain Saddam — would also now mean trying to contain those al-Qaeda arrivals enjoying his protection. Although Gorebot may characterize twelve years of utter failure a "long successful strategy," feeling we just should've continued it in perpetuity, he pointedly fails to address the additional, even more difficult containment of such shadowy enemies who wear no uniforms, primarily target civilians, and subsist solely on the aid and comfort of totalitarian regimes and useful idiots. Bill Roggio ably sums ups its futility:

While the strategy of containment was useful in defeating the Soviet Union, it is useless in defeating a network of terror cells covertly supported by nations such as Iran and Syria. Underground networks of terror organizations cannot be contained, especially in the age of globalization. We cannot countenance the regimes that support terrorists, either passively or actively, as they are providing succor to our enemy. It is the very reason why we must go on the offense against terror organizations and the nations that support them. Playing defense will not win this war.


Unless we provoke these subhumans who're too cowardly to come out and face us directly, we'll never find them, much less contain them. On the other hand, trying to live with that terrorist threat, as many prominent Demohead-in-sandgnats propose, feeling it can somehow revert itself into being just "a nuisance," will do nothing but get many more of us killed. Only by striking at the heart and root of the terrorists' support — the islamofascist regimes and dictatorships backing their attacks on us — will we have any chance of defeating them totally and forever.

So far, the most terrorists have been able to do is sneak around and kill about 2,800 of our country's brave defenders in the span of 1,320 days or about 2,800 of her defenseless citizens in the span of 132 minutes. Had the al-Qaeda network and its followers been able to maintain during those 1,320 days their connections with Iraq's former dictatorship, building on ones that began forming before 1998 and were well known at the time by the al-Qlinton Maladministration and its transcript service, the Two-Forked Tongues, they would now be in a position to do much more. At least President Bush's administration decided to completely put to rest all hope of any further connections, as well as all the ineffectual, do-nothing policies of al-Qlinton's:

A few months after al-Qaeda's August 7, 1998, sneak attack on our country's embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, then-assistant U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald convinced a federal grand jury in New York to indict the terrorist organization's leaders and members for that act of war. Mr. Fitzgerald also unsealed his pre-attack indictment, which says "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." As the Tongues reported on November 5, 1998 (The Hull Thread),

A federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment [full text, Limburg Letter] Wednesday charging the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden with conspiring to bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August and with committing acts of terrorism against Americans abroad.

Prosecutors also unsealed an earlier indictment, issued in June, that included similar but less detailed charges against bin Laden. That indictment was returned before the embassy bombings and was the result of a two-year investigation into his activities in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, as well as reports that he had connections to a circle of Islamic militants in Brooklyn. The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accused bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he was said to be working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan, Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups, to build weapons and attack American military installations.... Both indictments offer new information about bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country.



Mr. Fitzgerald explained in his testimony before the 9+1 Against Bush Commission, that he included the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda in his May 1998 indictment because

We did understand from people, including [Jamal Ahmed] al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the [2001] trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi [Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. "Abu Hajer al Iraqi"), "one of bin Laden's closest friends" who was captured in Germany in September 1998 and extradited to the U.S., where he stabbed one of our brave correctional guards in the eye and another in the body during an attempted prison break], tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there — which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96 or spring '96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons.

Clearly, al Qaeda worked with the Sudan in getting those weapons in the national defense force there and the intelligence service. There were indications that al-Fadl had heard from others that Iran was involved. And they also had heard that Iraq was involved.

The clearest account from al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that.

We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of al Qaeda.

We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together.

That's my piece of what I know. I don't represent to know everything else, so I can't tell you, well, what we've learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.



Chemical weapons are just some of the things on which al-Qaeda and Iraq's despotic regime were "working with each other." Again, quoting the Tongues:

The United States has obtained new evidence to link the owner of a Sudanese factory destroyed in a U.S. cruise missile strike last month to a terrorist group backed by Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The evidence, the officials said last week, shows that Salih Idris, the owner of Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, has had financial dealings with members of Islamic Jihad, an Egypt-based group responsible for the assassination there of President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Islamic Jihad, in turn, receives money and sponsorship from bin Laden and has been absorbed into his terror network, the officials added.

This evidence was uncovered after the United States destroyed Idris' factory in a missile attack following the bombing of the U.S. embassies, the officials said.

A spokesman for Idris denied the accusations, saying Idris had no ties either to bin Laden or to any Islamic terrorist groups. In a statement provided by Tim Pendry, his London-based adviser, Idris said: "I have absolutely no relationship with any Islamic terrorist organization anywhere in the world. I have never met Mr. bin Laden, I have never spoken with him, I have never had any financial or business relationship with him, nor knowingly with anyone acting as his agent."

U.S. officials say they have also received new reports of an increase in the Iraqi presence in Sudan since the missile attack. Officials said they were not certain what the Iraqis were now doing in Khartoum.

But intelligence agents previously obtained evidence that the manager of the Shifa plant made frequent trips to Iraq, where he visited the head of the chemical weapons program.

In addition, a soil sample that the CIA clandestinely took at the Shifa plant showed the presence of a chemical [Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid, or EMPTA] used in the production of VX nerve gas, a process used only by Iraq.



Either at least one of Saddam's WMD-outsourcing facilities in Sudan had financial dealings with al-Qaeda's Islamic Jihad, or it was all a perfectly innocent coincidence. EMPTA could be used in pesticides, which is why it was found at a pharmaceutical plant, because everyone knows that insects are attracted to aspirins, or that the Sudanese believe Bayers® laced with VX work better on their headaches, take your pick. About all those Iraqis running around Khartoum, now that simply was a quite understandable mix-up by the Uday & Qusay Travel Agency: they actually meant to book their clients for vacations in Cancun (pronounced "Kan-Koon"). Not their fault those cities' names sound alike, especially within the noisy environment of a mad despot's office (24/7 wood chippers, screaming, pleas for mercy, etc.). So much for bandstander Richard Clarke's statement to the press that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Speaking of coincidences, two years ago the Daily Telegraph said it found among the rubble of the Iraqi intelligence service's bombed out headquarters, documents showing "Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, arranged to meet 'Bin Laden's envoy' in Baghdad in order to establish permanent channels of communications between the terrorist and the totalitarian dictatorship." But everyone knows either the CIA planted those documents there because it knew the Telegraph's reporters would be scrounging through that very exact same pile of rubble then, or the invitation was RSVP'd back with "Sorry, we cannot attend because we're all washing our beards this week — xxx ooo, U.B.L."

Everyone also knows what the chairman and vice chairman of the 9+1 Against Bush Commission said, too. From the transcript:

THOMAS H. KEAN, COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. At one point, there was thought maybe even Al Qaeda would find sanctuary in Iraq. And there were conversations that went on over a number of years, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessfully.

While we don't know about weapons collaboration, particularly chemical collaboration, there was a suspicion in the Clinton administration that when they fired that bomb at that factory, that if, in fact, there were chemicals there, they may have come from Iraq.

So there was a relationship.

Having said that, we have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11. That just doesn't exist.

So I think we are very careful in our wording in using that word "collaborative relationship." I mean, that's what we found. It's language that's evidence-based.



LEE H. HAMILTON, COMMISSION VICE CHAIRMAN: In further response, I think [feel] there's a very large distinction between evidence of conversations that might have occurred between Iraq and Al Qaeda, on the one hand, and an emerging strategy or emerging assistance — concrete — on the other.

And what we do not have, as the chairman said, is any evidence of a concrete collaborative operational agreement. Conversations, yes, but nothing concrete.



That is, liberals feel there's a very large distinction between "material evidence" and "linguistic evidence," as if repeated conversations and invitations and meetings and messages of cooperation between people aren't ever proof of their collaborating with each other. (Remember this one next time they bring up Halliburton.) Nothing short of a whole government building in Baghdad with neon signs blazing "Ministry of Al-Qaeda Joint Operations" will have any hope of convincing them that the two madmen with whom our country is and was still at war — bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, respectively — did work together in ways that were aimed at defeating their common enemy. Namely, us.

Of course, when it was Madam al-Bright — a Dhimm al-Qrat — running our nation's state department, liberals had no trouble accepting such evidence of Iraq's direct ties to international terrorist groups:

Iraq provides safehaven to terrorist and rejectionist groups and continues its efforts to rebuild its intelligence network, which it used previously to support international terrorism. The leader of the Abu Nidal organization may have relocated to Baghdad in late 1998.


Where is the scoffing NewSpeak article saying those claims were "hyped" or "overstated"?

Let's recap. Soddom's highest officers met and worked on numerous occasions with our enemy, including Dim Lobbin's deputy. The 9+1 Against Bush Commission acknowledges there were real ties between him and our enemy — links confirmed by W. B.J. al-Qlinton years earlier. Soddom's regime helped train our enemy to fight us. He harbored our enemy, including taking him into protective custody. If our meandrous Rush To War™ hadn't taken over a year — well, twelve years actually — Osama Bin Laden's lieutenant Aboob Zitcoward, with the Sickdamn regime's full cooperation and blessing, wouldn't have had time to make and finalize plans to deploy his MooreOn Minutemassmurderers against our Troops as well as Iraqi citizens once that regime hosting him fell. Liberals and other members of the alternate-reality based community still have their heads in the sand and firmly up their Arafats and pretend those ties don't exist or matter.

In a way, even after trying to be in the way of doing anything effective about it, the broken-clock Surrendercrats are right. Sickdam's ties with terrorists don't matter anymore because they no longer exist and, more importantly, never will again. This doesn't stop these "progressives" from constantly looking backwards, however. All their blaming and complaining is not helping anyone, including themselves. Now that our country has moved on to tackle the next real threats to us in this World War, progerals are still stuck firmly in the past.

In that same regressive spirit of theirs, let's examine some of the more infamous parts of a past they primarily shaped, before moving on. Not the least of which are their Lovable Rogue™ al-Qlintoon's repeated, miserable failures to even try to slow down, much less stop, the rise in terrorist threats and attacks against our country. Mansoor Ijaz, who "negotiated Sudan's offer of counterterrorism assistance on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to the Clinton administration in 1997," also condemns these failures:

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with [al-Q]linton and Berger [aka Sandy Burglar] then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.


Not ever finding bin Laden was bad enough. Not adequately warning the incoming Bush Administration about him was worse. According to the Washspinton Toast, in its article "Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report" (Command Post),

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

The scarce references to bin Laden and his terror network undercut claims by former White House terrorism analyst Richard A. Clarke [aka The Ba– Grandstander®] that the Clinton administration considered al Qaeda an "urgent" threat, while President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, "ignored" it.



The one ignoring bin Laden and his threats was former Diddler-in-Chief BiIsIs Interncourse al-Qrookton. Just as he effectively ignored threats by bin Laden's pen pal Saddam — perhaps feeling "because he could" do such a thing too.

This headline from 1998 says it all: Any Ban on Inspectors Is a 'Clear and Serious Violation,' Clinton Says : U.S. Reacts Quickly to Threat by Saddam. Former President Ostrich had no trouble talking tough. When it came time to back up that tough talk with tough action, he and his fellow Tough-talkers In Name Only failed miserably. Five days after that headline appeared, Iraq's UN ambassador Hizar Hamdoun appeared on Fox News Sunday and "just about admitted that Iraq tested chemical and bio weapons on animals." Weapons his country wasn't supposed to have, much less testing out on animals or anything else. The lack of uproar from PETA is strange enough. The lack of it and any other meaningful response from the head of the Qlintsand Absconderation crosses into the realm of flagrant, serious dereliction of duty. What was its so-called quick reaction to this latest threat by Saddam, then? The answer is effectively nothing. For almost a year, President Qaptain Queegton twiddled his balls in his hand and demanded that Saddam reveal where he hid the toxic strawberries. Saddam, of course, refused. Queegton threatened to rattle stroke his saber. Saddam still refused. Old Yellow-stain then asked Ensign Kofi 'Tarding to negotiate a settlement with Saddam under which the dictator (Saddam, not the other two) would produce a duplicate key for each cargo hold containing those strawberries. Not only did Saddam obnoxiously refuse, he sent both the qaptain and his ensign packing. Queegton chewed his lower lip a bit before tossing his twiddle ball at Saddam. The result? More nothing. Except Saddam became even more obnoxious, surprising everyone who simply felt that was impossible.

"Sure, nothing was done about those threats," liberats are quick to rejoin. "Bububububububut™ that's because our Loveable Rogue Rapist was being distracted by the Repugs' icky obsession over Mistress Monica." This alleged retort might hold even a small fraction of the water that Bill Maher claims The Hilldabeast does, were it not for the fact OYS's successor has consistently and successfully reduced the same threats to our country in the face of much more continuous and harassing distractions.

Indeed, no sooner does everyone with animate neurons solidly weld shut one of the Defalseaccuserats' many unhinged, Bushhating –gates than the MSMDNCabal begins desperately fabricating new ones.
In other countries the press has long taken notice of Bushhaters Inc. and their perniciousness, even if any American voters not living in caves haven't yet like Dismalrats wish, as the opening paragraph of a regular column written two years ago in Zaman, one of Turkey's top five national daily newspapers with an average circulation of 500,000, shows:
“You are dead wrong if you think that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are the only ones on the earth who'd love to get rid of Bush. The American president's foes at home are not in any way less than the foreign ones.”
As noted earlier, first it was Bushknewpeopleflew!™gate which was based on vague indications that bin Laden wanted to hold airline passengers hostage until his demands for release of some imprisoned terrorists were met — hardly the smoking gun that Deludedrats falsely claim indicated he wanted to use teams of illegal aliens to slit their pilots' throats and nosedive them all into several of our landmark buildings. After this one rusted away, DeMSMocrats concocted Bushliedpeopledied!™gate which took swings at the very same intelligence reports and assessments al-Qerry, al-Qennedy, al-Qlinton et al. had access to and on which they're now basing all their absurd "We actually did believe those reports were truthful before we believed they were nothing but lies" statements. Next out the gate, hot on the heels of a New York Terrorist Tipoff Times report, was Bushspiedpeoplecried!™gate by which Derangedrats would have you believe that communicating with bloodthirsty terrorists is the fundamental right of every American and should be afforded absolute privacy, despite what our courts have said on this very same matter. (Not since Time magazine's OBL Intelligence Service's 1996 "Home Away From Home: The Taliban Allow a Top 'Sponsor' of Terrorism to Stay In Afghanistan" — the revelation about bin Laden's satellite phone use, published two years before Washington Times ever "broke" this news — have islamofascists received more extremely valuable counterintelligence and tactical assistance.) While the dust settles on such gates there still remain the exit (stage left) strategy and (make us all) dead-line overwhelmingly demanded by both Desurrenderats and terrorists, all meant to undercut a war effort that's been really harshing those buzzsaws they've been using to craft planks off which they're hoping they can force our president — the person they feel most stands in the way of their natural entitlement to rule over everyone else — to walk. In their fog Decut-n-runnerats resort to either non sequitur pre-WWIV quotes or shaky policy-polling data to justify their calls for full-scale retreat. Regarding that latter refuge of scoundrels, Mystery Pollster's Mark Blumenthal explains that

when it comes to prospective policy on Iraq, polls are inconsistent[,] consensus is elusive....

When pollsters move beyond general ratings to more specific questions about policy — as we do in almost every public political poll — we move to shakier ground. Here Americans often lack preexisting attitudes, yet most will work to answer our questions, often forming opinions on the spot based on the text of the question. When that happens, responses can be very erratic and contradictory across polls. Very small variations in wording, the number of answer choices offered or the order of the questions can result in big and often surprising differences in the results.



Yet even with all these war saboteurs on the loose, President Bush continues to lead by freeing oppressed peoples and keeping our nation safe. "Principled leaders," Katherine Harris says in her book Center of the Storm: Practicing Principled Leadership in Times of Crisis, "do not allow partisan name-calling and finger-pointing to distract them from pursuing solutions."

The Bush administration is pursuing solutions. Dementiacrats are still pursuing only ostrich strategies. (His Imperial Rottiness)

Only content with bushbashing our present war policy, never with thinking feeling out an alternative of their own, the Donothingrats have in reality made themselves irrelevant with regard to any "serious debate" on such policy. Granted it's not difficult to understand why this is so, given the way President Bush's policy has been surpassing all expectations for success: a vanquished mass-murdering dictatorship with its tyrannical leaders now on trial; thousands upon thousands of dead and captured mass-murdering islamonazis, including their highest operational leaders; three consecutive open and free elections, with an overwhelming majority of eligible Iraqi voters participating in each, all leading to a democratically ratified national constitution and a fully formed parliamentary government. Of course, the only ones decrying this very real progress are Dewetblankierats, fwance's United Weasels, and mass-murdering terrorists. Al-Qaida in Iraq's leaders themselves recognize, within their internal "broad policy guidelines," that theirs is a "bleak situation" in which "time is beginning to be of service to the US forces by allowing them to form and bolster the National Guard, undertake big arrest operations, carry out a media campaign weakening the resistance's influence and presenting it as harmful to the people, and create a division among its ranks." In other words, our staying the course is what islamofascists, and not so consequently the Deusefulidiorats, fear and want to stop most.

Doublespeakerats are grotesquely mistaken if they feel they can win the hearts and minds of the U.S. electorate by merely disagreeing with our policy. Their stubborn refusal to offer any alternative besides "we're doomed, we must retreat now!" — coupled with their sniveling retreats behind that childish taunt of "but we're not in charge so we don't have to offer anything, nah-nanah-nah-nah!" — display such a blundering shiftlessness and arrogance that no voter, outside DemoorOn.engorged ones, would ever consider them hirable as servants entrusted to dig anyone's most shallow private ditch, much less fill any of our highest public positions, without undergoing a massive series of full-scale lobotomies or intense brainwashing. Once more Ditchdiggerats prove themselves the right ones at the right place at the right time to always lead a leap of lemmings. Never a nation of liberty-loving, free-thinking individuals.

It's another inescapable fact that Dedeployerats have dug themselves into an extremely deep hole in matters of national security and foreign policy. It's grotesquely apparent, too, how much Droptheballerats, always ones for living so obstinately in the past anyway and never moving on (except when it comes to our nation being attacked or under threat of attack), are recklessly trying to Take America Back to Vietnam™ because they feel it's the only opportunity they have left to recreate widespread conditions of bottomless misery, disillusion, defeatism, and despair so they look, by comparison, not half bad — that nothing else offers them a better chance to scare us, like they did back then, into handing them over all our valuable governmental powers. Defederalistic Party leaders say they feel that WWIV is "Mr. Madison's War Mr. Bush's War" — a most horrible thing to feel when our Troops are fighting and dying in battles against a common enemy. The best response to Doomsayerats in terms of our country's freedoms and safety is to hand them shovels, pick axes, backhoes, and whole drilling platforms so they'll never feel it's time to stop digging before making it all the way to their party comrades in China.

In the meantime, we're not allowing terrorists to choose the battlefield anymore (e.g., our home soil). We're forcing them to come out and converge where we can best defeat them all in a matter of years, rather than just some here and some there in widely scattered, piecemeal engagements that go on and on for decades as they keep regrouping and regrouping for more attacks against us whenever and wherever they choose. President Bush isn't going to change his mind about our nation's need to fight and defeat islamomass-murderers on their own soil either, no matter how much the demostream mediacrats try to beat him up. He will prosecute this World War. He will prosecute it to win. He knows the longer the war continues the less liberties we risk having at the end of it. So he will work to bring about a lasting and successful end to it as quickly as circumstances allow. Demobstructorats aren't going to slow him down. They aren't going to slow the progress our country keeps making toward total victory over the forces of tyranny and destruction which threaten all freedom-loving peoples. This victory will happen despite their concentrated attempts to create numerous political skirmishes at home in order to forcibly divert President Bush and his advisors from the far more consequential battles our country must not only fight but win overseas.

But Degocentricrats can, if they weren't so self-absorbed and obsessed with their say/do-anything efforts to "take back" power, help speed up that lasting and successful end to the World War by redeploying their anti-Bush forces back under the rock they'd crawled out from, ensuring we once again "unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with one voice to those who would divide and conquer us and the free world," while coming across as heroes in the eyes of most Americans and no longer as a valuable source of aid and comfort in the eyes of our enemy. Neither the American people nor their enemy, then, would have to wonder whose side Dewafflerats are on. Considering how far out of touch Demuckorats are from reality, from Abjohn al-Murtha's over-the-horizon over-the-rainbow Okinawa Strategy to "leaders" Screed & Stoopidsi's drop-the-course Ostrich Strategy —

Misleader Screed: "The president's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major midcourse corrections. Staying the course ... is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all [sic] seek."

Misleader Stoopidsi: "The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments."



it's a given that Demoquitterats won't in this space-time continuum ever do any such selfless thing.

Demobleakerats can't even move on past bearing false witness against our wartime president with their baseless accusations that he "lied" and "misled everyone" about Iraq's terror-assistance and WMD programs.
R. Miniter
In reality, their constant lalalala-I-can't-hear-you meme of "Saddam was never a threat to us" couldn't be further from the truth. Among the direct threats facing us and our allies before we invaded and toppled Iraq's tyrannical regime — all meticulously documented by that regime itself — are: Sickdam's Ali Unit Military Branch No. 154 compiling in 2001 "the names of people wishing to volunteer for suicide action to liberate Palestine and strike American interests"; his Fedayeen Saddam group's Blessed July operation plan "to stage bombings and assassinations in Iraq and Europe — including London, where 10 people were assigned"; his government providing financial aid to Abu Sayyaf, al-Qaida's Philippines offshoot co-founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law; his son-in-law's taped gloating in 1997 "about lying to U.N. weapons inspectors to hide the extent of Iraq's WMD program"; his own taped discussion with Iraqi scientists in 2000 about "his plans to build a nuclear device" as well as "Iraq's plasma separation program — an advanced uranium-enrichment technique completely missed by U.N. inspectors"; his spies' meeting with bin Laden in 1995 to discuss joint operations, after which Soddom "ordered his aides to 'develop the relationship' with the al-Qaida leader"; and his regime officially preparing, prior to the 2003 invasion, "terrorist acts on the territory of the U.S. and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." Just based on what we, our allies, and even the French knew before we invaded, it would've been the highest crime and misdemeanor imaginable for our president to not act on that knowledge right then and there, in the only way he could to best protect our country and her citizens. It's typical Damnanklebiterats' wishful thinking feeling that if only President Bush had buried his head in the sand like they now wish they had theirs when confronted with these threats, SepticTankdam's toxic thingies and murderous muckers would've gone away all by themselves. Thankfully, our true leaders, refusing to fall into that Demostrichrat sand trap, decided to flush the Butcher of Baghdad out then down the sewerpipe of history.

Indeed, Demextremists are so desperate for us to lose this World War in order to have something really, really big to BlameBush! for, they've gone so far as to willfully and knowingly aid the terrorists' war efforts by undermining ours. From their traitor-stream media's turning over our vital national-security secrets to the islamonazis, all the way up to their misleaders in the "United States" Senate voting in favor of creating effectively a Mexican underground railroad for the latter to cross into and attack our land of freedom, Desperats have made extremely clear whose side they aren't on.

For example, you would think Demoloserals would rejoice at our side finding, before any terrorist did, 500 shells full of deadly chemicals in Iraq — commonly known as Weapons of Mass Destruction Which Saddam Never Declared Nor Was Supposed to Have — thus denying al-Qaeda any chance to use any part of that tidy arsenal of death against any of us.

A Campaign of Liberation

While combat operations began on 17 March 2003, preparations for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM began on 1 March 1991 — the day after the first Gulf War ended. In the broadest context, OIF marks the latest chapter in the continuous US involvement in the Middle East and Southwest Asia theater. America's national security is directly tied to the region's stability and prosperity. As such, the nation has been applying the elements of national power — diplomacy, information, military action, and economics — to reach this elusive goal. From enforcing sanctions and international inspections, to protecting the Kurds and Muslims, to responding to Iraqi violations of the no-fly zones, the military has been a central element of the US policy toward Iraq since the end of DESERT STORM.

"On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Center for Army Lessons Learned. Fort Leavenworth: U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, 2004. Introduction.

n.b. The official policy of the United States government, signed into law by al-Qlinton in 1998, was to remove Saddam from power. Was this an actual promise or just empty words? Which one do you suppose better enhances America's long-term credibility?

Instead, Deathocrats and their ghoulstream media familiars were not only sad that our Armed Forces once more saved an untold number of human lives, but instantly dismissed, as they always do, such a very real threat. Contrary to the Denialrat's lalalala-I-can't-hear-you's, these WMD shells have no handy "use by" dates stamped on them. Enough are still sufficiently potent to together wipe out hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women, and children residing in Sail-Frail Nail Peloopsi's congressional district. However, people not dying is obviously not something Demediaqrats ever feel anyone should cheer.

This explains their irresponsibly strident whining about our presence in Iraq. Demoretreatic Party leaders and its media propagandists feel we never should've gone in there and removed Sickdam's terror-loving regime in the first place. Using Pe-looni leftist logic, they feel if we pull out now, eventually no one will notice we'd ever been there and the terrorists won't have any reason to hate us anymore. (Just like they didn't have any reason to hate us on September 10, 2001 — 'kay, bad example.) Only those in the disconnected-from-reality community could ever believe such would ever happen. Talk about a recruiting tool for terrorists and a loss of our credibility. If we left Iraq high and dry, the terrorists would be able to truthfully tell Iraqis, "See? The American crusaders won't stand by you when you need them most. They'll turn tail and run after loosing only a tenth the number of blessed martyrs our side lost. Their promises are as dry as desert air. They've handed you over to us now. So you're ours whether you like it or not. And you better know your neck won't be connected to anything if you don't." In other words, if you're an American or you support America, then al-Qaeda will stop trying to kill you once one of its disciples has your headless body lying at his feet and your noggin clutched lovingly in his hand. That is, they'll only love us when we're all dead. It's a shame no Demomice misleader is ever heard demanding we all strive to love them back just as much.

Tell a Demoregressive that Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna), the terrorist responsible for killing at least 275 people and injuring 625 others, to whose organization belonged the sugardaddy great-uncle of Flight 93 hijacker-pilot Ziad Jarrah, had been under Hussein's official protection from 1999 until he "killed himself" in August 2002: "Lalalala...." Tell a Demobliviousrat that this terrorist under Hussein's official protection trained Jarrah's leader, Flight 11 hijacker-pilot Mohamed Atta: "Lalalala...!" or "probably fake 'but not accurate.'" Ask a Demignorat regarding Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, "a man who, undeniably, was called from a 1993 World Trade Center bombing safehouse, got a 9/11 hijacker through Malaysian customs, apparently attended a foundational 9/11 gathering, disappeared from sight (as did the hijackers and their co-conspirators) right after the Malaysia meeting, and turns up in Qatar a few days after 9/11 with contact information for the brother Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the 9/11 mastermind) and other terrorists,"

What is the good reason not to be curious about this apparent co-conspirator (whom the CIA once thought important enough to travel to Jordan to interview)?

Why didn't the 9/11 Commission bore into this guy regardless of whether he had Iraqi connections?



and tell him, "It's one thing to say you don't think there's a connection. It's quite another thing to avert your eyes from anything that might suggest one": "LaLaLaLa..!!" Inform a Dhimmilliterat that Abdul Rahman Yasin, mixer of the chemicals used in the 1993 bombing of the former World Trade Center, fled to Iraq (after the al-Qlinton Maladministration let him go) where he received money and housing from Hussein's regime: "La!La!La!La!.!!!" Inform a Demobraindeaderat that Osama bin Laden, before we liberated Iraq, declared, "It is not harmful in such conditions for the Muslims' interests and socialists' interests to come along with each other during the war against the crusade, without changing our faith and our declaration that socialists are infidels": "La!!La!!La!!Laa!!!! Saddam is secular!! Bin Laden is religious!!" as if their hate for each other was so irrevocably consummate they would never, ever cooperate against a common enemy like... uh, now let me see, just who could it be?... oh, I don't know... perhaps, maybe, hmmmm... the Great Satan?! (as Hussein's regime called our government).

Ask any group of people if they can tell whether a Dhimmiqrat leader or an al-Qeada one said,

...uncovered [President Bush's] lies and exposed his motives and brought more calamities to you under his rule.... After the daylight emerged and the biggest liar and his true nature were exposed, your continued presence in Iraq is compound injustice and a great folly. You [US soldiers] are selling your life for the sake of others.... This gang [Bush administration] and their leader do not find anything wrong with lying, war, theft, and robbery if it would serve their personal greed.


When they promptly answer "that Reid guy" or "the one who looks like Lurch" or "Hillary," say "close enough." So close that Bint Laden and Zawahiri could both go on vacation and let Peloopsi et al. fill in for them on Al Jazeera. (Channel's motto: "all al-Qaeda, all al-time.") Once our country commits her sons and daughters to winning a war against all such fascist terrorist enemies, any differences in viewpoint which sound extremely similar to the ones these enemies have with our governing leaders' national defense policies, reflect the very opposite of patriotism.

Al-Qaeda is concentrating on defeating us in Iraq because we're in Iraq. Had we just stayed in Afghanistan it would be concentrating on defeating us there, but with its Sugardaddam still in a position to support such effort. Were we daft enough to follow the Peloseri Plan™ and "redeploy" all 140,000 of our Troops to Okinawa, al-Qaeda would concentrate on defeating us in the Philippines as its new killing field — after sacking the "apostate" government now in Iraq.

Where was al-Qaeda concentrating on defeating us when we weren't in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Thankfully, a vast majority of Americans still remember the correct answer: Right here on our own soil.

But thats just my opinion, this in no way reflects on his patriotism. I'm sure he's just as patriotic as I am, he just has a different viewpoint in his policies for America. Which, as an American, I am allowed to disagree with.


I agree with you. President Bush's policy is that we should do anything and everything it takes to ensure our country wins World War IV. The Left's policy is that we should do nothing except let her not only lose the War, but lose it so miserably, disgracefully, and horribly that President Bush, our Military, conservatism, and everyone and everything else the Left rabidly hates can be prominently displayed under the words "blame" and "failure" in the Dhimm al-Qrats' '06 and '08 campaign commercials.

The Demofailurat Party fully embraces that Big Left Loser policy to its everlasting shame and demise. As our country fights not only a war on al-Qaeda, but a war on all terrorism and all its state sponsors and supporters, DemoLefties have nothing better to do than incessantly screech from the back seat, "Are we there yet?" — folks who, as Franklin D. Roosevelt once put it, "hope to see a structure of peace completely set up immediately, with all the apartments assigned to everybody's satisfaction, with the telephones in, and the plumbing complete — the heating system, and the electric ice boxes all functioning perfectly, all furnished with linen and silver — and with the rent prepaid." That is, when they're not screaming, essentially, "Americans are the terrorists." More than opposing our fighting a truly World War, they oppose us doing everything it takes to achieve total victory over the deadly, oppressive evil-doers who've been waging such all-out war against us for over a decade and a half now. Yet these "anti-war" and anti-victory folks don't seem to be so anti-war when it comes to terrorists lopping off civilians' heads or planting roadside bombs. Where are the "Remember Margaret Hassan" signs, or the ones reading "Beheading Is Wrong" or "Roadside Bombs Kill Civilians" at any of their rallies?

Going around and renouncing genocidal fanatics isn't part of the Despotloverat Party lifestyle, however. That's why when you ask its leaders and groupies, "how many people has Saddam killed?" (as the title of John F. Burns' January 2003 Eew Yuck Slimes article, excerpted below, does) their eyes glaze over more than normal, or they scream "Yeah, but-but-but Bush killed more than Saddam!" To prove once again how wrong and wrong-headed this emotionality-based, America's Always Worse community is, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

[F]igures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people [5% of the population murdered or killed on the Butcher of Baghdad's orders].

Where the comparison seems closest [to Stalin's 20 million multi-decade killing spree] is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers — some of them acknowledged, like Abu Ghraib, and as many more disguised as hotels, sports centers and other innocent-sounding places. It has its overlapping secret-police agencies, and its culture of betrayal, with family members denouncing each other, and offices and factories becoming hives of perfidy.

"Enemies of the state" are eliminated, and their spouses, adult children and even cousins are often tortured and killed along with them.

Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.

The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell — of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 — surely a gross exaggeration — but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.



Another kill tally has Sackeddom responsible for the deaths of nearly two million people during his 23-year reign of terror (i.e., average of 87,000 people every year or about 240 every day). Any way you plastic-shred this, there's no escaping the fact he was much, much worse in any given minute than "Evil BeelzeBush" ever could be in his entire lifetime. Unless, of course, you're a reality-escaping liberal Demofraudulent Party leader.

Thus, as they la la go in their galaxy la la la way, Dhimmincognizant leaders felt they could blissfully ignore how Slaydom, while he was butchering more people on a "bad" day than al-Qaeda wished it could every year, was looking for ways to kill a greater number using much worse weapons. Inside those singularities of insensibility erroneously described as their "minds," Denserats feel they can get away with blithely brushing aside United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector Bill Tierney's statement (QandO, superhawk's comment) that "the Iraqis had no intention of ever cooperating" with any inspection program. Or the CIA's statement with regard to the oh-so-trustworthy, unbribable UN (the same gang in charge of "sealing" Saddam's uranium supplies), that

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 [aka Oood(les of bribes)-for-Foil(ing inspections) Program™] was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.


Or UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix's February 2003 statements about how the miracle needed to prevent the latest series of inspections from transmogrifying into yet another Soddom Delay Tactic™ wasn't forthcoming:

Anyone Up For A Few Years of Hide-n-Seek?
Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Missiles, Schmissiles
Earlier this week, UNMOVIC missile experts met for two days with experts from a number of member states to discuss these items. The experts concluded unanimously that based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the al-Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 kilometers in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq, pursuant to Resolution 687 and the monitoring plan adopted by resolution 715.

Lists, Schmists
As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been, and remains, an important reason why quantities of chemicals had been deemed unaccounted for, the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance.

After De-icing PorkChop® Airlines Flight 666 from Hell...
So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview. Three persons that had previously refused interviews on UNMOVIC's terms subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on the 8th and 9th of February. These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms.

Talk About Quagmire (with Emphases on Interminable)
[T]he monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur .... though not often focused upon, is highly significant and not controversial. It will require monitoring, which is ongoing, that is open-ended, until the Council decides otherwise.


If faced with a choice between Hans Blix running around for years getting more of the runaround from Saddam, and an Iraq free of Saddam, holding free elections, and freely adopting a constitution actually guaranteeing a truly democratic form of government — or, most specifically, between never knowing with absolute certainty whether Saddam still possessed WMDs, and knowing now with absolute certainly that he doesn't possess them and never will — which would yours be?
“This is enough to justify the international military intervention undertaken by the United States and Britain. To accept the alternative — letting Hussein remain in power with his chemical and biological weapons capability — would have been to tolerate a continuing destabilizing arms race in the gulf, including future nuclearization of the region, threats to the world’s energy supplies, leakage of WMD technology and expertise to terrorist networks, systematic sabotage of efforts to create and sustain a process of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the continued terrorizing of the Iraqi people.”
Rolf Ekeus
former Executive Chairman,
United Nations Special Commission on Iraq
(1991-1997)
More important, which one best ensures international peace and security and the safety of the American and Middle Eastern peoples?

A Few More of Their Favorite Ignored Things: It's one thing for the Democorrupt Party, after trying to convince us the Uptighted Ne'erdowells is a reliable international organization which knows what it's doing, to pretend to forget how its statements just before Operation Iraqi Freedom, which warned of nearly a million refugees, up to a half-million civilian injuries, about three million who will face "dire" starvation and "will require therapeutic feeding," and over four million who "will have no access to any functioning primary health care system," had all proved wrong. It's another for them to pretend they Can't Recall® that, even after the last series of inspections to confirm destruction of Hoodwink's Hustler's Hussein's prohibited weapons, 80 tons of deadly mustard gas remained unaccounted for. Another still that they try to make a mole hill out of the mountain of evidence showing that if "Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year" (emphasis added) — an estimate that former chief CIA weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, believes "was actually fairly conservative" (Carol Devine-Molin) — meaning that all members of the Axis of Evil, not just two, would each now have a nuclear weapons capability if the provenly uncontainable SaWMDdam was still in power. So when former Abbill "We Had A Plan!" al-Qlinton and Abjohn "troops R Stoopid! (Yuk-Yuk)" al-Qerry advisor Sandy Burglar steals and destroys some of our nation's most top-secret documents after stuffing them down his pants and socks —

[Human Events:] Do you know what former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger took?

[Former U.S. Attorney General] Ashcroft: Yes. He took the highly vaunted plan that President Clinton was talking about with Chris Wallace [on Fox News]. I think what's very interesting about it is that Clinton said, we left this plan, we left this plan. Well, if it was so obvious, why did Sandy feel he had to steal it?



— and al-QlintonQo.'s Qronies laugh it all off as an "honest mistake," it just adds to the already metaphysical certainty that the Demolaughingstoq Party is only serious about protecting their grabs for power, never about protecting our country's citizenry against a ruthless, war-waging enemy.

Worst thing of all is al-Qlinton, our former president, going up to within spitting distance of the battlefront in Iraq in order to tell a group of Arab students, "I don't agree with what was done" to remove Saddam. That all the fighting and dying our Troops devoted to accomplishing that historically monumental feat in defense of Human Freedom was nothing more than "a big mistake."

This extreme statement by the over-the-top leader of the Demotraitorat Party goes far, far beyond "a different viewpoint in (President Bush's) policies for America" which skulldugger-in-chief al-Qlinton is "allowed to disagree with." It's nothing short of so overtly adhering to our enemies' viewpoint as to give him extremely valuable aid and comfort.

It is treason.

He's joined in his betrayal of us and our country by liberals in total control of that wholly discredited politicomedia disgrace known as the DeMSMocrat Party of the Unbalanced Statists of America.
dis NY
"I [heart] NY even more without the World Trade Center," proclaims another blame-America, al-Qerry-like Demunhingedrat "joker." (photo: Little Green Footballs)
Epitomizing this is the Daily Telegraph Middle East correspondent Toby Harndenfor's May 2004 confrontation with "an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials" who was "disturbed by (his) argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam." (The Command Post and Serenity's Journal)

I'll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no "imminent threat" (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she "known" the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the "evil" George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. "Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.?" Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry's poll numbers. "Well, that's different — that would be Americans," she said, haltingly. "I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist." That's one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn't really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph's chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago.



Mr. Harndenfor observed that the endless stand-ups in front of the cameras for consumption back home, by correspondents invariably ensconced in their fortified, hermetically sealed hotel compounds, are based on no reporting at all. Therefore, don't expect any of these prejudiced "tourists looking through telescopes" to come to the same conclusion that he did:

Whatever we thought about the war before it was launched, it is imperative that the forces of Arab nationalism and Islamism that now threaten to destroy Iraq are defeated. If America fails in Iraq it will be all of us in the West, not just Bush, who will suffer. But those who would be most in peril, of course, would be the Iraqis, who deserve better than to have their country treated as an electoral playground by the American Left or Right.


Years before President Bush came along to finally put the Dhimmiqrats' failed policy of containment in Iraq out of its misery, their DNCNN comrades were betraying us for a few pieces of selfish silver of their own:

Critics said CNN had "traded truth for access".... [Eason] Jordan had made 13 trips over 12 years to lobby Iraqi officials for interviews, and the line between protecting employees and sucking up is blurry — though, he noted, CNN covered Iraq contentiously enough that its reporters were often kicked out. But, as the New Republic's Franklin Foer points out, CNN also called Saddam's re-election with 100% of the vote a "huge show of support" and a "vote of defiance against the United States."


Were you to ask these al-jazeernalists, "If we withdraw before a strong, stable democracy is firmly established in Iraq, how long do you feel it will be before Syrian- and Iranian-backed terrorists MoveOn up and take over the country?" you'd get a blank stare. If you yourself answer "not long at all," you can count on never being invited to Alpha Gore's Benedict Arnold Tinfoil Awards Ceremony. If to the follow-up, "What do feel will be the first thing the terrorists will do once they do take over?" you reply, "free Saddam and reinstall him as Iraq's dictator," you can forget ever winning Teddaquiddick al-Qennedy's Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Hold-Your-Breath Brass, Silver, or Gold Medal. Last question: "With the terrorists in charge, and a Saddam oh so very grateful to them back in power, why wouldn't you feel safer?" If you say, "because we'd be right back where we started from," don't expect to receive as your prize any free tickets to see John Foolin' al-Qerry's next Badmouthing Our Troops Review & Stand-Up Routine.

To a Democlownic Party leader, Treasonstream Media propagandist, or other liberal, all of this is much more than a different viewpoint. It's an alternate reality, fantastically different from the one most human beings inhabit. In that "Magical World Of [Dictators,] Terrorists And Liberals," where the latter effectively do the former's bidding, you have Demoliberat members of the Chicago city council passing a Treason Resolution because they and the rest of Liberaldumb have chosen to tightly close their eyes and pretend there's neither a World War furiously being waged around them nor an enemy doing its level best to horrifically slaughter them all too. When one of our military leaders declares he enjoys wiping out such enemy terrorist scum buckets, you have another liberal pop out to complain that "sends a terrible message to subordinates." Across the Pond, you have liberals complaining of "nightmares" — not about any scary terrorist threat, but about President Bush and the UK Prime Minister conspiring to concoct a terrorist threat to scare everyone.

The most magical part of their world is how much vindictiveness it can contain without initiating a total collapse of all matter throughout the surrounding Parallel Universe into one singularly unfathomable Black Hole of Bile™. Cosmologists have termed this phenomenon the "Demopowergrabic Effect," and for good reason: It's in the liberals' hateful nature to discredit and declare absolutely wrong whatever a nonliberal does, no matter how right, because either they won't receive any fawning praise for it themselves or they don't want to be shown up as the do-nothing, talk-only, useless nobody's they really are, or both. Bringing all others down to their deplorable state helps them look better, they feel. Their one hope is if they bring those others down enough, people might say, "We couldn't do any worse if we gave them power." Make no mistake, that's what it's all about with liberals: Power. It's their sole love, meaning, and purpose. It alone props up their whole worldview. For liberals who only like to look at the pictures, here it is in the most graphic terms:



If they can't bring everyone else down, everyone will still realize they aren't fit to be in charge of a lemonade stand, much less a house of the United State Congress.

It's not a consequence, then, that you have Dhimm al'Qrat chair-maw Hidethesalami Deandong declaring, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." This from someone whose one discernible "conviction" is "I hate the Republicans [including Republicans of color, too, presumably] and everything they stand for." When he bleats that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party," that they "are not very friendly to different kinds of people," he obviously shows no concern for the facts (neither these facts nor these, these, and these). In fact, the "look the same" condemnation nails that of the officials in CodePinko Dean's failed, Soros-endorsed presidential candidacy "for the guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" (unless you count his lone, token "traveling press secretary") as well as his all-white Christian gubernatorial cabinet. Not surprisingly, when he spat on the campaign trail that "Republicans never do anything for people of color," even folks in Dixie were responding, "At least they've done more than you ever have." (That and, "How about unsealing those taxpayer-funded governorship documents you're hiding — now, instead of in the year 2525 2013, okay?") According to HoWASP Dean, "We have to be rough on the Republicans. Republicans don't represent ordinary Americans" — although us ordinary Americans made Republicans the majority in our country's governors' mansions, our states' legislatures, and both houses of our Congress, on top of electing a Republican to our White House. It's clear we ordinary Americans don't want the Deanoqratic Party representing us in any of our public houses.

Nor is it a consequence that right after President Bush issued his National Strategy for Victory in Iraq last year, Dhimmi misleader Nervelessy Peloathesi instantly declared it "warmed-over stew" and an "insult to the intelligence of the American people." This from someone whose idea of "victory" exactly matches that of al-Qeada's: our nation's hurried, complete withdrawal from Iraq to the other side of the world (aka Okinawa). Moreover, Dhimmirat senator Rust Foolsgold — feeling his party could advocate, in effect, our surrender and still claim to be on our side — had wanted such a Cut-N-Run Maneuver completely carried out less than two months from now! We ordinary Americans do realize that Demoquagmirats are working vigorously for a victory in this World War. We just wish it was for one by our side.

Thankfully, President Bush is working for our side's permanent, total victory. This requires crushing forever our foreign enemy's will to fight. Our Troops have been accomplishing just that, just as they were doing so a year ago when Decamperats unilaterally declared we lost and should run away:

Lt. Gen. John Vines, the U.S. tactical commander in Iraq, declined to provide a "body count," but said a series of counterinsurgency sweeps are taking a toll on the enemy.

"What we do see indicators of are the numbers of foreign fighters that are showing up in a variety of venues, and we believe those numbers are significantly less, perhaps is less than half as many as they were in the summer," Gen. Vines said. "We see evidence that we're making considerable progress in that regard."



(Progress that Dhimmowhinerats and their Pessimistream Media had to studiously ignore.)

A U.S. intelligence official said, "A lot of these people should not be called foreign fighters. They should be called 'foreign ordnances' because they blow themselves up. They don't fight."



Indeed, the jihadis are now so desperate they're looking to the Demoretreaterat Party for their salvation on November 7.

Because of all the progress we've made and are making in Iraq, Demojoqerats are far more desperate for us to bug out before there's so much progress not even their media pals will be able to get away with trying to bury every story about it. They fear less any terrorist attack on our own soil, than even the idea that President Bush would receive favorable ratings for a war that's never sunk into anything like the Vietquagnamire they'd hoped. Despite our progress, the very last thing they'll ever do — right after feeling they've no choice but to report it — is attribute that progress primarily to the actions and decisions of the Bush Administration. In fact, the DNCteam Media would diligently dig for any dirt, either real or speculative, to sling atop such attribution. For example, this president could walk to Iraq — walk on water, all the way across the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, then trod through the desert to Baghdad — could, once he got there, pull out and wave a magic wand and make every terrorist everywhere in the world all disappear forever, could scoop up our Troops and carry all 140,000 plus of them riding piggyback on his shoulders all the way back home, could afterwards return to the White House and declare the entire world totally safe and free from any and all future terrorism, and Dhimmediaqrats and other liberals would still find things to blame him for — e.g., he didn't get permission from Congress, France, or the UN to use his wand; he almost slipped on a wave near Crete; a Soldier felt uncomfortable having to ride on his commander-in-chief's back; he didn't give the terrorists a fair trial before consigning them all to oblivion — something, anything they feel would make "Bushie McChimp" look bad, dumb, or decietful.

Although we may be used to that, our justifiable anger at the DeMSMoqratic Party's unwarranted, arrogant elitism and unfair, naked power-grabbing abuses propelling it and its dirt only increases. Ordinary Americans have every good reason to say this election and in all those that follow, "Forget those drapes, Naggy Peloseri. It's curtains for your and your party's plans to rule us."

3. Last but not least. Disagreeing with President Bush or calling his policies or how they were forumlated into question DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE US MILITARY. This I think is the most sickening of all. Our military should not be used as an emotional chess piece in forcing to help form people's opinions. Its like saying that if you don't believe in George Bush's policies than you are undermining American farmers. Huh??? Exactly my point.



"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."
Howard Dean, Chairman
Democratic Party of the United States al-Qaeda Network
December 5, 2005

No. I don't see how that could undermine our Military at all. Won't affect their morale one bit. Nosiree.

One can try to parse and spin and contextualize this statement until it looks and feels like a soggy pretzel. But it still won't take away the fact that the chair"man" of one of America's former national political parties doesn't believe our country will win this World War. No wonder he's saying, "We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops' back" — "and put white flags in their hands," Doc Scream forgot to add.

Surrender. That's what it is. That's exactly how our enemy is seeing it. That's how our Troops would see it. An irrevocable disaster for our nation's security would be its inescapable consequence.

Deanoqrats would rather we concentrate on hunkering down with a quick reaction panic force in Kuwait or Okinawa, than staying in Iraq, building trust among the local population (which directly leads to timely tips and assistance from them), training by example in joint operations, and otherwise proving our full and unqualified commitment to our newest, most critical ally in such a vast theater of this World War. Or they rather we obsequiously follow some form of Powell Doctrine — the use of overwhelming force, which only works when you're fighting a uniform wearing, head-of-state-orders taking, name-rank-and-serial-number giving, real military that engages you on the battlefield, but which is manifestly useless against baby targeting, women killing, civilian bombing, head chopping, real cowards who hide in sewers or shadows, wear suicide belts or drive car bombs, or wait in line to board and hijack planes — than treating our Iraqi ally as the truly cooperative friend it is to us in the War, instead of imposing ourselves on its populace with excessive numbers of Troops as if they were our occupied foes. Plus they conveniently fail to recall that our Military was in and around Iraq for twelve years before the 2003 offensive, attempting at great cost to enforce the sanctions and no-fly restrictions — that we'd still be there doing the same thing indefinitely absent that offensive — and fail to ask themselves, "What's the exit strategy for that?" Nor do they ever seem to recall that the last administration concluded the threat Saddead-man-walkin' posed to the region and to our interests there would always exist as long as he remained in power; or, in Abbill Mujeff al-Zarqlinton's own words (emphases supplied):

Their mission [US/UK Armed Forces' "unilateral" air strikes against Iraqi military targets in December 1998] is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. ... I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. ... The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.


Further, any time Demoblamerats bring up our president's policies or how they were formulated, it's always "Bush Lied!" or "Bush Failed!" or "Bush Misled!" or "Bush's Incompetence!" or "Bush's Broken Policy!" or "Bush Betrayed This Country! He Played on Our Fears!" These contain no question mark. Neither are those the words of extremist wackos marginalized by the BiasStream Media. From first to last, they're the non-interrogatory, loose accusations of a disloyal and totally selfish political party's topmost leaders, all given extraordinary airtime and print space by that same media. They're words that offer nothing but division and worse, since such "questioning" in the middle of a World War and two or more years after the decision to finally effect our official, long-standing national policy of regime change, sounds more like interminably second guessing the administration than anything constructive — things that will be destructive:

As to the rest, let me sum it up as follows — I would be willing to take the Democrats infinitely more seriously if they were even the slightest bit concerned about the crappy job that Langley has been doing from the Bay of Pigs through to the present day and had some proposals, anything concrete would do, to improve our intel capabilities. They don't, so therefore I won't. This has been re-fighting the run-up to the war from Day One to the Democrats and it is damaging our ability to fix the real problems in the system — and that is going to get people killed.


Bad enough that the "American" Library Association Wing of the DhimmiQarterat Party has practically said it's all right for Fidel al-Qastro to jail librarians for lending out United Nations documents and Hillary's favorite book 1984, but it's wrong for our Federal Bureau of Investigation to find out which reference materials a suspected terrorist is checking out and using to hone his sleeper-cell's plans for attacking us. It's exceedingly worse that the misleaders of that former national party are doing everything they possible can to make sure any terrorist's private reading habits are never scrutinized by our FBI.

From aiding and comforting terrorists inside to outside our borders, Demofleerat Party misleaders remain unconcerned about the one thing they already have been able to redeploy to parts unknown themselves with much more fullness and success: Reality. Especially those portions of it which say, first, we must fight to vanquish our enemy totally and expeditiously, whoever and wherever they are, if we want our country to emerge victorious from this global war; and second, anything at all that effectually slows or obstructs our progress in this regard increasingly means the next generation, or generations, likely will be forced to fight some protracted version of it but with inordinately worse hope of any real victory. If the latter happens it will be those generations who are going to call into question the decisions and actions of our own and everyone in it — "Why were you so blind and selfish? Couldn't you see how your failure to win this war back then would burden us with it too? Did you think we would have a better chance of winning it than you had?" — right before cursing our memory. They won't be marking any one government policy or political party for special or distinct condemnation. We'll all be condemned, and deservedly so.

So when Demogonerat geniuses like Howlin' Dean or Hanoi John (who said of the Iraqi people in late 2004, "they can't have an election right now") offer nothing to us but their Tuck Tail & Run Plan — a plan whose only result would be demoralized Troops and an emboldened enemy — do they seriously think feel our retreating in the face of terrorist aggression and hunkering down in defensive mode waiting for more attacks is going to help make our country safe from terrorism ever?

"I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there. The idea that we're going to win this war is just plain wrong," How'bout Treason said. The history of Iraq — including unprovoked invasion and rape of a neighboring country, firing of deadly SCUD missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia, wholesale slaughter of his own people with weapons of mass destruction and torture, genocide of the Marsh Arabs, continual violations of the cease-fire agreement and United Nations resolutions — is precisely why we had to go in there. It's also why we have to win there now.

Were we to redeploy surrender and retreat from Iraq before completely annihilating the Syrian- and Iranian-backed terrorists who've committed their lives to disrupting and derailing that country's efforts to establish a strong, stable democracy, knowing that if they succeed it would hand the United States her first major defeat of WWIV, the thing we can be most certain of in this reality is that the base in the word al-Qa'ida would thenceforth mean Iraq. Why wouldn't you feel any safer after we've gotten ourselves not only right back where we started, but far worse?

Still, like the last presidential loseral, Dhimmi Dean can't seem to ever make up his "mind."
Insofar as I understand it, [Abjohn Muforbes al-zarQerry is] not calling for a firm 100 percent fixed date of withdrawal.... But Sen. [Q]erry drones that we need to "set benchmarks" for the "transfer of authority."
Actually, the administration's been doing that for two years — setting dates for the return of sovereignty, for electing a national assembly, for approving a constitution, etc., and meeting all of them.
And all during those same two years [Q]erry and his fellow Democrats have huffed that these dates are far too premature, the Iraqis aren't in a position to take over, hold an election, whatever.
The Defeaticrats were against the benchmarks before they were for them.
Mark Steyn
In April 2003, he just as assertively said, "I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win" as far as Iraq is concerned. But — with Dhimms there's always a but — when asked, "Aren't the people of Iraq so much better off now without Saddam Hussein on their back?" the biketrail backpeddler could only come up with this lukewarm idunno response: "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf [Blitzer of CNedNurner]. We still have a country whose city [sic] is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance. We don't know yet, and until we do...." But — see? — when asked then, "You think it's possible... that whatever emerges in Iraq could be worse than what they have for decades under Saddam Hussein?" the future head of the Demobackstabberats yelped, "I do, I do." Speaking of that spindly network, its founder His Lord Duke of al-JaCNN Ted Turncoat himself has been, despite the reality of Iraq's progress from cruel, aggressive, genocidal, totalitarian dictatorship just over three and a half years ago to successfully holding three consecutive, nationwide democratic elections all in the previous year, and regardless the fact that the only ones who're "no better off" in Iraq are Soddom&LateSons' permanently laid-off henchmen and rape-room operators as well as the country's former massgrave-digging industry, just as negative in his aristocratic conclusions about freedom's prospects there and elsewhere, with such positive thoughts feelings that in effect we're the warmongers for fighting back against an enemy who'd sooner lop off his empty head than "survive together" with him, and that our president might think starting a nuclear war — which could "kill everything on the planet" — also "would be a good thing to do." A colleftivist may relish such remarks because they attack a president he doesn't like. But they do not serve our cause, which is to entirely vanquish your, my, and our country's bloodthirsty enemy.

To get the StuckOn.stupid special "argument" of "there were worse regimes elsewhere — why didn't we attack them instead?" out of the way before continuing: Until the persons arguing this can name just one of those regimes, and say it would've been completely all right with them if we'd used a comparable level of force and deployed a comparable number of Troops to oust it as we did against Sodumb's, the only argument they're really making is that we should never attack anyone for any cause whatsoever. We now return to our regularly stucked stoopidity:

Windsofchange.net commenter Mark Buehner's Clueclubbing-O-Death®, delivered to the Mean Dean Meme™ — i.e, "Iraq has not made us safer. To the contrary - witness events of the last 24 hours - it has probably made matters worse." — is singularly potent.

That is impossible to say. Worse, it relies on the assumption that things would remain static had we not attacked Iraq. The thought that the same suicide bombers blowing up Shiite Mosques in Iraq would be sitting home peaceably herding sheep if we never attacked is absurd. Was this butcher [Aboom] Zarqawi intending to sit in northern Iraq forever? These bombs blowing up in Baghdad and Amman would in all likelihood be targetted in Paris and London if not Washington. There can be no question that A[l-]Q[aeda']s resources have been poured into Iraq like water on sand.

If Iraq has proven anything, it is that a network of jihadis has been training throughout the middle east for many years. Many of those are now dead, particularly the most zealous. Recent operations have exacted a fearful toll on AQ middle management if Bill Roggio is to be believed. [links supplied]



In sum, Mr. Scream Dean's idea of deserting our Iraqi allies is a bad one. Leaving them to the mercies of al-Qaeda and its state sponsors Syria and Iran would mean really, really bad news for both their country and ours. Then only our mutual enemies would be "better off."

Worst of all, the steady drumbeat of baseless accusations and negativity isn't helping our military. The effect that it's intended to have on the resolve of Americans to stay in Iraq until our job there is successfully finished, however, is helping the terrorists. They want us out before their greatest fear — an Iraqi democracy — is fully realized. That's exactly what liberals want too.

"We want an exit strategy" may make a great bumper sticker. It's also the lamest possible excuse for not offering any alternative that ensures Iraq's stability when we do exit. (The present and future Spin-it minority misleader Dinky Harry's so-called alternative of Effective Iraq Self-Democrary + Effective Iraq Self-defense = US's Job Done doesn't count since it's nothing short of plagiarizing our president's much longer-standing Victory Policy.) Running a "Wartime Betrayal" ad like the Demobenedict Arnold Party's Congressional Campaign Committee did in July 2005, and otherwise screaming the "war was based upon lies," aren't real alternatives either.

You contend these accusations don't undermine our military? That's a marginalized perception, contends the Worseningspin Post (His Malevolent Monarchicalness; emphases added).

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale — with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.


The morale of members of our Armed Forces is affected negatively by what these media-darling questioners factless accusers are saying — by their solely emotional based accusations that are intentionally meant to plant in all our minds seeds of doubt from which those same accusers hope to harvest our Military's defeat, retreat, and surrender in Iraq. Our servicemen and women are dismayed by it (Ibid.), of which you no doubt would be aware had the No Bias to See Here, MoveOn Along media's "investigative reporters" ever bothered to ask our Troops how they perceive it.

Since liberals are extremely fond of citing anecdotes, I'll include this one:

I served two tours in Iraq. From OIF I to OIF III, I saw progress. However, the media does not like to focus on the positive as that doesn't increase ratings, which translate into revenue. The fact is 85% of Iraq is relatively quiet.

Many servicemen and women feel they fight for the freedoms of seemingly ungrateful countrymen. There is an undercurrent of anti-military feelings. While spitting on returning vets is not in vogue, there are others that harrass recruiters in schools and sneer at those who choose a career in uniform.



The gratitude and appreciation bursting in the heart of this countryman of his for his and his brothers and sisters' and their families' extraordinary service and sacrifices on and in behalf of every American, go beyond mere words. Thank you and your Comrades in Arms for winning the War for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else the enemies of Freedom dared to rear their mutant, murderous heads. That's what we all should be telling each and every one of our Troops.

Except you won't hear even one Dhimmirat big wheel circular-arguer, so invested they are in our country's defeat, ever utter anything even pretending to approach that. Considering what our country's mortal enemies would surely gain by our not winning, this is much more sickening.

The only reasonable "huh?" here, then, is why haven't these particular extremist wackos who're calling themselves "leaders" of a party hell-bent solely on saying and doing anything at all to bring a nation's people down as if that were the only way they could ever gain power to rule over what's left of both her and them, been marginalized by the media as well? Beyond the cranial kind, that alone is the material point anyone could ever make here about the games they're now playing with all our lives.

Since their overt acts of adhering to our enemy, giving him aid and comfort, cannot by any objective legal or common moral standard be mistaken for anything other than treasonous offenses, our country needs to start hauling a couple of these jokers into court then off to jail so any potential traitors will know that we still consider Treason a crime and will prosecute them if they commit it.

This isn't a call for going after any DUMoveOnrats and other liberals who're merely exhibiting their arrogance and a classic case of projection whenever they say, "The surprising dominance of American politics by right-wing politicians whose core beliefs are often wildly at odds with the opinions of the majority of Americans has resulted from the careful building of a coalition of interests that have little in common with each other besides a desire for power devoted to the achievement of a narrow agenda." Being factually wrong and ignorant is not a crime. Anti-religious, arrogant al-jazeernalists who maliciously lie about our priests won't be prosecuted under any treason statute, either. The law's slander and libel provisions are sufficient for punishing that offense. Working to prevent our country from exploring and exploiting proven supplies of oil and natural gas (America's Truth Detector) in time of war may be considered by some an economy-targeting form of treason. However, our constitution is too specific in its definition of that term to merit pursuing criminal cases against tree caribou permafrost huggers. No, such persons should be allowed, even encouraged to display their haughty liberal bigotries and stubborn selfishness for all the world to see.

Neither is it a call for engaging any Deaduckorat or other liberal who isn't committing outright treason in one or more scintillating debates on this or that public policy. There are only so many iterations or combinations of the words bigot, racist, homophobe, fascist, chickenhawk, just like Hitler!, warmonger, biblethumping Jesusfreak, and similar-sounding "arguments" they're able to make before a conservative can say in all honesty, "Yes, I've them all." Which, except in the rarest of cases, usually takes all of about twelve minutes. Hardly enough time to get a debate started, much less conduct a full one. With very few exceptions, Dhimmoonbats are like paleswinians. They only want dialogue after their tails have been handed to them. Going into a debate with someone who knows he's losing would coarsely offend that strong sense of fairness every compassionate conservative has. This accounts, too, for all the liberals' cordial invitations for "dialogue" we'll be politely rejecting after November 7.

Even after ignoring all that, one monumental obstacle to dialogue remains: there's little if any common ground that anyone besides the most imaginative could find between modern Demoliberalic Party positions (e.g., national socialism; unbridled permissiveness and pessimism; allowing no real choice for the voiceless, unborn, and infirmed; unduly accommodating and making excuses for guilty criminals and terrorists; divesting law-abiding citizens of their firearms and full religious expression; diluting marriage, property rights, and other societal pillars; basing decisions on "well-intentioned" feelings; nourishing negative incentives while restraining or destroying positive ones; dividing and conquering people by pitting them against each other along ethnic, cultural, class, or purely melanin lines; promising exclusive or collective rights and otherwise pandering to the most extreme special interests, especially self-appointed "victims groups"; resorting to vacuous emotionalism in all cases where their "ideas" are scrutinized or questioned, as well as to vicious name-calling when normal people giggle at their demands for such nonsensical things as "social and economic justice"; reflex, almost instinctual intolerance of those known or perceived to be nonliberal; harboring feelings of deep resentment towards anyone who's success isn't wholly a direct product of or attributable to hisherother blind or at least extremely ardent adherence to liberalism) and conservative ones (e.g., individual freedom; self-discipline and boundless optimism; protecting innocent human life in all its forms; eliminating real threats; trusting the people's fitness to decide for themselves what is in their best interests; respecting institutions that strengthen us and help make us great; relying on what actually works). In light of how "wildly at odds" each set of positions is with the other, the probability of discovering some overlap transcends even the infinitesimal. Therefore, calling any attempt to close just their smallest gap "a bridge too far" would be a millennial understatement.

Nevertheless, in the end, all the Dhimmiqrats' accusations, complaining, and other sounds and furies over Iraq will be for naught. Iran's mullahs are about to build their first nuclear weapon, at which point we and our allies will find the use of force necessary to eliminate that intolerable threat. Then the Demullahrats will appear with a whole new matter about which to accuse, complain, and commit sundry acts of treason.

Hopefully a few Defeatedrats will decide to join America's side before then. We'll welcome them back to the fight, knowing that this time too our side will win. I think this would be the beginning of a beautiful friendship. As a former Democommierat myself, who, like other former Democomics, used to believe firmly feel that government had all the best answers and could solve every problem better than anyone or anything else, I believe it fitting and proper to let one of us have the last word:

I thought Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist (though at the time I believed in neither Christ nor Antichrist). I thought life was over because he would destroy the world with his insane drive to make America a hegemonic superpower. I thought my professors and my perspective and my truths held the gospel of American politics.

Back then, when I was young and foolish, and vote-or-dying before it became cool to frame it in those terms, my worldview was skewed. I was selfish, hedonistic, and convinced I was right. I was pro-choice because I hadn't developed a mature understanding that there are deeper issues than convenience, and higher purposes than my own desire for autonomy. I was for a nuclear freeze, because I didn't understand patriotism, had never sacrificed a thing for something greater than myself, and didn't believe in the American exceptionalism that drives the best foreign policy. I opposed everything that smacked of political morality, because I didn't believe morality was anything but a matter of personal whim.

And I was wrong.

The liberals think they were defeated because they didn't play the game well enough. They think they didn't get their point across. They think the American people just didn't understand what they were promising.

But the fact is, America did hear them. And America said, "no, thank you."




* Presumably, hits for no-(s)he's-nots (e.g., "Despite the facts, my beloved Teddie Qennedy is not a criminal!!!!!!" or "Only an Idiotarian of the Highest Order® would call President Bush a 'criminal'") are included on both sides, in similarly proportionate amounts.
** Public Law 107-40 (115 Stat. 224-225; S.J.Res.23, sponsored by former Senator Daschole):
One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America;

At the First Session,

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one.



JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.



Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”.

SEC. 2.  
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a)  
In General.– That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b)  
War Powers Resolution Requirements.–
(1)  
Specific statutory authorization.– Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2)  
Applicability of other requirements.– Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Speaker of the House of Representatives.  


 
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.  

Approved September 18, 2001.
  President of the United States of America


Labels:

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

  Monday, November 13, 2006
  Thursday, November 09, 2006
  Wednesday, November 08, 2006
  Tuesday, November 07, 2006
  Sunday, November 05, 2006
  Saturday, November 04, 2006

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





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