December 31, 2006 11:35 PM
In a few minutes 2006 is over and we have 2007 to look forward to.
For all that visit my little corner, regardless of what you believe or whether you disagree with me or not, I hope you have a great New Years and 2007 is good for you. I wish you all wealth, health and happiness.
To the troops in Harms Way, thank you. I hope your mission is successfully completed and you return home triumphant. You all are doing a great job and our country is much better because of you.
HAPPY NEW YEARS, everybody
Lew & family
Sunday, December 31, 2006
December 31, 2006 11:35 PM
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:31 PM
December 31, 2006
After news of the execution of Iraq’s brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, sunk in, some articles appearing in various American news sources leaves me with the impression they are in mourning over his death. As I stated in a previous post, Saddam Executed, Was It Worth It? many on left leaning blogs questioned whether or not his execution was really worth it.
Carrying this notion further, media sources, ones I often refer to as our lamestream media, seem to be joining in with efforts to either minimize the effects to Iraqis or another attempt to bash President Bush and any good to come out of the War on Terror in Iraq.
To start with, we find a video of an early morning newscaster from WESH NBC Channel 2, out of Orlando/Daytona Beach, Florida posted at Neocon Express blogsite clearly stating the pending execution was an “assassination.” Did he miss that it was an Iraqi court under Iraqi law that sentenced Saddam and carried out the execution in accordance with Iraqi law?
Newsweek posted an article titled Does the Dictator’s Death Solve Anything? Not missing a chance to engage in Bush bashing, the author begins with “ President George W. Bush was sleeping at 9 p.m. at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when Saddam Hussein's body plunged through the trapdoor of a gallows in Kadhimiya Prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.”
He continues; “But the much more complicated question for now and for the future concerns the "good" he achieved, which may well have been interred with his regime. At a terrible cost, but with ruthless efficacy, he kept Iraq unified and provided a critical balance of power against Iran. If the Middle East is to be stabilized, and American long-term interests protected, those goals are still critically important.”
“So as Bush searches for ways to extricate the United States from the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, which has now cost almost 3,000 American lives and drains more than $2 billion a week from U.S. coffers, little is gained from Saddam's demise. The challenge was not how to eliminate him: he ceased to be a factor when he was dragged out of a "spider hole" three years ago. The problem remains how to replace him.”
Maybe it also escapes the author that the Iraqis will no longer have any fear of Saddam somehow returning to his ruthless power?
Moving on to the Chicago Times, we find the headline THE EXECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN, Was justice too swift?
The article begins: “ Saddam Hussein's trials and his march to the gallows were intended to be turning points in Iraq's history in which justice was delivered on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people killed by the dictator's brutal regime.”
”But for many human-rights advocates and legal experts who followed the trials, Hussein's rapid conviction and execution instead left them with doubts about the emerging Iraqi government and the fairness of its judicial process.”
And; “ Yet in the end, critics said, the flawed trials and the swift appeals process suggested that the system did little more than provide victors' justice, delivered by a Shiite-dominated government against a Sunni Arab who repressed Shiites for more than two decades.”
Friday evening, as news was breaking of his execution being “really eminent,” the New York Times ran an editorial titled The Rush to Hang Saddam Hussein.
From the editorial, “ After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste.”
It ends “ Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.”
No, it may not automatically create a new and better Iraq, but it will ensure, beyond any shadow of doubt, that he will never return to power to slaughter innocent Iraqis again.
Returning to Newsweek, author Howard Fineman has an article out titled The Saga of Saddam and the Bushes.
Fineman says, “ In the conference room aboard Air Force One, we talked about evil. "Is Saddam evil?" I asked. Glancing across the table at his aides, he demurred. I asked again; again, a demurral. We went on to other topics. Several exchanges later, Bush interrupted an answer to blurt out a declaration: "By the way, Saddam is evil!"” He adds, “For both Bushes, dealing with Saddam became a way to measure presidential manhood.”
He ends with, “When Bush Two visited his father in Kennebunkport, Maine, at the start of the 2000 campaign, he said that if he did not win, he would have a lot more time to go fishing with his dad. Father and son may yet get their chance for fishing trips. They will both be relieved that Saddam is gone, but I bet that the subject won't come up.”
A Reuters article on Yahoo titled “Fallen tyrant” taunted in Saddam video discusses the poorly filmed video that has popped up on the internet, seems to be an effort at making the reader feel sorrow over his being taunted by guards, until they were instructed to stop.
APNews My Way tells us that Thousands Flock to See Saddam’s Grave. Here we read, “ Saddam appeared to smile at those taunting him from below the gallows. He said they were not showing manhood.”
“Then Saddam began reciting the "Shahada," a Muslim prayer that says there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger, according to an unabridged copy of the same tape, apparently shot with a camera phone and posted on a Web site. Saddam made it to midway through his second recitation of the verse. His last word was Muhammad.”
The article also tells us, “ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the execution prevented exposure of the secrets and crimes the former dictator committed during his brutal rule.”
I wonder when we will hear revelations of Ahmadinejad’s crimes and secrets in our media?
I am reminded that during and after World War Two, our enemies were tried by us and our allies and many sentenced to death without a cry from the media. By these same standards, what did their executions accomplish? I guess not much, other then the nations freed from brutal leaders back then never were able to return to power and wage war against innocent people or slaughter their citizens that opposed them. No one cared to rehabilitate them or draw secrets from them, they deserved to die and they did.
If our media, or anyone else, is truly interested in what “crimes and secrets” Saddam had, maybe they can ask the survivors of loved ones murdered during the carnage Saddam brought upon his own people.
Posted by Lew Waters at 6:06 PM
December 31, 2006
With just a few days remaining before the seating of the 110th Congress, incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.) has promised she "intends to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
In today’s Democrat Weekly Radio Response to President Bush’s Weekly Radio Address, incoming Congressman Jerry McNerney (D. Ca.) states in part, “House Democrats will restore integrity and civility in Washington in order to earn the public trust.”
The recent campaign that narrowly returned Democrats to power in Washington D.C. was based largely on the Democrat Party’s proclivity to maximize the Republican Party’s scandals and corruption, while minimizing their own. Incoming Speaker of the House Pelosi has stated she will ”drain the swamp” after a decade of Republican rule.
From where I sit, these words sound as hollow as any I have ever heard from any Politician, regardless of which party they belong to.
Republicans abandoned the conservative base that swept them to power in 1994 and too many took liberties that weren’t ethical, or even legal. Some were even railroaded to disgrace them and remove them from powerful seats. Democrats took full advantage of their shortcomings and their willing accomplices in the lamestream media spared no effort in splashing reports, even if biased, everywhere.
But, what of incoming Democrats? Can we really expect a “squeaky clean” Democrat Congress? Can we expect the “most ethical Congress in history?” I doubt it!
From the Hill, we read about Rep. John Conyers (D. Mich), who has vowed to initiate impeachment hearings against President Bush, has accepted responsibility possibly violating House rules. Possibly? After three years investigating charges of his requiring official staffers to work on campaigns, babysit his children, and run personal errands, prompting him to hire Stanley Brand, a defense lawyer with a long track record of defending public officials implicated in corruption cases? And, all he has to do is say “I accept responsibility?” That closes the matter and this is “ethical?”
Representative William Jefferson (D. La.) is caught on tape accepting $100,000 in bribes, with some $90,000 of it subsequently found in his freezer. Is he asked to resign or taken to task by the incoming “most ethical Congress?” He was only reluctantly removed from a powerful seat on the House Ways and Means Committee in the 109th Congress, mostly from pressure applied by the public and Republicans. Committee assignments in the upcoming Congress remain to be seen.
We have Representative Alcee Hastings (D. Fl), impeached ex-federal judge who was Speaker in Waiting Pelosi’s choice for House Select Committee on Intelligence chairman over Rep Jane Harman (D. Ca), who has sat on the committee for the past 8 years.
Pelosi endorsed and campaigned for Rep. John Murtha (D. Pa.) for the powerful Majority Leader position. Murtha is an un-indicted co-conspirator from the Abscam scandal of the 1980s. Other Democrats chose Rep. Steny Hoyer (D. Md) instead. Recent revelations on Murtha expose a charity, The Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities, where lobbyists who serve as directors on the nonprofit group's board have served as "intermediaries" between Murtha, his aides and the defense contractors and businessmen on the board. Murtha says “it is not political.”
We have returning Rep. James McDermott (D Wa) who has been investigated for giving reporters access to an illegally taped telephone call involving Republican leaders and is facing litigation for this action. Of course, it wasn’t unethical.
We have Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), under Federal Investigation for blending his commercial investments with his duties as a Congressional Appropriator, acknowledged ... that he misstated more than a dozen transactions on his financial disclosure forms. Will he too receive a pass by simply stating, “I accept responsibility?”
In November of 1995, Pelosi voted against a provision "to prohibit registered lobbyists from giving gifts to members, officers, or employees of the House and Senate," and was joined by the number-two Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer. Pelosi also has accepted many awards from unions for her pro-union stance in the House, yet she and her husband own a vineyard and interest in restaurants that do not hire union employees nor sell grapes to union wineries.
Democrats made a big fuss over the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, yet with nearly 100 Democrats in the House and Senate also accepting money of $1,000 or more from him, they became strangely silent.
There is also Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D. RI.) who, after crashing his car for the second time in three weeks, didn’t even receive a sobriety test, but was escorted home and subsequently admitted himself to the Kennedy Wing of the Mayo Clinic for drug abuse. How many votes were or will be delivered with him under the influence?
As you can see, Republicans are far from the only in Congress that suffer from ethics problems. Tom DeLay resigned over charges that have yet to be proven or brought to trial. Rep. Foley was forced out over charges of his inappropriate contacts with younger males, yet no laws were broken. There is even evidence and speculation that House Democrats knew of his disgraceful conduct and covered it up until shortly before the 2006 elections to ensure maximum effect in defeating Republicans. How ethical is that?
Charging Republicans with “Culture of Corruption” worked and they have been narrowly returned to power. It remains to be seen if they will return to their own unethical behavior and their own corruption. Based upon how they have turned a blind eye to the Democrats I have listed, I expect more of the same as we have always seen.
Posted by Lew Waters at 1:03 AM
Saturday, December 30, 2006
December 30, 2006
Last evening, December 29, at around 7 PM Pacific time, approximately 6 AM in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the deposed and brutal dictator of Iraq for over a quarter of a century, met his legally mandated fate at the end of a hangman’s noose.
Several news reports delve into the details of his last moments and death and comments from prominent leaders and the like about his death.
Most commenting seemed to be pleased that Saddam was now dead, with a few using the execution to further their own hate Bush agenda or spew anti-American sentiment. Several comments made on far leftist forums, such as Democratic Underground and Daily KOS left me with the impression they had lost a hero. Accusations were also made that President Bush “murdered” Saddam Hussein to prevent his being interrogated by incoming Democrats in the House of Representatives into war crimes investigations and impeachment hearings the far leftist hope will be convened to remove the Bush administration.
What apparently escapes many on the left calling for the Iraqi’s to step up to the plate and fend more for themselves, is that that is exactly what has happened. Saddam was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed 100% by Iraqi’s. It was an Iraqi court, an Iraqi Judge and Iraqi attorney’s, except for the one lone American, far left war protestor and former Attorney General under the Lyndon Johnson (D. Tx) administration, Ramsey Clark. It should be noted here that it was the Johnson administration in the mid 1960s that was responsible for our heavy escalation into the Viet Nam war.
Televised proceedings of the trial of Saddam Hussein showed he received ample latitude in his own defense, having made several ranting outbursts over the length of his trial, with the Judge allowing most to be heard before ordering him to sit down and stop trying to block the proceedings. After his sentencing and failed appeals, his attorney’s even attempted to run interference through the American Federal Courts by filing a challenge in the District court of U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who denied the challenge citing “U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere in another country's judicial process.”
After all the obligatory smokescreens of “Where’s Osama,” “Saddam didn’t attack the U.S.” and other such nonsense, we end up seeing the cry of “Was it worth it?” citing “3,000 American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, civil war and untold Iraqi deaths.” Of course, this question would be dependent on this being the final phase of the actions in the War on Terror, which it isn’t, by any means. President Bush has commented, “Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror.”
So, was it worth it? I imagine the answer will depend on who is asked. Of course, the left, in their penchant for blind hatred of President Bush and any supporters of him, nothing will be “worth it” unless they can succeed in ousting the Bush administration. Given there are only two years left in his administration, they will of course, fail.
The death of a brutal dictator like Saddam is not all that has been accomplished in the War on Terror, either. First off, the “3,000 dead” figure is based off of all deaths of our brave Service Members, in Iraq and Afghanistan and includes both combat losses and accidental losses. Even in a combat zone, accidents occur and troops die in them. That doesn’t lessen the grief families feel nor does it water down their bravery or sacrifice for our country.
Secondly, every member of our Military today are VOLUNTEERS, none were drafted or forced by courts to join the Military, as was done back in the Viet Nam era. Most have reenlisted since the War on Terror began and returned to either Iraq or Afghanistan, having passed any the chance to simply finish their enlistments and return to Civilian life. That fact alone places today’s youth very high in my view of today’s Military, they VOLUNTARILY return to finish the fight and give both Iraqis and Afghani’s a decent fighting chance at freedom, after both have been subjugated to years of trying to survive under brutal dictatorial regimes.
Thirdly, both Iraqis and Afghanis have voted freely for the first time in their lives and are moving towards their own idea of a democracy where the people, not the brutal dictators, have some say in their countries keeping.
A free people working in a free market have no need for groups like Al Qaeda brainwashing them that others are responsible for their poverty. They are free to work, earn decent wages and invest where they desire. They can be free to have and raise families and practice a religion of their choosing without some dictator raping or murdering members of their family because they desire wealth or menial material possessions. They don’t need to attack neighbors to take what isn’t theirs; they build it themselves because they are free to do so.
But, was it worth it? To those of us who didn’t have any direct involvement, our answer will be dependent on our Political view. Those who have been directly involved by losing loved ones answer through their own grief with comments like "I think it was a very generous death for him," made by Stephanie Dostie whose husband was killed in Iraq in a blast from an improvised explosive device on Dec. 30, 2005. Like every one else, grieving family members offer a mixed assessment as to the worth of it.
What of the Iraqis who were so oppressed by Saddam? Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in reprisal killings said, “Now, he is in the garbage of history.”
State-run Iraqiya television, while playing patriotic music and displaying national monuments reported, “Criminal Saddam was hanged to death.”
Shiites danced in the streets, some firing guns into the air, at the announcement of his death. Sunni supporters of Saddam lamented it as, “the death of a Holy Warrior.”
Ali Hamza, a university professor, said; “Now all the victims’ families will be happy because Saddam got his just sentence.”
Human Rights groups, the United Nations and several supposed western allies expressed unease and concern over the death as they are opposed to the death penalty.
I guess the answer to “was it worth it” will have to be answered by each individual in their own way. For me, I am reminded of a famous quote, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” --- John Stewart Mill
One thing is certain. The Iraqi people no longer have to have any fear whatsoever of Saddam somehow gaining freedom and returning to power to carry out retribution against them.
UPDATE: Mohammed at Iraq the Model presents an Iraqis view, Celebrating Justice.
UPDATE: Another Iraqi gives her views at Iraqi Blogger – No Pain No Gain
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:57 AM
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Cinnamon Stillwell, political columnist for SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle online) and contributing editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org. has received an excellent email from a combat wounded Marine. Like many otehrs, he sees the necissity of finishing this fight and the dangers to our culture and country if we don't.
I invite you too visit her blog and read this eye opening email she received.
Cinnamon Stillwell: Iraq War Veteran To San Francisco: We Must Win This Fight!
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:59 PM
December 28, 2006
Not having made headlines for a few weeks and maybe feeling overshadowed by the deaths of James Brown and former President, Gerald Ford, media whore Sheehan had to get herself, along with four other moonbat peaceniks, arrested down in Crawford, Texas today.
What I find especially curious about this move today is that yesterday, Wednesday, another article was ran titled Cindy Sheehan No Longer on Tips of Everyone’s Tongues by Fox news.
According to Texas Department of Public Safety Lt. R.T. King Sheehan and the others were laying or sitting in the road near President Bush’s ranch for about 20 minutes and did not heed requests to move. They were arrested for blocking the road, which caught Vice President Dick Cheney’s motorcade in the traffic backed up.
A bond clerk at the McLennan County Jail in Waco said they were arrested on a misdemeanor charge of obstructing a highway passageway, which could result in spending the night in jail, if they weren’t arraigned this evening.
Earlier, Sheehan and others were arrested outside the U.S. Mission to the U.N., resulting in a conviction of trespassing. The judge then said they would not face punishment as long as they stayed out of trouble for the next six months, and then they were ordered to pay $95 in court surcharges.
To me, she violated the terms of her previous conviction and should now be turned over to the New York Courts and sent to jail for the one year sentence she could have originally received for the trespass charge. Her attorney, Robert Gottlieb, said the terms of the previous conviction meant she will not face any punishment as long as she leads a "law-abiding life." "There is nothing to say that what she was arrested for today means that she is not living a law-abiding life," Gottlieb told the AP. "She may in fact be innocent." Innocent? Blocking a public passageway and refusing to move when ordered to by the authorities and he says she may be innocent?
He added that he anticipates no troubles for the New York courts and sadly, I doubt she will either. Moonbat media whore that she is, she continues to skate because she presents herself as a “grieving Mom.” I wonder if she even remembers her heroic son’s name.
Previously she said, "The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." Then, she placed crosses with every name of every troop killed in Iraq, without any permission from their parents, many of which came and took down the crosses and forbid her from using their son’s names in her misguided quest.
Did she offer her support to the large group of Gold Star parents that traveled to Iraq to see matters first hand, unlike she has done? If she has, I haven’t seen it. I doubt she would anyways as they are opposed to her stance. Download and read the groups report at Gold Star Families Iraq Study Group (requires Adobe Acrobat) and see if their “moral authority” has been supported by either Sheehan or our lamestream media.
Sheehan remains clueless as well. In a July 5, 2006 post she wrote at Michael Moore.com, she said in response to the often heard statement, “freedom isn’t free,” “Well, I'm sorry, but the very definition of freedom is that it is free. Freedom is a birthright of every American and we have the Bill of Rights to prove it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anywhere that our young people have to fight insane wars for greedy swine to earn anyone any kind of freedoms. If freedom wasn't free it would be called "expensivedom."
Since our troops are fighting to give the Iraqi people their freedom, which protects our own, incidentally, are they the “greedy swine” she mentions above?
Additionally, her claim is tantamount to saying something like ‘we don’t have crime, we have laws against it.’
She has gotten a taste of the limelight and apparently can’t handle it when she isn’t center of attention in the media, leading to ever more bizarre behavior on her part. Such as her meeting with Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela who is also an ardent Bush hater.
Even the Kerry campaign, which it has been said got her stirred up in the first place, walked away from her and radical leftist views and antics. If someone as loony and leftist as John ‘F’in Kerry abandons her, she’s even more fringe than one could imagine.
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:58 PM
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
December 28, 2006
From an article in the Washington Post, sure to please the anti-war left, by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, we read, “Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified.”
President Ford, who passed away just yesterday at the age of 93, was also President when South Viet Nam lost to the Communist North Vietnamese forces in what could be described as one of America’s darkest moments.
Reporter Bob Woodward, who seems to have taken extreme delight in his role in bringing about the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974, is also no friend to the current Bush administration nor is he a supporter of the current battle in Iraq, part of the overall War on Terror being waged after the devastating attacks we suffered on September 11, 2001. Any opposition from any source, whether great or small, should come as no surprise from Bob Woodward.
In a Reuters fed article printed today in The Australian, we see the headline taking this one step further, Ford slammed Iraq policy.
Based on a four hour interview by Woodward with former President Ford that has been embargoed and that I know of, no full transcript has been made publicly available, we find excerpts of this interview in the article.
Early in the article we read, "Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
However, much further down in the article we find, "I don't think, if I had been president, on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly," he said, "I don't think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer."
Apparently, Mr. Ford was not privy to much of the information that not only Bush was privy to, but that was passed from the Clinton administration. Additionally, we saw 12 years of United Nations resolutions passed resulting in the scandalous and corrupt “Oil for Food” program which resulted in a large amount of money being diverted away from food purchases and into the hands of Saddam and corrupt U.N. officials.
Bear in mind that several responsible people from both parties as well as several other countries all felt that Saddam was sitting on large numbers of WMDs. Given the horrendous attacks we suffered on 9/11, it would have been irresponsible for any President to not have taken some concrete action to deny terrorists the possibility of gaining access to those same WMDs.
I am one that is of the mind that the supposed WMDs were in fact still in Iraq and that during the six months long “rush to war,” they were relocated elsewhere. In support of my view that they existed, I turn to Senator Hillary Clinton (D. NY) and wife of former President B.J. Clinton when she justified her vote to go to war in Iraq. At that time, April 24, 2004, she said, "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade," and, "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”
Woodward also quoted President Ford as saying, “I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
Everything President Bush has done since the attacks of 9/11 have been what he felt was in the best interest of our ‘national security’ and to prevent another 9/11.
What I am writing should not be misconstrued to appear as if I am bashing President Ford, I am not. I don’t feel he was the best President ever, but then again, he was only in office a little over two years, so it is hard to judge. I do look upon him as a kind and decent man who was thrust into an office he did not originally seek and may have been unprepared for.
I have had strong feelings about him for not doing more to stop the fall of Saigon in April 1975. Even though he faced a predominately Democrat congress opposed to any support of the fledgling country of South Viet Nam, he could not garner support from his former colleagues in Congress and allowed the country to fall into the hands of the Communist North, resulting in the deaths of untold millions of South Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. Over 58,000 American gave their lives in the struggle to allow South Viet Nam to remain free and I feel that sacrifice was made a sham by turning our backs and allowing the Communists free reign to conquer the country.
Woodward wrongfully states, “Ford had faced his own military crisis -- not a war he started like Bush, but one he had to figure out how to end. In many ways those decisions framed his short presidency -- in the difficult calculations about how to pull out of Vietnam…”
Any student of history, much less those of us who served in Viet Nam and were still in the Active Army at the time of their fall, knows that all American Combat troops were gone from South Viet Nam early in 1973. Ford did not become President until August 9, 1974, over a year after our troops were withdrawn. Our involvement had already ended and even though we had promised to return and support the South, should hostilities resume, once they did the Democrat controlled Congress turned a blind eye.
Woodward, in what appears to me to be his desire for a repeat of that debacle and abandonment of an ally in Iraq, seems to be urging just that by running this article with excerpted quotes. Mr. Woodward, I for one, would appreciate a full transcript of this interview to ascertain for myself President Ford’s complete and unfettered words and thoughts.
UPDATE: Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald writes Woodward Chants Up A Ford Zombie
UPDATE: NY Daily News's Thomas DeFrank seems to have a different perspective on President Ford's views on the Iraq War. Last Lunch With a Legend
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:46 PM
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Just being announced on Foxnews, Gerald Ford, who assumed the office of President when President Richard Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, has died this evening, December 26, 2006. he was our 38th President, leaving 3 living ex-Presidents now.
Gerald Ford Biography
Washington Post Article
He was 93 years old.
He assumed the office during a very troubling time, declaring upon his inauguration, "Our long national nightmare is over." He pardoned Richard nixon before he could be charged with any crimes. He was also President as Viet Nam fell to Communism, two years after our departure from that conflict.
He was not elected to office and let he be known that he understood that. It is difficult to measure his overall effectiveness as he was only in office two years, being replaced by Jimmy Carter in the elections of 1976.
Let it be known that he was an honest and decent man and did the job of President to the best of his ability.
Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:05 PM
Monday, December 25, 2006
None of the media are including it in their reports, but, James Brown wasn't only a singer. He was an icon of the Civil Rights movement calling for restraint from the Black community after the assasination of Martin Luther King Jr. He preached to the Black Youths that education and ownership were better ways to seek justice than rioting.
His 1968 song, "Say it Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud" preached economic self-reliance and taught generations of hard-working blacks it was time to "get our share."
He campaigned for Richard Nixon and in 2003 was the featured attraction of a D.C. fund-raiser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
In 1999, when asked by Rolling Stone magazine to name a hero of the 20th century, he named Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina. "Senator Thurmond has been able to stay afloat all these years, and he's great for our country," the black soul singer tells Rolling Stone. "When the young whippersnappers get out of line, whether Democrat or Republican, an old man can walk up and say, 'Wait a minute, son, it goes this way.' And that's great for our country. He's like a grandfather to me."
On losing Ronald Reagan and Ray Charles so close to each other, he called into the Anderson Cooper show on CNN and said, ": I'm kind of in an uproar. I love the country and I'm a countryman and I got -- you know I've been around a long time, through many presidents and everything. So after losing Mr. Reagan, who I know very well, then Mr. Ray Charles, who I worked with and lived with like, all of our life, we had a show together in Oakland many, many years ago and it's like you just found the placard.
It just shows you that you never know what is going on. You got to love each other and you got to try to get along with each other as much as we can. And the young kids got to try to be productive other than destructive to themselves."
He entertained the troops in Viet Nam.
It should also be noted that he did have many troubles in his life. He was imprisoned and had to deal with a drug habit that led to him severely mistreating his wife. He was far from a perfect human, as we all are. Still, he accomplished a lot of good that goes unmentioned in many articles.
James Brown, Godfather of Soul, Civil Rights Icon, may have had troubles with his life, but he was a Republican, something that also does not get mentioned in articles about him.
May he rest in peace, his music lives on.
Posted by Lew Waters at 3:34 PM
Sunday, December 24, 2006
December 24, 2006
I was remembering recently about how Christmas was when I was a child. The town I grew up in, Hollywood, Florida, put up Christmas decorations across the main boulevard through downtown right after Thanksgiving and you could always hear Christmas Carol’s at nearly every store, just walking by. We didn’t have snow, but we pretended as if we did. Even those who didn’t celebrate Christmas had no problem with the rest of us celebrating it and often would smile at the enjoyment they say in a child’s face that was fascinated by all the decorations.
Back in the 50's, people down there seemed to be more at ease, wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and smiling a lot. Do that today and you might find yourself in court defending your "attitude" from the ACLU.
Today, Santa Claus, who seems to have replaced Jesus, is being replaced by secular humanism, atheism and downright commercialism, just never say Merry Christmas! Towns that try to put up festive decorations are also sued and forced to remove them, sometimes in favor of another religions symbols, but no Christian Nativity and again, never ever utter Merry Christmas.
In Vietnam, we took a 3-day stand-down for Christmas, but still had to pull guard duty, of course. My first Christmas, I was sitting on a bunker on the perimeter watching out for Charlie. Second Christmas, Sergeant of the Guard, still watching for Charlie, but we all still said Merry Christmas to each other and smiled at each other. If possible, we might erect a small tree with whatever decorations we could muster on it. Nothing much, just a small reminder of home.
How did we ever let a minority take Christmas away from us? What's wrong with having our children and grand children enjoy the festive and magical time we did as children? More importantly, how do we get it back? Can we get it back?
Yes, I believe we can get it back and as I see more and more people defying the Political Correctness I hear "Merry Christmas" more each year.
For my part, my wife and I will go to my oldest daughter’s house early in the morning and spend Christmas morning with her and her sons. I didn't have a lot of money to spend this year but got the boys a few gifts I hope they enjoy.
Christmas is a magical time for children and after all, the day is about children, isn't it? Yes, we remember Jesus and his sacrifice and pay homage to him, but we also teach children the gift of giving to others, being appreciative and receiving as well.
We cannot let Christmas die and all we need to do is stand together and defy the PC crowd that would steal and destroy it. We are a free society and none are required to celebrate the day. But, their Scrooge attitude should not deny us of our enjoyment, either.
So, put up your tree, lights and garland. Wrap your gifts and turn on your Christmas Carols. Visit loved ones and above all, wish everyone a Merry Christmas. Smile if they don't return it; let them wallow in their misery, if they wish, but smile anyways. Most of all;
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE
Especially to all of our brave troops serving tonight to protect us and keep us free. A very special MERRY CHRISTMAS to the men and women in our Armed Forces tonight
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:09 PM
Saturday, December 23, 2006
December 23, 2006
By now all the breaking news alerts have told the entire world of the news that Miss USA, Tara Conner, 20, has received a second chance and, for the time being, is retaining her crown as Miss USA. She is to enter rehab for drug and alcohol addiction.
About the same time, Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, 22, has been dethroned after photos taken of her prior to the contest kissing other girls and flashing her breasts as well as depictions of lesbian acts were posted by a ‘friend’ on the internet. Initially stating it was a “youthful indiscretion” when she was just 17, it is now being admitted she was actually 19
The ’pardoning’ of Tara Conner by Donald Trump, co-owner of the Miss USA Pageant, has sparked a verbal feud between Trump and the often brash Rosie O’Donnell.
Of this ‘feud,’ I’ll leave it between them as neither are high on my list of most popular people, but Rosie just may have bitten off more than she can chew, this time. We will see.
What I will address is the disparity in the treatment of these two young women. Censored photos that were used to fire Miss Nevada are readily accessible on the internet through links above. I don’t know of any photos of Miss USA’s conduct on the internet, but reports of her behavior and conduct are and it appears to me to be very similar and close in age, as well.
Miss Nevada issued a tearful apology and asked for second chance from Donald Trump like he granted Miss USA. The final decision is anybodies guess, but I imagine Trump will remain firm in his decision, only time will tell.
What is being missed in all the reports of this current scandal concerning these young ladies is what do we attribute their conduct to? Why do women as pretty, well to do and competing in pageants to become Beauty Queens and models to others engage in such conduct?
Stop and think a minute about how we have been raising our children the last few decades. Our daughters are taught sex at an early age is okay and if they become pregnant, no big deal, hide it from your parents and have the school officials, that may not give you an aspirin, take you somewhere for an abortion, legally!
We have glorified nudity in movies, on TV and in periodicals. Girls receive sexy clothing at early ages and through videos like “Girls Gone Wild,” where young ladies at places like New Orleans Mardis Gras are filmed flashing their breasts and other body parts. This is considered ‘cool’ among many of the young today.
Often, due to the misdirection of the 1970’s feminist movement, instead of urging equality for women, they were taught they could be just as sexual as men and the old “if it feels good, do it” attitude led many to public conduct that a few decades ago would have publicly shamed them and their entire family.
Oral sex in the Oval Office between a White House intern and the then President was written off as no big deal. A celebrity flashing her bare vagina at paparazzi recently was similarly poo pooed as just prudes complaining. A popular female singer a couple years ago lip locking other females on stage was credited by some as enlightening as homosexuality is now being taught as merely an “alternative lifestyle.”
We raise children with a “party on” attitude and are shocked when we discover they do it. Our daughters receive the sexiest of dolls to play with at an early age and parents often encourage sexuality in young women by paying for breast implants while in their early and mid teens. Some allow them to drink alcohol or smoke marijuana at home, thinking they won’t when they go out.
Too many parents abdicate their parental authority to schools, daycare, television and computers or video games, not monitoring what they do. And then, when they are exposed in such conduct as this, we are appalled that anyone would object or would post the pictures.
This scandal goes well beyond the indiscreet conduct and behavior of two young ladies out of control. It goes right straight to the heart of our society and what we have allowed ourselves to become as we slide further and further towards a leftist ‘no rules’ society.
The final decision in the handling of this scandal rests squarely with Donald Trump and the Miss USA pageant, but as he contemplates, we as a society need to look long and hard at what we teach our children, both sons and daughters, that would make them think conduct as this isn’t anything abnormal and something to enjoy.
They are the future and will act as we teach them.
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:12 AM
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
December 19, 2006
In an article today by the Washington Post, we read the headline, “WP: U.S. not winning war in Iraq, Bush says.”
Pretty damning headline, given that just prior to the elections in November President Bush said, "Absolutely, we're winning." Given the media bias against the President we must ask ourselves, “is that what he really said?”
From the opening paragraphs of the article, we read;
“President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.
As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Again, Journalist Peter Baker, who wrote this article, presents quotes in a manner that does make President Bush look like he is backing up on his earlier claim.
However, in the December 20, 2006 edition of the very same paper, on page A-16 (towards the rear of the section, I’m sure) we find the Transcript
Of this 25 minute interview in the White House and read;
Q: Are we winning in Iraq, in your estimation?
“You know, I think an interesting construct that General [Peter] Pace uses is, "We're not winning, we're not losing." There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing -- constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself.”
A little further down we read,
Q: “Can we come back to General Pace's formulation about winning, not losing? You said October 24th, "Absolutely, we're winning." And I wanted to --”
“Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win. Look, I've got four constituencies I speak to on a regular basis; one is the American people, who are justifiably frustrated at the progress in Iraq. And they expect the commander in chief and the people in Washington to support our troops. Supporting our troops not only means good equipment, good [pay], good housing -- it also means a plan that helps achieve the objective.”
Clearly, President Bush is acknowledging we are in a tight spot with heavy opposition, as we would expect in any war, not that we are losing it. Then too, given the heavy opposition from the hate America left and their desire to see us lose this war, it makes it all that much harder to win, I feel.
Articles as this, which we have been seeing ever since Bush won the 2000 election, further undermines his leadership in this new type of war as we learn the tactics and procedures of this new type of non-uniformed enemy.
Once was the time this type of “reporting” wouldn’t have been tolerated. When President Clinton decided to bomb Kosovo and Bosnia, where were all these news pundits claiming “quagmire” and “are we losing yet” questions, considering that President Clinton stated our troops would be “home by Christmas,” yet they are still there? And, who do the lamestream media turn to for information on how the war should be run? Clinton, that’s who.
With our enemies reading and watching our media daily, this type of misleading report just emboldens them to hang on and keep inflicting casualties on our troops, just as similar misleading reports out of Viet Nam encouraged general Vo Ngyuen Giap to keep hitting and running until the American Public simply gave up and demanded the troops be withdrawn, to the loss of millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian lives.
I may not be a “journalist,” but I can see manipulative reporting when I see it.
This ‘article’ isn’t news, it’s propaganda in the fashion of Goebbels to paint a false picture of a leader the left will undermine any way they can, regardless of how many American or Iraqi or even Afghani lives it may end up costing.
UPDATE: In a press conference Wednesday, December 20, 2006, President Bush was asked about this comment. Below is the question asked and his reply;
Q Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, "Absolutely we're winning." Yesterday you said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?
THE PRESIDENT: My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win; I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you got to know. We're going to succeed.
My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. And so we're conducting a review to make sure that our strategy helps us achieve that which I'm pretty confident we can do, and that is have a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.
You know, I -- when I speak, like right now, for example -- I'm speaking to the American people, of course, and I want them to know that I know how tough it is, but I also want them to know that I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that will help us achieve the objective. I also want our troops to understand that -- that we support them; that I believe that tough mission I've asked them to do is going to be accomplished, and that they're doing good work and necessary work.
I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective. And I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate America. They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that's not going to happen.
What is going to happen is we're going to develop a strategy that helps the Iraqis achieve the objective that the 12 million people want them to achieve, which is a government that can -- a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself, a free country that will serve as an ally in this war against extremists and radicals.
Whitehouse Press Conference, December 20, 2006
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:02 PM
Sunday, December 17, 2006
December 17, 2006
Apparently still campaigning for President, Massachusetts junior Senator and self proclaimed hero, John ‘F’in Kerry, decided to take it upon himself to visit with leaders in the Middle East and then to visit with some of the “poor uneducated” troops who are “stuck in Iraq.”
While in Egypt, he couldn’t pass on taking a swipe at President Bush while discussing matters with Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, where he said, "I have always believed that the Middle East peace process is the critical issue of the region, and it has not been focused on for the past 6-7 years adequately," adding to reporters, "I think there has been a huge loss of opportunities."
Expressing agreement with the recent release of the Iraq Study Group, amounting to a virtual surrender, Kerry added, "I think it is important to talk and have a dialogue, but you don't give up our principles and you don't make deals that are against your larger interest. Syria needs to understand that and also Iran, but I think it is important to begin a discussion."
Bear in mind it has been Syria and Iran funneling weapons and support to the insurgents in Iraq killing our troops. If by ‘dialogue’ he meant an ultimatum to them that if their support continues, they too will be decimated, I might tend to agree with him. But, as his stance since the 2004 campaign has shown, that is not his interest.
The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden sees the actual intent of Kerry’s trip with an editorial today, “Kerry rewrites U.S. foreign policy to fix Iraq wisecrack.”
Since Kerry’s ill fated campaign in 2004, where he became notorious with statements as, “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” and “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place,” he has made constant calls for withdrawal of the troops before their mission is finished. While feigning support of the troops themselves, but opposition to their mission, somewhat reminiscent of his anti-Vietnam calls in the early 1970s, he has tried desperately to paint the battles in Iraq as a failure.
On the October 15, 2006 Fox News Sunday show with Chris Wallace, when asked about North Korea, he replied about the War on Terror, “…, they're living in a world of make-believe, Chris. They're living in a complete fantasy with respect to the foreign policy they put in place…It is a failure. It's a failure in Afghanistan where they have a sort of cut-and-run policy of not completing the job…”
In an April 6, 2006 email sent out during the mid-term campaigns, he said, “I believe that American combat troops should come home from Iraq in 2006 - not the distant future as President Bush does.” Again, in a June 2, 2006 email he said, “The violence continues to spiral in Iraq. But, instead of a deadline to bring our troops home and put the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqi leaders, we get half-hearted comments about past mistakes, and cynical political calculation… Last month, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 36 which calls for the withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq by the end of this year.”
An August 16, 2006 email in support of “cut and run” Democrats, he again said, “Each of these strong leaders has forcefully spoken out in favor of a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq,” adding, “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 then, in October, just days before the election, was his alleged “botched joke,” “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Hoping to wash over his gaff, he now has visited Iraq promising to apologize to any troops that may have been offended.
Personally, I feel that maybe he should try listening to some of them instead of his own political rhetoric.
As I noted in an earlier post this week, outgoing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in a glowing reception by these same troops, was asked, ”Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”
In another of his frequent visits with the troops, retired Marine Lt. Col Oliver North was told, by a young U.S. Marine Corporal, “We’re here to win,” who then added, [winning] “That’s when these people don’t need me to guard this street so their kids can go to school — when they can do it themselves.”
Think of the wounded Marine Secretary Rumsfeld met with at Bethesda Navy Hospital who said to him, “If the American people will only give us the time, we can do it. We’re getting the job done.”
On a recent Sean Hannity program, a young Soldier said, "A politician saying that we can't win the war, that to me is telling me they don't have any faith in us. They have no faith in us. They do not believe in us, and they cannot put their trust in us." He added, "We can win. But the politicians … It's the sergeants and lieutenants that are here fighting that are going to win this thing.”
Contrast those statements to Kerry’s and his latest after meeting with a few troops in Iraq when he claimed his, visit with American and British troops had helped in "crystallizing" his views about the situation in Iraq.
Here, he states, "Today was very informative and very helpful in crystallizing some of my thoughts insofar as what we can negotiate ...,” and "I certainly learned more about what the troops can or can't achieve," and finally, “the most important challenge now was to achieve ‘whatever success is possible.’"
Curiously, but not surprisingly, missing from his statement were words such as, “WIN,” “VICTORY,” or “WINNING.”
It is obvious to me that our troops are winning and they know it. Defeatist like Kerry, for whatever reason he has, must not want us to win in this war. After all, defeat was snatched from victory in Viet Nam due to the actions and conduct of many left leaning persons, including Kerry when he made his lying and slanderous performance before the Fulbright Commission in 1971.
You were wrong back then, Senator and you are wrong today. Victory comes slowly in this new war. Victory was to be had in Viet Nam. Why does a Victorious America threaten you, Senator? Why does the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq bother you so much?
It has often been said, “Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.” Senator, just get the hell out of our way.
Posted by Lew Waters at 5:04 PM
Saturday, December 16, 2006
December 16, 2006
In December 1944, at the height of WW2 and thinking the Germans were on the run, they totally shocked the world by amassing their Army and attacking, surrounding the French Town of Bastogne. Much is made of the fact that FDR was a Democrat leading us through WW2, but if you look back, the party was very different than today. Imagine how WW2 may have gone had he faced the massive onslaught of opposition President Bush faces today in executing the War on Terror, especially the Battles in Iraq.
I have often related the BATTLE OF THE BULGE to Tet of ‘68 in Viet Nam. Both battles saw us caught by surprise and through strength of determination and will, push back our enemy and defeat them. That we defeated the North Vietnamese is a fact lost on the public, thanks in large part to the efforts of the anti-war left and news commentator, Walter Cronkite.
I've always felt that it was Patton's “Drive Like Hell” push through to Bastogne that saved the day, that and the courage and determination of those trapped there.
WW2 was indeed a great war in scope and determination. I fear that today, we are faced with the same sort of enemy and that he has learned our weak spots and is attacking us there, much like the Communist North Vietnamese did.
The Battle of the Bulge and Tet of '68 should teach us a lesson, when compared side by side. We need to return to the time we were determined to win, not negotiate with an enemy to be "fair."
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:38 AM
Friday, December 15, 2006
December 15, 2006
The spineless brother of the President has today caved into bleeding heart opposers of the death penalty, labeling Wednesday’s execution of heinous murderer Angel Nieves Diaz as a “botched execution” and has suspended all executions. He will not sign death warrants until a commission he created to examine the state's lethal injection process completes its final report around March 1.
It is claimed to be “botched execution” due to the 34 minutes it took for Diaz to die. A medical officer claims that officials botched the insertion of the needles that delivered the lethal chemicals.
Governor Bush says he wants to ensure the process does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Governor, putting someone to death prematurely is cruel and anymore, unusual, considering that bleeding hearts have managed to make a death row stay last 20 to 25 years. However, those on death row just may deserve cruelty as they meted out to their victims.
Why worry about the feelings and suffering of someone who has taken a life for no reason other than they could, or to steal from them and stop the victim from identifying them later? Sorry, they deserve a cushy cell with amenities and strength building equipment readily available to build their strength to use against the next victims, should they escape as Diaz repeatedly had.
Governor Bush, I thought your spineless lack of actions towards Terri Schiavo in your refusal to stand up for a disabled woman put to death by her estranged husband, blind circuit judge and gruesome attorney was an anomaly. It appears I was wrong. You have no spine to stand up to those destroying our nation by coddling murderers and eventually, terrorists as well.
Don’t bother running for President, you will never have the support of me or my family.
In a related court ruling out of California today, a lone federal judge has declared the majority of voters in that state invalid when he handed down his ruling that California Executions are Unconstitutional.
This stems from a case by convicted murderer rapist Michael Morales, who kidnapped, tortured and raped 17-year-old Terri Winchell 25 years ago.
Morales first tried to strangle Winchell, but the belt used in the attempt broke. Then, he hit Winchell at least 23 times in the head with a hammer, knocking her unconscious.
Then, he raped her.
After that, he stabbed Winchell four times in the chest and left her northwest of Lodi in a vineyard, naked from the waist down and with her shirt up over her breasts.
An investigating officer said, "It was one of the most brutal and gruesome crimes I've ever seen."
And, this is a person deserving of leniency by federal judge, Jeremy Fogel?
Like Diaz, Morales deserves to be put to death and who gives a hang about their comfort, pain or suffering? They sure didn’t show any leniency to their respective victims. Yet, they cry about “cruel and unusual?” I feel they deserve no less than they gave and swiftly.
Now, thanks to Bush and Fogel, Morales and others who preyed on victims in much the same way will be sitting in a cell, watching color TV, working out on weights and waiting for a chance to escape and repeat their crimes.
Who shows any mercy to the families of the victims? When do they get a reprieve from the cruel and unusual pain and suffering they have felt since their loved ones were murdered all those years ago? Why does no federal judge rule to end their suffering?
When do we relegate these bleeding hearts back into the woodwork, where they came from? My only prayer is that if any of these animals do escape prison and prey on more victims, those victims will be the ones holding candlelight vigils outside of prisons every time another murderer pays with his life, decades after murdering their victims.
The death penalty isn’t about rehabilitation; it’s about ensuring that certain criminals who showed no regard for their victims ever has the chance to kill innocent people again. Pull the switch, tighten the rope, drop the pellet or inject a rusty needle, rid society of these killers.
Posted by Lew Waters at 6:22 PM
Thursday, December 14, 2006
December 14, 2006
Yesterday, December 13, convicted murderer, Angel Nieves Diaz, met his fate in Stark, Florida for the slaying of Bar Manager Joseph Nagy during a robbery at the Velvet Swing Lounge on Dec. 29, 1979. Diaz wasn’t found or charged until 1984, convicted to death in 1985. Diaz robbed the lounge along with two accomplices, one who committed suicide and the other, already serving a life sentence for another murder, plea bargained for a second life sentence. Diaz, on the other hand, with a lengthy criminal record for other killings, escapes and robberies, pled innocent and went on trial.
In what I perceive as an attempt to turn his trial into a circus, he fired his court appointed attorney’s and requested to represent himself. The judge granted his request and is now under fire from death penalty opposing bleeding hearts for doing so.
The execution lasted some 34 minutes before Diaz was pronounced dead and this too is now being used as death penalty opponent’s latest cry. Prison officials said it was very unusual and assured onlookers he felt no pain, even though some said he grimaced as he died.
I wonder if any of the bleeding hearts ever think of the grimace Joseph Nagy must have had or the pain he obviously did feel, lying on his office floor dieing from gunshot wounds. I wonder if they ever think of how long he lay there, in very real pain, bleeding, until he died.
If you think I have no sympathy for Diaz, you are right, I don’t! Reading some of his criminal history, it was just a matter of time before the odds caught up with him and he met his righteous fate. From a Miami New Times article, A bad man, a flawed trial, and a needle, we read of Diaz;
“Born in Puerto Rico in 1951, Angel Diaz married while still in high school and dropped out during his third year. At age 17, he was arrested for heroin possession. At age 24, he shot and wounded a police officer during an armed robbery and was sentenced to five to eight years in prison. While incarcerated, Diaz participated in a drug rehabilitation program. In 1978 he fatally stabbed the program's director nineteen times and was convicted of his murder. Only a year into his fifteen-year sentence, he beat a corrections officer to near death, escaped prison, and fled to Miami. Two months later, he drew his gun in the Velvet Swing.”
“In February 1981, Miami cops nabbed Diaz for unrelated assault and firearms charges. He gave them an assumed name, Emilio Baez, and posted bond. Before police grasped his real identity — fugitive murderer from Puerto Rico — he jumped bail and fled north. Federal firearms agents caught up with him in Middletown, Connecticut, and arrested him on a warrant for illegal possession of a .25-caliber pistol. The feds soon discovered his history and indicted him on weapons charges in a circuit court in Hartford.”
“One week later, Diaz again escaped from jail.”
“In the Hartford Courant, authorities called it "the largest jailbreak in recent state history." Diaz and three inmates assaulted two guards and then used a floor buffer to break a window. Scaling a wall and a twelve-foot fence, they stole two cars and fled the scene. Caught three days later at the Home and Travel Motor Hotel in Meriden, Connecticut, Diaz spent just two years in jail before getting into trouble again. In July 1983 guards found a loaded .38-caliber Derringer under a mattress in his cell. This time they took him to Leavenworth.”
Before his 1985 trial, while incarcerated in Miami-Dade, he planned yet another escape, teaming up with other inmates to pay a corrupt corrections officer $10,000 for a MAC-10 machine gun.
Now, the bleeding hearts wanted to mention, as they always do, his childhood of abuse and mental problems, and his addiction to drugs from the age of 16. So what? Joseph Nagy is still dead. Lots of people have been addicted to drugs and cleaned their acts up without murdering people. Lots more have been abused as children, they didn’t murder people. Many more have mental problems. That doesn’t excuse cold blooded murder.
Diaz supporters also now claim that evidence was not raised that another of the tree shot Nagy. What they don’t say is that all three robbers were shooting in the club. Besides, even an accomplice is held accountable for murder during the commission of a felony.
Bleeding hearts also claim that the lengthy time it took for him to die and the “grimace” some say they saw on his face proves that lethal injection is cruel and unconstitutional. Excuse me, but wasn’t lethal injection the agreed upon method of execution after these same bleeding hearts demanded methods as gas chambers and electric chairs be banned due to their cruelty and unconstitutionality? Maybe they need to reactivate “old sparky” for these bleeding hearts?
Opponents keep claiming that the death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Considering that they drag executions out some 20 to 25 years, no it isn’t. A swifter execution might cure this problem, though. Endless appeals over any and every point they can muster just keeps costs rising and gives murderers hope they will beat the rap. Ones like Diaz, with a history of escapes, would just walk away, again, and be free to kill again. Once executed, though, none have ever killed again.
The governor of Puerto Rico was seeking clemency for Diaz. It did not come through and Diaz will never harm another human being. Had the Puerto Rican governor had the death penalty and applied it against Diaz long ago, Joseph Nagy might still be alive today.
Nicknamed “Daddy of Death,” in his Machete Men gang, if ever a criminal deserved the death penalty, it is Diaz.
Posted by Lew Waters at 10:44 PM
Monday, December 11, 2006
December 11, 2006
Cindy Sheehan, whose grown adult son made a conscious decision against his mothers wishes to reenlist in the US Army and volunteer for a dangerous mission he did not have to, that cost his life in 2004, was convicted today of trespassing for trying to deliver an anti-Iraq war petition to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
She was Arrested this past March, along with 3 other women for refusing to disperse and trespassing.
While facing up to a year in jail, the women received sentences of being ordered to pay $95 in court surcharges and told to “stay out of trouble for six months.”
Of the sentencing, Sheehan commented, “This verdict, however, will not stop us from continuing to work tirelessly to bring our troops home."
After the sentencing, the women immediately left the courthouse and headed for the U.S. Mission to redeliver the petitions, where this time, they were accepted by Richard A. Grenell, director of external affairs for the U.S. Mission, and Peggy Kerry, the mission's liaison for non-governmental organizations and sister of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is rumored to have served in Viet Nam.
Mr. Grenell said, “We accept petitions every single day, even without an appointment. What we don't do is accept them in front of a staged media event.''
It’s my opinion that it’s too bad they accept them from media whores at all.
It should be noted that Sheehan has shown herself to be a willing tool of pro-Stalinist activists and no matter how patriotic she claims she is, her very words show the hatred she really has for America.
Sheehan has said; “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush."
“I know that George Bush and his band of neo-cons and their neo-con agenda killed my son.” About the one who actually pulled the trigger that killed her son, she says, “The person who killed my son, I have no animosity for that person at all …. I have no animosity towards that person."
“America has been killing people …. since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: ‘This country is not worth dying for.’”
“I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.”
“I told Kristen if you have any actions and you need a ringleader, that I only live about an hour away. I’ll be here. If I can sleep on somebody’s floor, we can have this, we can camp out, do whatever we need.”
“We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”
"You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they[American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."
Sorry, but I don’t see the terrorists as “Freedom Fighters.” If they were, shouldn’t she be proud that Casey was killed by a “Freedom Fighter?”
Earlier on she said, "He just wanted to go over to fight for his country, and serve his country,"
Today, she says, “I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.”She also says, "Casey was against it, but he felt it was his duty to go because he was in the Army.” “I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war.”
It should be noted that Casey VOLUNTARILY enlisted, not once, but twice in the US Army. He VOLUNTARILY went on a rescue mission he did not have to go on, since he was a mechanic on Humvees, not a combat soldier. In the truest spirit of bravery and heroism, he died trying to protect and rescue his fellow soldiers. He is a HERO, not a victim of George Bush. The only victimization of Casey Sheehan is how his mother, Cindy Sheehan, stands on his grave to further her anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-terrorist agenda.
While she should be ashamed of her leftist actions, we need to refrain from falling for leftist buildup she receives in our lamestream media. There is ample evidence of her true intentions and how she dances on her heroic son’s grave, revealing herself as what she really is, just another looney, blame America first, dishonest, leftist, useful idiot.
Posted by Lew Waters at 10:32 PM
December 11, 2006
Today at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, Kofi Anna, the 10 year leader of the Useless Nations, made his farewell speech before an audience that he told the world is “in a sorry state,” insinuating, without directly mentioning him, that our President, George W. Bush, is largely to blame.
During his 10 year reign at the U.N., his anti-Americanism and dislike of Israel has not been well hidden, especially since Bush won the election in 2000. Showing a fondness for Truman, he lauded former President’s Truman’s handling of the Korean War and having placed American troops under the flag of the U.N.
Said Annan, “ That was why, for instance, he insisted, when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations and placing US troops under the UN flag, at the head of a multinational force.”
Of course, the Useless Nations negotiated a “cease fire” with North Korea on July 27, 1953. Today that “cease fire” is shaky at best and accomplished little at worst.
The new leader of North Korea, Kim Jung Il, recently tested a small nuclear device; we still have troops in South Korea to deter a return to hostilities for the past 53 years. I fail to see much there to be proud of today, but then again, as Annan said, the Useless nations was in charge.
Annan also stated, “ when I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond ‘lip service’.”
Mr. Annan, as the leader of the Useless Nations for 19 years now, what steps did you take to help the people of Darfur? What steps did your Useless Nations take to stop the genocide of Rwanda? What steps were taken to stop worldwide terrorism? NONE!!!
Annan went on to say, “The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the "responsibility to protect" will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively - by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle - are prepared to take the lead.”
That is exactly what George W. Bush has been doing and to date, Kofi Annan has opposed it every step of the way!!!
He went on later say, “if our different communities are to live together in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and our shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law.”
I wonder if he made sure Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Jihadists were paying attention to these words. And, “Human Dignity?” Common Humanity?” “Human Rights?” Sorry, but as I see it, when you are prepared to highjack airliners with innocent passengers on board and fly them into buildings, or support those that do, when you kidnap people and saw their heads off before a video camera, when you execute women because they dare try to get an education, wear lipstick, nail polish or make-up, you are no longer a human deserving of any “rights” or “humane treatment.” This would also apply to those that support such actions.
Another statement in the speech, “ My fourth lesson - closely related to the last one - is that governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one.”
Except for one that invaded a neighbor and when he was forced out by America, agreed to disarm and end WMD programs? After ignoring 17 resolutions over 12 years, by your precious Useless Nations, Mr. Annan, what support was given by this U.N. in making Saddam Hussein accountable? Again, only opposition.
He added, “We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.”
I can only ask, again, where was your support in dealing with the despots? Where were the other member nations who also have been affected by the terrorists?
I also cannot see the U.S., the most powerful nation on earth today, and undoubtedly, one of the milder, in that we do not bully other nations into submission, unless, like Iraq, they pose a threat to ours and the worlds peace, being placed under someone like Kofi Annan or being placed on equal par with ones like Iran’s, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or North Korea’s Kim Jung Il.
Perhaps that is one of the largest and most troubling problem within the Useless nations, besides its massive corruption, is their failure to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys.
He ends with, “ I hope and pray that the American leaders of today, and tomorrow, will provide [far sighted leadership].”
Perhaps Anna was too busy counting his own ill gotten gains to notice that radical Muslims declared war on western civilization back in 1979 and finally, someone with “far sightedness” has come forward and is finally standing up to these radicals that highjacked Islam to their Neanderthal view of religion? And what does Mr. Annan do? He opposes that man and those who try to stamp out those that slaughter others for no reason other than they disagree on religion!
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Republican Senator from Texas, said of Annan’s speech, “It is America's defense of liberty and guarantee of free speech that gives Kofi Annan a forum for his criticisms. Those very freedoms were attacked on Sept. 11, drawing us into a War on Terror to defend our values. Kofi Annan's farewell remarks ignore the fact that the U.S. contributes 25 percent of the world's peacekeeping budget and continues to be the greatest defender of liberty the world has ever known."
Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation said, “ Kofi Annan has been a shameless appeaser of dictators and tyrants on the world stage and he was fundamentally opposed to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”
Gardiner added, “He [Annan] is a believer in constraining American global power and his latest speech today was all about reining in the U.S. superpower and imposing some kind of international multilateralist vision."
When asked in a Q&A session whether the speech was an attack on President Bush and America, Annan replied, “nothing could be further from the truth, an appeal for corporation in leadership should never be seen as an attack.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R. Neb.), who introduced Annan at the library said, “Kofi Annan served as secretary general during 10 of the most difficult, complicated, and dangerous years of the U.N.’s history. He did it with grace, humor, determination, and always doing what he felt was in the best interest of mankind.”
Yes, Senator Hagel, but what was accomplished to protect the world during those 10 years, by Annan? Nothing!
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, (D. Mo.) chimed in with, “For the most part, he has handled this very difficult job with poise and integrity. I hate to see him leave.”
Since it is no secret that many Democrats want the sovereignty of the U.S. stripped and placed under the Useless Nations, that comment isn’t the least bit surprising.
Alex Grobman, author of "Nations United: How the United Nations Undermines Israel and the West,” added his two cents with, “The purpose (of Annan's speech) is to deflect criticism for the U.N., which has failed miserably in its task to bring peace to the world," adding that during Annan's terms as secretary-general, the United Nations often criticized Israel while all but ignoring the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Sudan, Uganda, East Timor and other countries.
Former president B.J. Clinton said, “ Annan's ten years at the helm have been ‘historic,’ having ‘changed the lives of millions of people’.”
Yes, Mr. Clinton, they are now dead!
Annan steps down at the end of this month and I only pray that his replacement, South Korean diplomat Ban Ki Moon doesn’t have the rose colored glasses on that blind them to the realities of the world and those in it that would destroy our way of life and slaughter people simply because they believe differently.
I can always hope, can’t I?
UPDATE: Malkin vs Annan at Tom DeLay.com
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:14 PM
Saturday, December 09, 2006
December 9, 2006
Sort of an odd question to see on a blog site, isn’t it? Read on and maybe you will come to understand the meaning behind it.
As we all know, the day after Democrats narrowly retook control of both houses of the legislature, President Bush announced the retirement of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Democrats and anti-war leftists took this as a vindication of their ranting and belittling both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld over the past six years. Why wouldn’t they, they won the elections, finally, even if by a very narrow margin.
Nothing could be further from the truth, however.
In what will be his last week in office, Secretary Rumsfeld, without any fanfare, pre-announcements or even coverage by the lamestream media, traveled to Iraq to visit with the troops one last time, before he hands the mantle over to the newly confirmed Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. The same one that the lamestream media has been boasting all week as saying we are not winning the war. Enough on Gates, for now.
In Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld, 74, visited with troops at Al Asad Air Base in Unbar province and then with troops in Balad, no safe Green Zone visit. Speaking to the various troops, he said, “For the past six years, I have had the opportunity and, I would say the privilege, to serve with the greatest military on the face of the Earth. I leave understanding that the true strength of the United States military is not in Washington, it’s not in the Pentagon, it’s not in the weapons. It’s in the hearts of the men and women who serve. It’s your patriotism, it’s your professionalism and indeed your determination.”
He spoke of a wounded young man he met with at Bethesda Navy Hospital who said to Mr. Rumsfeld, “If the American people will only give us the time, we can do it. We’re getting the job done.” Of that comment, Rummy said to the troops in Iraq, “I believe him. I know he’s right. We feel great urgency to protect the American people from another 9/11 or a 9/11 times two or three. At the same time, we need to have the patience to see this task through to success. The consequences of failure are unacceptable.”
To say the troops received Mr. Rumsfeld well is a misstatement. Showing they hadn’t lost faith with the departing Secretary, they lined up by the hundreds to have their photos taken with him. In fact, at both areas he visited, he was treated as if a rock star.
One Marine gunnery sergeant said to Rummy, “It isn’t a military problem out here. It’s a political problem. No one in this country can challenge us militarily; we’d wipe the floor with them. The Iraqis have to ‘cowboy up.’”
Another, a convoy commander at Anaconda Logistics Area added, “This is my second year-long tour. Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in ‘Fort Livingroom?’?”
As the anti-war left brays their “we support the troops, but not the mission,” nonsense, those last words should be well heeded. These are brave young Americans who see the danger of letting Iraq fall by the wayside and not standing up to terror everywhere needed. They are volunteers who bravely place their lives on the line to keep terrorists away from us.
I don’t care what the lamestream media or the Democrats claimed to retake control of the House and the Senate, our troops are winning and they know it.
From the beginning President Bush has said this is a new kind of war, it is going to be a long war and it is a necessary war. On our parts here at home, all we need is patience. Patience and giving the troops the support and materials needed to win this fight. It can and must be won.
Rumsfeld said, “The consequences of failure are unacceptable.”
General John Abizaid (U.S. Central Command chief) said, “We can certainly walk away from this enemy, but they will not walk away from us.”
An American Commander said, “Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in ‘Fort Livingroom?’”
America, ask yourself that question. If the brave troops you all claim you love and support have the patience and the courage to place them selves in harms way time and time again, for your protection, why can’t you have the patience to let them finish the job, this time?
UPDATE: More on Rumsfeld's 16th visit with the troops is at AtlasShrugs.com
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:41 PM
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
December 6, 2006
The panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker, appointed and commissioned to study the situation in Iraq and make recommendations on what avenue the President should take was released today. Without the benefit of a full and in depth study of the report, I have noted some recommendations that I fell should be ignored.
To begin with, this panel itself, billed as “bipartisan” appears to be a complete sham. Of the ten members on the panel, six are either Democrats or Clinton staff members. Others are career Diplomats at best, moderates or RINOs at worst. Why Sandra Day O’Conner and Vernon Jordan are even on a panel to study policy for the President is beyond me. I don’t see one person I consider a conservative nor a high ranking Military Officer on the panel.
The UK Independent, a decidedly left leaning and anti-Bush paper ran an article today titled Apocalypse now: 79 recommendations and a President forced into a corner.
The article begins with,
“A gauntlet was thrown at George Bush's feet yesterday when a long-awaited report on Iraq recommended that he seek the help of Iran and Syria, significantly bolster Iraqi forces and prepare to withdraw most US troops within 14 months.”
“It warned that finding a way forward had to be part of a broader Middle East settlement that established a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and provided peace for Lebanon.”
Most disturbing is this “seek the help of Syria and Iran.” From a DEBKAfileNews article, cited in the Arab World News, we read the headline Baker-Hamilton Group Seeks Israel’s Return of Golan for a Secure Peace with Syria
Not too long ago Israel gave back the Gaza Strip and I hope everyone recalls what that cost them in personnel and combat with Hezbollah out of Lebanon. If Israel gives up any more land, when they currently have but a small fraction of what was to be allotted to them to form their nation after World War One, I see another blood bath coming that will make the 1967 conflict, when they captured the land after being savagely attacked, appear small in nature.
Also in this article is, “The only lasting and secure peace will be a negotiated peace.”
World War One was settled by such an arrangement and that led to the rise of Adolph Hitler and his Nazis and plunged the world into an even bloodier war.
In a World Net Daily titled “Terrorists rejoicing over new Iraq ‘plan',” we read comments from those claiming to be leaders of the terrorists.
"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.
"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu Ayman said.
According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by "Allah and his angels."
"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen (fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
"It is no doubt that Allah and his angels were fighting with them (insurgents) against the Americans. It is a sign to all those who keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground so let us negotiate with them," Abu Abdullah said.
Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be defeated on its own soil.
"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S. itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.
"The Iraqi victory is a great message and lesson to the revolutionary and freedom movements in the world. Just to think that this resistance is led by hundreds of Sunni fighters who defeated hundreds of thousands of Americans, British and thousands of soldiers who belong to the puppet regime in Baghdad. What would be the situation if the Shiites will decide to join the resistance?" commented Abu Nasser.
Islamic Jihad's Abu Ayman said after the U.S. "defeat" in Iraq is finalized, insurgents there should move to the West Bank and Gaza to help destroy Israel.
Al Jazeera, in an article titled Iraq report: US strategy failing adds their two cents with, “At least ten US soldiers have been killed in Iraq on the day that the Iraq Study Group released a report which said that US strategy in Iraq is not working.”
Syria’s Buthaina Shabaan, the expatriates minister, told Al Jazeera: "We welcome this report and regard it as a very important step. It means, God willing, the end of this era of American intervention in the region and the American occupation of Iraq which brought catastrophic ramifications on the whole region."
I suppose he felt Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons were better for the region? Maybe because Saddam truly was helping to fund terrorists?
What I find truly telling is reading Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president saying, "We believe that Iraq's problems can be resolved by Iraqis alone," as well as Nir Rosen of the New American foundation, saying that there was one thing all parties could agree on and that was that the US military can not win the war in Iraq. He said: "It has to be won by the Iraqi government and Iraqi politicians, not the US military."
Yet, they all are calling on America to intercede and pressure Israel to give up the Golan Heights in another “land for peace” deal that has always failed? Maybe they all should butt out and let Israel and the Palestinian Arabs settle their problems themselves too?
Seeing the apparent dangers for Israel in these “recommendations,” the Jerusalem Post ran two related articles, Israel must be wary of paying the price for Iraq's mess and Official: US talks could isolate Israel indicating the worry they have over this report, should much of it be implemented.
While I don’t necessarily oppose Diplomatic efforts, history shows they all too often fail and are used as a smokescreen for our enemies to strengthen their Armies and rebuild their weapons, resulting in even bloodier wars down the road. Diplomacy from a position of weakness, a position we portray with the help of the anti-war left and liberal Democrats that have done nothing but bash President Bush and the war, is a ready formula for failure.
Despots such as the terrorists and their leaders only understand superior strength, not kumbaya. The North Vietnamese also desired negotiations, remember? We withdrew, they rebuilt and resupplied and swarmed over South Viet Nam, as we sat idly by and allowed a fledgling ally to succumb to communism.
As was stated above in the World Net Daily article, terrorists feel triumphant now and as soon as we leave, they will follow us. That is their promise.
If we are to negotiate in an effort to allow Diplomacy to solve this issue, we must follow the words of an ex-President, Teddy Roosevelt, when he quoted a West African proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
In the interim, I pray President Bush studies this ill conceived “plan” and deposits much of it in the appropriate round file. Clearly, it is more of a sell-out than a roadmap for peace.
UPDATE: The Iraq Study Group Report -- The Way Backward (By Tom DeLay)
UPDATE: Center for Security Policy also sees problems with this "report." Here they have an open letter to the President urging him to proceed cautiously with any acceptance of the ISG report, written by Senator Jon Kyl and R. James Woolsey.
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:45 PM