Thursday, August 31, 2006


Being stated as a “new slogan” in support of the War on Terror, the above seems more like a simple truth to me. While President Bush used it in his speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City today, speaking to supporters of freedom and liberty around the country will produce the same exact thought.

President Bush stated it as; “We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.”

Some on the left seem to feel it is failing slogan. There seems to be the thought that it is a silly notion. Almost immediately, Senator John Kerry, Failed 2004 Democrat Presidential candidate and anti-war activist from the 70s, was quoted as saying, “America’s veterans and American troops don’t need misleading speeches,” and “Enough with slogans and staged speeches calculated to divide here at home…” I totally disagree.

Recent captures in London and elsewhere shows that the Islamofascist terrorists are actively working towards their stated goal of World Domination. Suicide bombings and slaughter of Iraqis and Afghani’s that support allied efforts at helping build both societies into functioning Democracies shows their desire to dominate.

Attacks within America, twice now, and against our interests in other countries over the past 27 years shows me we are one of their main targets. By the diligent work of our NSA, FBI, CIA and others responsible for intelligence gathering, as well as a lot of pure old-fashioned luck (so far), a repeat of September 11, 2001 has not yet happened. How long will we remain this lucky?

Smaller events throughout the country have happened with perpetrators claiming to be either terrorists or attacking innocents out of revenge for our fighting terrorists or against Jews because they defended themselves. Local authorities have written each off as “non-terrorist related.” Even if on a minor scale, it seems they are still terrorist related to me.

Should we follow the lead of Democratic Party leaders calling for withdrawal, or redeployment as they call it, as we have continually done for the decades under their leadership, the slaughter of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis is assured. Not only that, our “eyes and ears” in these hot spots will very likely be included in that senseless slaughter. Terrorist goals of dominating and destroying Western Culture will not cease one iota. They will be free to operate in the Middle East as they did before, which resulted in planning and training the single worst terrorist act in history in New York a scant 5 years ago.

Back here in America, you can bet restrictions at airports and ports of entry will eventually be relaxed out of our natural complacency. Terrorists will once again be free to roam back and forth, training, planning, and performing dry runs, whatever. Contacts between sleeper cells in our country and the leadership in the Middle East will once again go unnoticed.

I need not state what the next massive attack could be like.

Democrat leaders are wrong. We cannot once again “cut and run” and leave a struggling ally to certain slaughter. In the past, our cowardice, or lack of resolve, if you will, only affected those in the countries we abandoned. This time, it will free the terrorists to transfer their war to our very streets, sidewalks, shopping centers, all over. We need to wake up and stay awake until this newest enemy is neutralized, however long it takes.

Fight them there or fight them here does make a good slogan, just as past wars produced excellent slogans. They were needed to keep our eyes open, keep us awake to the dangers approaching, and teach us we are vulnerable. It is also a very simple truth we need to be reminded of often, apparently.

It is a message America needs to hear over and over again, IF WE DON’T FIGHT THEM THERE, WE WILL FIGHT THEM HERE


Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Pro War? Warmongers?

Those of us who support the War on terror and President Bush have heard these tired axioms over and over. Listening to leftist pantywaists, one would think we love fighting and love seeing wars. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“But,” they will say, “You are supporting the War on Terror, including the war in Iraq.”

Yes we do, but that doesn’t mean we love war. No, that isn’t a contradiction at all.

While we, just like others, don’t care for war, knowing they kill people and innocents always get caught up in them, we see there is a necessity for them at times. This is one of those times.

If you believe this current war started on September 11, 2001, when extremist Muslim Terrorist high jacked 4 commercial airliners and flew three of them into buildings and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, resulting in nearly 3,000 American deaths, you are wrong. They declared war on us long ago and we never responded to their declaration, until right after September 11. Allow me to explain a little;

In 1979, a group of Iranians attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. Embassies are sovereign soil of the nation they represent. An attack on one is an act of war. Shortly after this, American began being attacked and kidnapped in the Middle East. Very little was done.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut, killing 63.
Six months later a large truck filled with over 2500 pounds of TNT crashed through the gate of the Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut killing 241 Marines. We withdrew our troops.
In December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait.
In September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut.
In April 1985, the terrorism spread to Europe with a bomb exploding in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
In August a car bomb is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, Germany, killing two and wounding 20.
The same year, the Achille Lauro cruise ship is hijacked with one disabled American in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghofer, is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
April 1986, Civilian airliners became the target when they bombed TWA Flight 840 in killing 4 and Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.
January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after their rented van explodes prematurely in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.
October 1993, 18 US Servicemembers are killed in Mogadishu, Somalia with some of the dead being drug through the streets.
November 1995 another car bomb explodes at the US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing 7.
June of 1996, a truck bomb explodes 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia destroying the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.
August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are attacked simultaneously, killing 224.
In October 2000 the USS Cole, docked in Yemen, comes under attack from a small boat filled with explosives. 17 die.

Less than a year later, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are hit with High jacked aircraft resulting in the nearly 3,000 deaths mentioned above.

We have continued turning a blind eye to these acts of war or trying to capture and prosecute radicals for crimes. Doing so has progressively resulted in more severe attacks.

After September 11, President Bush, relatively new in office, decided enough was enough and sent our Military after the terrorists. First in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, who nearly the entire world said had large amounts of WMDs and who all feared would turn them over to the terrorists. After a six-month long “rush to war,” we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein. WMDs were not found in the amounts expected leading at least me to believe they were moved elsewhere while we played footsie with the Useless Nations and Democrats in Congress who once again showed their yellow streaks.

Almost immediately, the panty-wasted opposers started protesting and whining about the war. They have spared nothing, even enlisting the aid of misguided woman who had met personally with President Bush after her brave son died in a mission he volunteered for and who now freely dances on his grave, making a mockery of his brave sacrifice. Congressmen and women accuse our brave troops of “cold blooded murder,” and “terrorizing Iraqis in the dead of night.” They demand immediate withdrawal or “redeployment” some 6,000 miles away. Don’t be fooled. It’s the same old “cut and run” they put off on the Vietnamese that resulted in millions of innocents dying in the mid and late ‘70s.

This war we didn’t ask for has been brought to our shores twice now and our interests overseas have been attacked numerous times. More of us than the drive-by leftstream media admit to have opened our eyes finally and see the dangers of just ignoring these radicals bent on world domination. We support fighting back, just like we had to in school with the playground bully. He wouldn’t stop until we knocked him on his ass!

Pro-War? Warmongers? Hardly. We would rather not have to be at war again, but we see there is a real necessity for this one and if we back down again, we leave ourselves open for even more attacks on our soil and against our interests around the globe.

What we really are is pro-liberty, pro-freedom, and pro-justice. We also realize appeasement won’t stop these radicals, so we support their destruction!

Give our brave troops the materials, support and time needed and this latest enemy of freedom will be destroyed and neutralized, just like other despots and oppressors have been throughout history.

Monday, August 28, 2006

One Year Later, Still Blaming Bush for Katrina

On the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we once again see and hear the drive-by leftstream media bashing President Bush over the efforts in New Orleans. Our media, last year, did a very poor job reporting exactly what was really going on, to the point of gross exaggerations of mayhem and violence within the Superdome, presumably in their efforts to ridicule President Bush and make him look inefficient. Looking through articles from last year, we can see Bush did exactly what any President would have done and was not the bumbling idiot the left wishes us to believe.

On the August 30th Larry King show, Governor Blanco stated, "Well, I've been in touch with the president. He's called often before the storm and after the storm."

From an August 28th edition of the Times-Picayune, we read, "Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."

Accounts place that call on Saturday, 27 August, 2 days before the Hurricane hit. Mayor Nagin didn't order a mandatory evacuation until hours before the fury of the hurricane hit. Too late.

The Red Cross was barred from bringing in supplies to help by local authorities and the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security. Federal Officials had nothing to do with the denial of the Red Cross entering the city to provide medical and other supplies as needed. From the Red Cross web site last year, "The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city."

From the Hill, the Congressional Newspaper, former Representative Bob Livingston (R-La.) said, “I raised hell with the governor for not declaring martial law. I told her last [Wednesday] night I was going on ‘Hannity & Colmes’ and criticize her for not doing that, and 20 minutes later, she did.”

In a September 11 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article by Jack Kelly, Jason van Steenwyk, a Florida National Guardsman involved in 6 Hurricane relief efforts is quoted, "The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

Prior to Katrina hitting, Bush did declare the area a disaster area and did move FEMA and supplies nearby. Helicopter rescues were being performed before Bush sent in the Active Military. What more could he do without overstepping his legal bounds and bypassing both Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin, who's government seemed to collapse into total chaos, unlike the orderly response of Guiliani's government on 9/11.

500 buses sat idle before and after the hurricane. My money would say that a good number of them would run even after the hurricane, if fuel tanks weren’t filled with water (assuming they were diesels, as I believe). No one from Nagin's team even checked. Even with the I-10 Bridge destroyed, there are obviously back rounds into and out of New Orleans, had someone tried.

Bear in mind, one bus did get out after the flooding, taken and driven by a 17 year old boy who had never driven a bus!

If you feel FEMA fell apart only after Bush was elected, maybe check out the complaints against it and Director Witt in 1999 for Hurricane Floyd and the subsequent flooding there as well.

Personally, I think Brown took a rap he really didn't need to, given the scope of this disaster and effort and unwillingness of State and Local officials to do their part. I also note that the condemnation of Brown ceased from the left once he spoke against Bush later on. Politics?

We can easily Monday morning quarterback and point fingers, but bear in mind; this was an unprecedented disaster as well as an unprecedented relief effort. Could it have been done better? Yes, at all levels, starting at the city and state level.

Placing all blame upon Bush, as the left has, elevates him to a superhuman expectation never before placed on any President.

The leftstream media that wishes nothing more than to destroy Bush did a very poor job reporting New Orleans and ignoring other communities that were devastated just as bad if not worse than NOLA. Maybe because their governors were Republicans and people there reacted and helped each other and local governments didn't ignore their people?

If nothing else, what happened in NOLA should be a wake up call to the left about the welfare state they have created. Once you make people that dependant on government, state, local or federal, when faced with a catastrophe, they cannot do for themselves and just wait for the help that local and state never gave.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Jimmy Carter, Still A Failure

In a break with tradition and what I see as an unprecedented attack on a sitting President former President and absolute embarrassment to our country, Jimmy Carter, seems to have wasted little effort in blasting Bush, presumably to help Democrats regain the power they started losing after the embarrassment of Carter’s administration.

Carter claims, “President Bush's policies conflict with American values.” I ask, what policies are those? Defending ourselves after an unprecedented attack? Going after the terrorists that the Carter Administration failed to address in 1979? Perhaps rebuilding the Military after his party of Democrats once again gutted our ability to defend us all?

In an interview with the Guardian, Carter goes on to say, “our country suffered, in 9/11, a terrible and shocking attack ... and George Bush has been adroit at exploiting that attack, and he has elevated himself, in the consciousness of many Americans, to a heroic commander-in-chief, fighting a global threat against America,"

Mr. Carter, who failed to react or save hostages after the US Embassy in Teheran, Iran was invaded and taken over, in itself an act of war, sounds guilty that George W. Bush reacted with courage and strength in the very area that Mr. Carter failed the most. Do we see Bush as a “heroic commander-in-chief?” Some, but according to polls constantly being brayed about by Democrats, the majority of Americans don’t. Is Carter wrong or are the polls?

"In my opinion, maybe the worst ally Israel has had in Washington has been the George W. Bush administration, which hasn't worked to bring a permanent peace to Israel," Carter told the newspaper, Grand Rapids Press. Carters aid in bringing peace between Egypt and Israel has not made the Middle East safer or less violent, as the Iranian Hostage Crisis shows as well as many terrorist acts against American interests since the Carter Administration, each becoming progressively worse, leading up to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Peace Accords have not cured the problems between Israel and the Arab nations surrounding her. These Arab nations will not settle for Israel remaining where it is and have been fighting with the Jews for several Centuries. Now, Carter claims it is because of Bush? How convenient.

In what I consider really bad taste, he took the opportunity of attending the funeral of Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, to bash Bush. Funerals are not a time to make political statements, for or against a President. Citing the secret NSA Eavesdropping program revealed by the New York Times earlier this year, he mentioned how Dr. King was also wiretapped. He failed to mention King was spied on by Democrats or that the FBI was conducting domestic wiretapping, not international eavesdropping of foreign terrorists possibly discussing plans for another attack within the U.S.

As if attacking Bush in this break with tradition of a former President not openly criticizing a sitting President, something I’m sure his administration could have sorely used, isn’t bad enough, he has taken to openly condemning British Prime Minister Tony Blair as being “compliant and subservient” to President Bush. In an interview with the UK Telegraph, Carter says, “Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism.”

Did Carter forget his own failure to stand up to Islamofascist when they were small and weak during his own Presidency? Perhaps that is more a reason for the ongoing terrorism that has been steadily spreading around the globe since he failed to act on it?

Jimmy Carter was an abysmal failure as a President. All of his running off at the mouth today will not change the failures he and his administration foisted on us.

More concerning that his erroneous claims of other’s faults, his break with tradition has spurred former President Clinton to take up the baton and also openly criticize President Bush, while we have troops in harms way. Not only does this demoralize our Service members, leaving them more prone to injury and death on the battlefield and present our enemies with proof of our lack of resolve to see this liberation of Iraq through, emboldening them to hang on and wait until we flee again, he is setting a precedent for future Presidents to openly interfere with a current administration.

Maybe, instead of trying so hard to act like he was an effective President, Mr. Carter should reflect on why he was only a one-termer, be soundly defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980, the President who restored America’s pride and honor in ourselves, until Bill Clinton came along and belittled even that.

If a Democrat gets elected and a Republican engages in this untraditional manner, condemning every move of the sitting President, watch and see the outcries of “foul” by the left. Their double standard will be alive and present, as usual.

Mr. Carter, please go help build a house and certify a stolen election, do something you are good at. Please stop trying to embarrass us and undermining our troops.

Just go away, quietly.


Saturday, August 26, 2006

Finally, the Left Gets Their Hurricane

August 26 2006

Well, not yet, but that doesn’t stop the near panic from spreading amongst the left already.

We all remember the catastrophic Hurricane Season of 2005, one of the worst in recorded history. It bred Katrina and Rita, which tore up the Gulf Coast areas, most notably, according to the drive-by leftstream media, New Orleans (Katrina). Damage elsewhere didn’t seem to merit much attention by them and the damage to New Orleans drew the ire of the left in what I see as an unprecedented outrage over a natural disaster.

Of course, the Bush Administration bore full responsibility for the boondoggle during and after, even to the point of Bush admitting shortcomings. Never mind the Federal Government isn’t the first responder or that the President took the unprecedented step of calling the Mayor of New Orleans, Democrat Ray Nagin, prior to the hurricane hitting telling him he better evacuate his citizens. Mayor Nagin waited a mere 12 hours before the Hurricane struck to order and evacuation which fell well short of getting people out. Of course, that was Bush’s fault.

News coverage centered on New Orleans and evacuees that could not get out and huddled in the Super Dome. Reports of mass rapes, murders, muggings and unprecedented crimes proved to be false. Didn’t matter, Bush wasn’t doing enough to protect Mayor Nagins citizens.

Since that storm hit we have continually heard how Bush did nothing to prevent it, as if he could. Global Warming is blamed for an unprecedented number of recorded storm last year and of course, Bush didn’t sign the ill fated Kyoto Protocol that former President Clinton signed onto in 1998, in spite of his punitive stance against America while ignoring nearly 80% of polluters in other nations. Bush pulled us out to save our economy, but that lone act is blamed for a record setting Hurricane Season.

Forecasts have been we are in for an even worse Hurricane Season in 2006. Again, because Bush is causing Global Warming.

We are now over 2 months into the 2006 Hurricane Season and finally, it looks like the doomsayers of the left may get their first Hurricane of the season, Ernesto. So far, it is a Tropical Storm in the Caribbean. Claim that it ‘COULD’ form into a Hurricane and ‘MIGHT’ head back into the Gulf of Mexico are all that is needed to stir up the same doomsayers from last years again.

Claims are already being made that Bush isn’t doing enough to prevent another catastrophic disaster should the Hurricane, provided it becomes one, hit New Orleans again. What they expect of Bush, I don’t know, but it is obvious he can’t win.

Perusing DemocraticUnderground, a far left forum of leftist moonbats, I gleaned comments as:

Jhuth: I find it interesting that on the anneversary of Katrina we now are facing a new Hurricane threat.

WannaJumpMyScooter: Just in the right place and time for a 1-year suprise party for New Orleans. How sick would that be?

Odin2005: If it turns a little to the right of it's projected path it will be Katrina 2.0

Freedomburn: First big hurricane of the season scheduled to hit Jamaica tomorrow It COULD be another Katrina. It seems to be headed that direction anyway. How much does God hate New Orleans?

Considering the storm isn’t a Hurricane yet and it is currently about 310 miles Southeast of Kingston Jamaica, roughly 1600 miles from New Orleans, it would appear to me they have been eagerly waiting for any storm to form to bring out their doom and gloom forecasts again.

As a Native Floridian originally, being born and raised in South Florida, yours truly has seen his share of Hurricanes. In spite of computer models, that have gotten a lot better, Hurricanes remain unpredictable, for the most part. In spite of our sincerest forecasts, they are prone to act as will, moving where air currents and pressures take them. They form and fall apart randomly also. You live with a wary eye on the Atlantic and the Gulf, but panic is not an option. Or, at least, it didn’t used to be.

When one hit we stayed inside until it was over and then left our homes, provided they were still there, and saw who needed help. We did not cry and whine where is FEMA, where is the Federal Government? We did for each other, sharing whatever stores we had until power was restored and stores opened again. We dealt with whatever was sent our way and we got by without the government.

I would hate to see people today that panic as soon as a storm forms had they been there for the Great Chicago Fire in 1871, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 or the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 that nearly decimated the entire cities. People survived and rebuilt, without FEMA or whining bleeding hearts demanding someone take care of them. It took a long time, as will the rebuilding of New Orleans and other places that weren’t reported as much.

If Ernesto does become a Hurricane and it does make landfall in the US, watch as our blame Bush for everything leftists repeat their fiasco of last year, wondering who will take care of them or provide for them. Watch as the news media again fabricates reports of gloom and doom, to sell their papers.

And, these people who wonder who will care for them should something happen, want us to elect them to public office so they can take care of us? No Thanks!

God help us all if they regain power.


Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Anti-War? Hardly!

August 23, 2006

We have become accustomed to referring to those bashing President Bush and the current battles in Iraq as “the anti-war left.” We saw them back in the 1960s and 1970s as they openly opposed the efforts we made to preserve the freedoms the struggling country of South Viet Nam were striving towards. We saw them as President Reagan sent troops into Granada, to rescues American Medical Students stuck there. We saw them during the first Gulf War and see them mostly today as they openly oppose the ongoing War in Iraq, while also claiming to support the War on Terror.

There is the claim that Iraq is separate from the War on Terror, but that isn’t so. It is but a battle in the overall war and an important one. Let Iraq falter and fail and watch as the radical Islamofascists flood in, enslaving the Iraqi people much worse than did Saddam and his followers. Watch as the killing fields of Cambodia and slaughter of innocent South Vietnamese are paled in comparison to the slaughter of Iraqis that support freedom or the US led effort to free them.

For a group claiming to be “anti-war” their support for warring parties amongst our enemies is mind-boggling. Cindy Sheehan calls those that actually ambushed and killed her son, Casey, “Freedom Fighters,” as she calls President Bush a “murderer.” Jeeni Criscenzo, Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives 49th California District, has posted on her blog support for the insurgents in Iraq.

Senator John McCain, former POW from Viet Nam and supporter of the Iraqi excursion has come out claiming President Bush is misleading the public making Iraq seem like a “walk on the beach.” Where he came up with that one I don’t have a clue. President Bush has repeatedly said both the battles in Iraq and the overall War on Terror will be a hard long fight.

The Democrats holding seats in our government seem to be falling over themselves to bash Bush and the Iraqi War, yet still claim to support the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Kerry, Boxer, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, you name them and they have all demanded either an immediate withdrawal or phased withdrawal of our troops. Yet, when faced with charges that they too voted for this war, they whine that Bush misled them, even though some were making claims of dealing with Saddam and his WMD program at least 3 years prior to Bush winning the election.

Going back to the Clinton administration, we see that then President Clinton deployed troops all over. The humanitarian effort in Somalia was turned into a military operation under control of the United Nations, until we lost some good men and their bodies were drug through the streets. We sent troops to Haiti and bombed Kosovo, killing many civilians on the ground. We flew sorties against the Iraq regime throughout the 1990s, firing on anti-aircraft batteries, sending cruise and tomahawk missiles into a government building in the dead of night, killing some janitors. We bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, without any approval from the UN and no outcry from those calling themselves “anti-war” that I can recall.

As long as it was a darling Democrat initiating hostilities, warranted or not, they supported the actions. But, after we lost nearly 3,000 citizens in the most heinous terrorist act to ever befall us, these cretins come out of hiding to interfere, oppose and undermine our brave Military again.

They may call themselves anti-war, but to me, they are nothing more than the same old Communists that have been trying to destroy our way of life since before World War Two (which was another war they supported, but only after Hitler turned on the Soviet Union). Any embarrassment they can cause the US, they will do. Any denigration of our Military or current administration, again, they will do.

They cling to the writings of Marx and strive to make America more like the failed Soviet Union, crying about Defense Budgets and demanding cradle to grave care for themselves and those foolish enough to follow them.

Don’t be fooled by their claims of “anti-war,” that only grants them a standing of moral authority they do not deserve. Their goal is to institute a Marxist, Socialistic Communist state in America by any means possible.

Anti-war is a name they may claim, but as can be seen by their selectivity of opposing war, they are hardly anti-war. Anti-Iraqi War? Anti-American? Anti-Republican? Anti-Bush? Communist? Yes, all those and more, but not anti-war. Applying that name to them is hypocritical.


Tuesday, August 22, 2006


August 22, 2006

In a recent discussion with one on the left and whom I assume to be anti-war, due to brash comments against President Bush and the ongoing battle in Iraq, I was struck by a comment made, “I want victory, something that you and your ilk, despite numerous representations and promi[s]es, have been unable to provide.”

Yes, at least one on the left wants “victory.”

I’m not too sure of their definition of victory, but no one has ever said this was to be a fast and easy victory. Not in Iraq and certainly not in the overall War on Terror. President Bush has repeatedly stated it will be a long hard fight, possibly covering a generation or more. The second day of the invasion in Iraq we started hearing "quagmire" bandied about in our drive-by leftstream media as well as from those opposed to the action we undertook in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Right off the bat, the left started doing everything imaginable to oppose, ridicule, belittle and at times, outright interfere with the War Effort in Iraq.

Do they really want victory? Then they need to “back the attack.” Show some support. Both for the troops and the war effort. Demand that Congress appropriate what the troops need to attain victory. Oppose those that demand a cut and run policy, which is surrender, not a victory. Stand up to those that speak against the war and the troops.

We cannot achieve victory by tying the hands of our Military with Political Correctness, scrutinizing every little move they make and accusing them of "cold blooded murder" even before they are investigated.

Blind-siding our Commander in Chief will not attain victory. He is not fighting to protect only Republicans; he is fighting to protect all Americans as well as the lifestyle of the West.

Don't forget, Viet Nam was prolonged by 5 years at a cost of nearly 40,000 additional American lives and untold numbers of Vietnamese, due to the efforts of the anti-war left. They gave the Communist North the will to sustain massive losses and hit us with harassment fire, attacks and massive propaganda. All they needed to do was simply kill a few Americans, any way they could, make sure the willing accomplices in the American media knew about it, which wasn’t hard, then feed the anti-war left anti-war talking points. They played to the news media as if they were the victims instead of the attackers. They cried it was just a civil war when it wasn't. You know the result.

Victory seems to be a fleeting goal for America after the Allied Powers stunning victory over Nazism and Fascism in World War Two. Ever since, we seem to have lost the stomach to finish a fight when we step in to help a friend. Korea, Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, the First Gulf War, we have stopped short of finishing the job. We can never have a victory again as long as we continue to abandon allies in their struggles for freedom. We become known as a "Paper Tiger," having no will to fight while our enemies slaughter innocents and us, all the while growing stronger and stronger.

In the end, we will sacrifice thousands of American lives for naught. We give our enemies cause to ridicule us and attack us again and again. Then, we sit back and hear all the catcalls of the anti-war left as they puff out their chests, bragging about how they stopped a war when they actually caused it to be lost, not victorious. We will even hear about how “we” lost another war, but that was the goal of the anti-war left, to make America lose. The one thing you will not see in this scenario of the anti-war left is a victory for America.

How can you expect victory in the face of all the opposition of the leftstream media, Democrats, the anti-war left as well as Europeans?

Walk away from this one and we just leave a mess for our children and their children to clean up, at a cost of possibly millions of their lives. I much prefer to shed the blood of the radical Islamofascists that are behind all the terror in the world instead of that of my children and grandchildren.


Saturday, August 19, 2006

To Our Modern War Protesters

I sit back and watch as you protest, as you proclaim, “I support the troops, but not the war.” I see you bashing the President over every little thing he does. I’ve watched as you set up fake coffins outside of Walter Reed Hospital, where recovering troops are. I see you as you encourage young troops to desert the military, to flee to Canada or anywhere else. I hear you as you yell Bush will be drafting kids soon, even though the only draft proposal has been coming out of Democrats. I listen, as you demand an immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. “Leave it to the Iraqis,” you yell. “Bring the troops home now,” you scream. I even see you sneering at our brave young men and women as they return to America and hear you as you whisper what losers they are, unable to find decent paying jobs in civilian life. I even remember moonbats as you when I returned from Viet Nam and have run across too many of you in the ensuing 36 years.

Little do you realize that if Iraq goes the way Viet Nam did, it will not be because of brave young people in uniform lost their will or couldn’t hack it (nice of you to always remind us of stories implicating atrocities of a very minor small handful as if all committed them), but will be due to the efforts of leftist Bush bashers, again, like you.

We were continually undermined in Viet Nam and forced by the left to leave. We agreed to a Peace Plan that ensured a free country we would reenter and protect them if the oppressive communist North attacked them. Due to the efforts of a mostly Democrat Congress, a bill was passed prohibiting any future aid or help to South Viet Nam.

Then, for over 30 years, those of us who served and sacrificed our youth to protect freedom and liberty around the globe, as stated by Democrat President, John F. Kennedy, have been bombarded with messages from television, movies, politicians, book authors, school teachers and college professors and the socialistic left leaning banker types with tales of what losers we were, what a danger we posed to society (it was no less that John 'F'in Kerry that stated "The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence…..,") and looked upon us as deranged, potentially violent hair triggered war criminals. We are called "baby killers," even though we may not support abortions (who do you think really kills more babies?).

No, I've seen your type over and over for many years now. In your egotistical hatred of George Bush and Republicans, you sit in your self-proclaimed ivory towers of self-righteousness and try to portray an image of caring about the troops when you actually despise them, probably out of jealousy. Jealousy that they have the guts to stand for something and desire to see others free to live as we do. You think bashing Bush and the WoT to the U.S. Service men and women fighting it will make others think you care enough to not want to see him hurt or injured when you couldn't care less that your defeatist rhetoric will cause many more deaths of Americans in harm's way than save.

Just like from back in the 70s, if you succeed in forcing an American abandonment of Iraq, you will puff out your chest bragging at how you "stopped a war." In fact, the leftist anti-war protesters did no such thing. They prolonged it by 5 years at a cost of nearly 40,000 more American lives on the battlefield.

You remind me of a slick banker slyly talking a farmer into a loan, knowing the terms will end up making the farmer lose their farm and the bank to take possession of it with the intent to make a profit off the sale of the land.

People like you, Cindy Sheehan, Ned Lamont, John Kerry and so many more couldn't hold a candle to the men and women volunteering for our Armed Services today. You can only be jealous that they have their values and the intestinal fortitude to stand up for them.

You should thank God (or whatever you may believe in) that there are still people young people willing to stand and protect you in your ivory tower, just so you can trash them.

To any Service member if you read this, pay no mind to the latest moonbat war protesters. Whether they ever served or not, they have forgotten what it means to stand for something that is worthwhile standing for.


Bush's NSA Electronic Eavesdropping Illegal?

After the outrageous ruling of US district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor from Detroit striking down the NSA Surveillance program, I dug around to find what others with a more legal mind than I have had to say about the program.

"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 that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
“Attorney General Reno has already signed off on the warrantless search of an American home on the basis of the dubious "inherent authority" theory. The actual number of clandestine "national security" searches conducted since 1993 is known only to the White House and senior Justice Department officials.” Benjamin Wittes, "Aldrich Ames' Legal Legacy: Surveillance Court Gets New Powers," Legal Times, November 7, 1994, p. 1.
“One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.”
“In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.”
“In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.”
“Clinton asked Congress to pass legislation that would give the Federal Bureau of Investigation the power to use "roving wiretaps" without a court order. The president also fought for sweeping legislation that is forcing the telephone industry to make its network more easily accessible to law enforcement wiretaps. Those initiatives have led ACLU officials to describe the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history." ("Anti-Terror Bills Pushed by Clinton," Washington Post, July 30, 1996, p. A1 and "Clinton, Dole Rate Low on Civil Liberties," National Law Journal, October 28, 1996, p. A1)
As quoted From Dereliction of Duty, by Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute, March 31, 1997.

FISA was initiated by President Carter in 1978. Today’s Supreme Court is less in the pockets of the ACLU than it was then or since. For a bit more in depth view into how past Courts have ruled on wiretapping, including wireless wiretapping, visit the article at . A lengthy read, but informative.

Justice Byron White ruled in 1967 that Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967)

In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that warrants are relevant only in domestic threats. It has expressly distinguished, foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972).

The Case For Spying

First obtaining a warrant in the fast minute by minute speed of intercepting overseas communications to possible Al Qaeda cells within the US would allow the early warning of a pending terrorist attack to go undetected. Additionally, if you advocate warrants first, how do you propose the government gather the evidence needed for obtaining the warrant in the first place?

As I understand it, warrants are only required under if the communication is wholly contained within the U.S.

President Carter's Attorney General Griffin Bell stated that, despite the absence of an express reservation, the Act "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution. It simply, in my view, is not necessary to state that power, so there is no reason to reiterate or iterate it as the case may be. It is in the Constitution, whatever it is." Testimony of Attorney General Griffin Bell before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives (January 10, 1978).”

“AG Edward Levi before the Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate (March 29, 1976) "It is hard to imagine all the conceivable possible cases, particularly in an area where scientific developments may make enormous changes. . . The very nature of the reserved Presidential power, the reason it is so important is that some kind of an emergency could arise which I cannot foresee now, nor with due deference to the Congress, do I believe Congress can foresee . . . I would not want to advise anyone to think that the kinds of circumstances which might arise might not be of such a strange and peculiar nature that we would not have thought of them, and particularly in an area, as I say, where scientific developments come so frequently."

“Levi also said a traditional warrant procedure works when surveillance "involves a particular target location or individual at a specific time." Foreign intelligence, however, may in some situations require "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets." In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."

“FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.”

”Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense.” (Statements of John Schmidt, associate Attorney general, 1994 to 1997 under President Clinton.)

While I won't claim to be a "Legal Eagle," a bit of common sense says this Judge is either inept or in someones pocket. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the U.S. involving people the government suspects have terrorist links.

As I see it, the above I bolded tells me that these "journalists, scholars and lawyers" either know or strongly suspect they are talking to terrorists overseas. What kind of person would knowingly talk to these terrorists, possibly discovering or being told about a pending attack and not tell the government or want to government to know?

If this is so, would they be the first there to cover the story, setting up cameras to catch all the gore, blood and pain, instead of trying to save lives?

That several Democrats are applauding this travesty should show the country where their sympathies really lie, and it isn't with protecting the American people.

The older I get, the more I shake my head at the lunacy of our Judicial system and politicians in Washington D.C.


Thursday, August 17, 2006

Sen. Kerry Backing Anti-War Candidates

As Gomer always said, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise (not).

Kerry has returned to his roots of anti-war activity and backs anti-war candidates. He tried this before, riding the wave of anti-war fervor and got nowhere.

Kerry Backing Anti-War Candidates
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006 5:11 p.m. EDT
Sen. John Kerry is revving up his online political machine to raise campaign cash for Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont.
Kerry tapped his 3 million-person e-mail list on Wednesday to deliver a fundraising appeal for Lamont, the anti-Iraq war political newcomer who beat three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman last week in Connecticut's hard-fought Democratic primary contest.
"Ned Lamont has caused a national stir by successfully challenging the Bush position on Iraq that ignores the utter failure of the President's policy," Kerry's message said.
The Kerry e-mail also touted two Democratic Senate incumbents facing tough fights this fall, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii. Both oppose the war.
"Ned, Dan and Bob have been attacked mercilessly for acting with such conviction and are locked in close must-win races," said Kerry, D-Mass. "It's time to reward their courage."

Also received the email mentioned today;

Dear Lew,

We say America needs candidates who take strong positions and have the courage of their convictions. We've got them. We're searching for leaders who understand that we can't change George Bush and Don Rumsfeld's aimless course in Iraq if we don't stand up in this fall's campaign and demand change. These leaders are standing right in front of us.

So now the question is: Can Ned Lamont, Daniel Akaka, and Bob Menendez count on us to act right now and pull them through to victory?
Support Strong Leaders Who Aren't Afraid to Tell the Truth About Iraq
Each of these strong leaders has forcefully spoken out in favor of a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Despite the "warnings" coming from consultants, political pundits and naysayers in Washington, each of these candidates is making the mess in Iraq a central issue in their campaigns for the Senate. They aren't afraid to talk about why the war is wrong and what must be done to change course and start doing what is best for our troops and our country. And they aren't afraid to stand up for a better way that will bring our heroes home and put Iraq in Iraqis' hands.

It's time to reward their courage.

Support Strong Leaders Who Aren't Afraid to Tell the Truth About Iraq
In Connecticut, Ned Lamont has caused a national stir by successfully challenging the Bush position on Iraq that ignores the utter failure of the President's policy and calls for a deeply misplaced reliance on a dangerous course of action. In the Senate, Ned Lamont will go head to head with Don Rumsfeld, and our troops will benefit from Lamont's leadership. He knows that patriotism isn't reserved for those who defend a President's position; patriotism is doing what's right for our troops and our country.

My friend Dan Akaka (D-HI) has been a powerful voice of opposition to dangerous policies, as one of 13 votes in favor of the Kerry-Feingold amendment calling on the Bush administration to withdraw all U.S. combat troops by the middle of 2007.

My colleague Bob Menendez (D-NJ) proudly supported that amendment, as well. In fact, the day after we voted, he put his money where his vote was, putting an ad on TV saying it was time to start bringing our troops home. His vote was that important to him.

Ned, Dan, and Bob have been attacked mercilessly for acting with such conviction and are locked in close must-win races.

It's time to support candidates who are willing to tell the truth: that George W. Bush's policies have failed to make America safe and that it is time to change course in the war in Iraq.

Support Strong Leaders Who Aren't Afraid to Tell the Truth About Iraq
Helping win victories for Democratic candidates who have acted with clarity on the war in Iraq is the best way to bring George W. Bush's miserable failure to an end.

But, we can't fool ourselves. None of these candidates will coast to victory -- not in the face of the brutal, unprincipled assaults on their character and patriotism that are the stock in trade of the Bush-Cheney-Rove political machine.

If we want these Democrats to win, we've got to throw our support behind them. We have to use the last few months of this campaign to pull them through to victory -- and to drive from office politicians who continue to support the President's miserable failure in Iraq.

If we want to reward their courage, we've got to commit ourselves to pulling them through to victory.

Support Strong Leaders Who Aren't Afraid to Tell the Truth About Iraq
I know how urgently you want to turn America around -- not only on Iraq, but on a wide range of crucial issues. I'm telling you this: there is no better way to challenge the harmful policies of the Bush administration than to throw our support behind these three candidates.

They're telling the truth on the campaign trail -- that America is on the wrong course in Iraq, that it's time to withdraw our troops and leave Iraq's future in the hands of the Iraqi people, and that, behind all the Bush bluster and bombast, all you can find is a string of misjudgments, deceits, and failures that have seriously imperiled our national security.

I urge you to help elect candidates who will join me in telling those truths every day on the floor of the United States Senate -- never yielding until we turn America around and bring our troops home from Iraq.

John Kerry

Sorry, but it turns my stomach every time I hear or read of one of these cretins being labeled as a "Patriot."

In his ever flip flopping majesty, sKerry once again returns to the days of yesteryear when he tried riding the passionate wave of discontent against Viet Nam. It failed then and I bet it fails agan.

I'll wait now and see if he once again, throws away his, no someone elses, no just the ribbons which mean the same thing, medals back over the Whitehouse fence.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

The Triumph of Unrealism, Unrealistic

In an article titled “The Triumph of Unrealism,” George Will claims that the recent revelation and arrests of suspected terrorists in Britain and elsewhere validates one of the claims made by John Kerry in his failed campaign for President in 2004.

I feel compelled to point out that Mr. Will writes his opinion in a newspaper and is not responsible for conducting any wars or law enforcement or even intelligence. That being said, I have to disagree with this opinion. So much for lock-step conservatives, huh?

In a debate in South Carolina on Jan. 29, 2004, Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

While even I will agree that Kerry had a point, may I point out to that the Bush Administration is indeed using intelligence as well as law enforcement, when they aren’t being hamstrung by whiners on the left and the ACLU.

Don’t forget, the intelligence and law enforcement agents he had available were passed on by the previous administration.

During the 90s, after the first World Trade Center attack, the previous administration treated as a law enforcement matter. Some terrorist were indicted, tried convicted and sentenced. At least one, Abdul Rahman Yasin, disappeared to Iraq and who knows where just prior to the invasion. Another, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, was deported to Jordan, tried and acquitted there. He remains a free man in Saudi Arabia, last I heard.

Since that attack, several others have happened against American interests overseas:

Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993

Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995

Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995

Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995

Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996

Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997

Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997

Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998

U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998

Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000

Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000

Add to this the fiasco in Somalia in 1993, which had started as a Humanitarian effort only under the first Bush Administration and ballooned into U.N. controlled war against Aideed under the Clinton Administration that led to the “Black Hawk Down” incident and I think you can see the effectiveness of Kerry’s “point.” It also prompted Bin Laden, in his 1996 Declaration of War against the U.S. to state, "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

That is the legacy of making the War on Terror a Law Enforcement matter primarily.

The War, as President Bush has repeatedly said, will be a long and tiring war. It is going to take the combined efforts of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, Diplomacy and Military Action. An attack on our soil is not a mere crime. It is an Act of War that should be properly responded with by War!

We are not fighting a country with uniformed Soldiers. We are fighting a cowardly, ideological terrorist that wears regular clothes, hides in Mosques and behind women and children and will not come out and fight.

As we discover plans for attacks and arrests are made, bleeding heart liberal attorneys can’t wait to line up to defend these cretins and collect fees from the government. Foreign governments previously thought allied, waste no time condemning America defending herself, when a Conservative is in office. The U.N. also wastes no time in urging America to exercise “restraint” when attacked.

As noted above, this has been tried many times and the end result was the cowardly attack that killed nearly 3,000 innocent civilians on September 11, 2001.

We cannot afford to return to the days of treating Declarations of War and Acts of War against our people as mere crimes to be sent to courts with slick attorneys capable of freeing these terrorists to repeat their acts at will.

Stay the course; finish this madness once and for all. Victory is the only acceptable “exit strategy” as well as the path to peace.


Friday, August 11, 2006

Debunking the Anti-War Left

Appeasement and negotiations with terrorists is a pipe dream of the left. Only armchair generals with little or no knowledge of what they talk about would even propose such a thing.

This war is not a video game where you click a mouse and kill your enemy. This is a battle unlike any other we have had to face. It is a serious delusion to think the terrorists will simply leave us alone if we leave them alone or that they can be bought off.

It has been said that the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" of the West is the best weapon against Terrorists. They already have the money to buy all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they may desire. Modernization is appealing to us in the West, but not to them. There is no tolerance in Islamofascists other than for their delusion of World Dominance and Allah is giving them the entire planet. Whether you realize it or not, it is those "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" that they hate the most! It is a complete delusion of the left to think that offering them the very things they despise is the way to win in the War on Terror.

Recently two High School students in Dearborn Michigan were arrested for planning terrorist activities as well as 24 more were arrested in London for plotting a massive plan of suicide bombing of aircraft bound from the UK to the US. They had all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they could want at their disposal and yet, were willing to sacrifice it all for a deluded ideology of power and glory.

Polls matter little in this "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment," battle. As can be witnessed in the drive-by leftstream media and several left-winged blogs, many are deluded as to what and who we are fighting. What with the politicization of the War on Terror from a losing party trying to regain power, most haven't a clue. Truth finds little regard when it comes to the anti-war left.

Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror, but a very necessary part of the overall War given that virtually the entire world said there were WMDs still there prior to our invasion. However, in the six month long rush to war, they were obviously spirited away, as stated by many who were there before we went in. Would you like to have it on your conscience that you did nothing to stop them from possibly falling into the hands of terrorists?

The claims from the left have been that they were never there. Yet, when over 500 canisters were revealed to have been found, the left comes back with "we knew all about them." “They weren't the ones sought after.”

Which way is it? Where did the rest go? How could the entire world say and believe they were there, yet they are gone once we got there, six months later? Doesn't take a rock scientist to figure that out. Still, WMDs were but one reason to invade Iraq.

It is still claimed that we aren’t gaining on the War on Terror because we have lost sight of the goal of capturing Osama Bin Laden and have diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. There are still troops in Afghanistan, always have been since we went there. All the troops in the world chasing Osama won't catch him in the mountainous region he chose to hide out in provided he is still alive. As seen with Zarqawi, catching Osama would not stop terrorism anyways. He is a mere figurehead and even if dead, others step in. This is not a battle against one man; it's a battle against a misled and brutal ideology.

These misled Muslims have been attacking and killing each other and the Jews for centuries, it's not new. As they have spread their terror outside the Middle East over the last decades, it's long past due for the west to stand against them.

If you think "cut and run," excuse me, "redeployment" is the answer, you are dead wrong. If you think negotiation is the answer, you are dead wrong. These terrorists desire nothing from us, except our death, both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. It's death or subjugation under their control, as far as they are concerned.

This War on Terror isn't against a single person, it's against an ideology that needs destroyed as much as humanly possible. Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way, at the cost of many of his countrymen’s lives that you cannot negotiate with evil nor can you appease it. You can only fight it and destroy it.

As Winston Churchill once said, "an appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile, hoping it eats him last." That is as an accurate a description of the anti-war left that I have ever seen.
Being realistic about who and what were fighting is not propaganda, it's an honest assessment of the dangers were now face. Sadly, even if we were to lose a couple large cities due to terrorist attacks, some on the left will still believe all we need do is join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Sorry, but the song doesn't translate into the language of terrorists.


Thursday, August 10, 2006

Rehashing Atrocity Claims & Defeating Lieberman

There has recently been a spate of articles on Viet Nam atrocities and war crimes not being prosecuted. I do not for a minute feel the timing is accidental. They have been discussing them on the Swift Vets discussion board as well on FreeRepublic.

One train of thought is that they are designed to vindicate John Kerry's 1971 claims to the Fulbright Commission against Viet Nam Veterans and the War and the “day to day” atrocities we were supposedly committing. Another is that they are to take the wind out of those who are working to set the record straight on what really went on there and reveal the true history of the Viet Nam War.

There are forces (people) that hate our country and are working overtime to destroy it, thinking they are preserving some fictional leftwing America that has existed only in the misguided minds of the left. Sadly, these George Soros inspired and financed people, found at and DailyKos and places as that, have hijacked the Democrat Party, the main group that has been instrumental in writing a false history of Viet Nam and who also misled a nation in the late 1960s and early 1970s and encouraged the government to abandon the struggling country of South Viet Nam. If you have ever spied at
DemocraticUnderground, you will see the vehemence with which some of these people view America and the solid values that has built this country to greatness over it’s 200 year history.

In their anti-war rhetoric (seemingly only when a Republican is leading the fight) and in their efforts to undermine the current War on Terror in Iraq as well as to regain the power and control of America they held and exercised for nearly 40 years, they now wish to rehash the Viet Nam War, making all these claims of war crimes and atrocities against American Troops. However, look at the claims in context.

Claims of 320 alleged crimes over 10 years? C'mon, there’s more than that in a regular American large city in a year! (L.A., Chicago, Detroit, etc.) No one ever said atrocities never happened, every war produces them on various scales. We all know they did, but they were never on the day-to-day scale claimed by Kerry and others nor were they condoned by commanders, as also claimed by John Kerry and other supposed Veterans of the War.

If they are truly concerned about crimes not being prosecuted, then go ahead and prosecute them now. They can start with all the anti-war activists who claimed they had
committed those war crimes, such as Kerry's admission on the Dick Cavett show and Joe Bangerts claims also made. See how fast these same activists change their tunes about war crimes they committed if facing a death penalty courts martial, especially Kerry.

The anti-war left may feel that rehashing supposed war crimes from over 30 years ago vindicates them, but to me, it just further reveals them as the hypocrites they are.

The rhetoric and hate mongering from the anti-war left is maddening. But, as evidenced by the recent Connecticut Democratic Primary between Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate and Senator Joe Lieberman, an 18 year veteran of the Senate, they are eating their own. As revealed by Clinton crony, Lanny Davis this week, in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal titled “Liberal McCarthyism.” The attacks and comments against Joe Lieberman, mostly because he supports President Bush’s War on Terror and in Iraq, are as anti-Semitic as anything heard by Hitler’s Nazi’s in pre-World War Two Germany.

Even Michael Moore, producer of the failed and highly misleading and inaccurate hit piece laughingly referred to as a movie, “Fahrenheit 911,” has chimed in with his own “warnings” to Democrats. “Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq….. we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake.”

Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball, chimes in with, “Lieberman of course is the schmaltzy ethnic guy, the Uncle Tonoose, you know, the guy that's very much kind of lachrymose in his almost postnasal drip voice of his….” For those who don’t know, Uncle Tonoose was a character, played by actor Hans Conreid on the old Danny Thomas show, “Make Room for Daddy,” back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The character was a Lebanese Arab with an unusually large nose that the show always joked about.

With the new revelations of Viet Nam War Crimes supposedly not prosecuted and the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in a Democrat Primary election this week, it appears as if the anti-war left now feels they have a mandate to take control of America. They do not! With the revelation of a terrorist plot broken up in London just this week where they planned to blow up several US bound flights from England over either ocean or over American cities as they arrive, America is waking up to the dangers posed in the world today.

The hate America anti-war left still feels they stopped the war in Viet Nam when in reality they prolonged it. They feel they must repeat what they thought they accomplished in Viet Nam and if they do, it will have the same dire results as Viet Nam did, millions of people slaughtered for not towing the line of extremist hardliners.

The War on Terror will be a very long fight and it won’t be easily won. This includes the fighting in Iraq. The anti-war left, in repeating the mistakes they made during Viet Nam of not supporting our side, once again emboldens an even more formidable enemy than we faced in Viet Nam. Their goal then was just to enslave Viet Nam under Communism. Islamofascist terrorist’s goal is to enslave the entire world under their sick, degrading and oppressive form of Islam, an otherwise peaceful religion.

We are all in this fight together and it wasn’t caused by Democrats or Republicans, but by Islamofascists bent on world domination. The anti-war left fails to see what we are up against and somehow thinks maybe if they bury their heads in the sand or just “talks” to the terrorists, it will cease. It will not! Terrorists use talking as a guise to rearm and lull us back to sleep as they infiltrate our society with sleeper cells and prepare for the next attack to force us into submission. With the support of those who are being misled by the anti-war left, we can and will defeat this latest enemy to the freedoms of the left. Without it, the war will last much longer and cost even more lives, but we will succeed, unless the American public is once again misled by the glib talk of the anti-war left and elects their pacifists to office enough to give them control of the country again.

Woe to us if that happens.

Don’t fall for the new claims of war crimes and rhetoric about supporters of the current war. It’s all designed to lull you back to a peaceful sleep by those who can’t see beyond the end of their nose about world affairs. As they regain control of the government, even they fail to see the enemy just waiting to conquer America, the “Great Satan,” to them.

Thank God we have a man like President Bush in office and even though I disagree with much of what Senator Lieberman says, thank God we have him in the Senate. Both can see the enemy facing America and the perils of continuing to ignore their actions.


Saturday, August 05, 2006

9/11 panel doubted Pentagon’s story

Once again someone comes out with their "authoritative" tell all book trying to make it appear that President Bush was incompetent or inept. If they actually feel the response was inadequate, why don't they look back a few months to how the previous administration decimated the military, demoralized them with their anti-military shenanigans as well as deployed our troops more than any other administration and for no real reason of National Security. If "our" foreign policy contributed anything at all to the attacks of 9-11, shouldn't that also be on the previous administration as the Bush administration was only in office just short of 8 months. At least one of the panel members should not have even been on the panel, but she should have been being questioned critically by the panel. If blame is to be placed on the White House then the Clintons have to be assigned their share of guilt for their actions, policies and conduct of the previous 8 years. Bush inherited a mess and has also received all the blame.

Source article: 9/11 panel doubted Pentagon’s story