Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Why Afghanistan, Nancy?

January 31, 2007

After the whirlwind tour of the Middle East, admitting she went convinced already that retreat from Iraq is best to “solve the situation” in Iraq, Speakerette of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is advocating a Troop increase in Afghanistan, while opposing the same in Iraq, where the terrorists currently are.

Pelosi and Afghan President Karzai discussed plans this weekend for an additional $10.6 billion for Afghanistan, increase aimed at rebuilding the country and strengthening government security forces there. Former State Department analyst, Marvin Weinbaum says, "It makes a lot of sense … to highlight Afghanistan as where the real source of terrorism began and where it still has to be dealt with so that the Democrats come out of this not looking like they're weak-kneed when it comes to battling terrorism."

Not “weak-kneed?” But, Pelosi, Democrats and RINOs advocate abandoning the battle in Iraq, where the terrorists currently are? In a December 2006 Newsweek Article, bin Laden’s men broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The message? “Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

Clearly, Al Qaeda sees where the fight is, even though Speakerette Pelosi and others do not.

So, why the push for Afghanistan over Iraq? Only the Speakerette knows for sure, but I suspect it has to do with the “A New Direction” pamphlet Pelosi hawked during the 2006 campaign where she stated and promised to, “Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

As previously stated in my post The Insignificance of Osama Bin Laden, he doesn’t dare stick his head out, provided he is still alive, which is doubtful. Therefore, it is sheer folly to dedicate our Military Forces to finding Bin Laden while the influx of terrorists in Iraq gets ignored.

This move of Pelosi’s also begs the question of why send defenses to Afghanistan at all? Like their claim for Iraq, isn’t Afghanistan just a “civil war” between the former government and the new government? Will sending more troops to Afghanistan just cause an increased insurgency there?

Should Iraq be abandoned, mostly to embarrass President Bush by causing failure there, will Al Qaeda just set up shop there, as they previously did in Afghanistan and start all new terrorist training camps? Don’t forget, the Taliban isn’t who attacked us. The Taliban isn’t who trained terrorists to attack us. It was Al Qaeda who has told the Taliban they aren’t opposed to their own “Troop Surge” into Iraq.

On another note, hasn’t Afghanistan been basically handed over to NATO forces, as Democrats demanded? Shouldn’t the call be for NATO to step up efforts in securing Afghanistan, since many declined to help in Iraq?

Of course, my questions are rhetorical as I fully support any effort in helping to secure both countries. Had the Democrats and RINOs not been opposing it every single step of the way and broadcasting to the enemy that all they need do is wait us out, who knows how much further along this fight would be?

Don’t forget, it was Pelosi and several others who, all along, have called for more troops for Iraq. Now that President Bush has committed more, they balk and now oppose it.

Had Bush committed the troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, would they be adamantly opposing reinforcements there as well?

War never goes as planned. Mistakes are made every day by all sides; it is just the nature. But, as in previous wars, back when Democrats liked America winning wars, they are overcome, tactics are modified as needed, strategies adapt as well and we learn our enemy’s tactics and use them to our advantage.

What we don’t do is retreat and surrender, under the guise of “responsible redeployment.” At least, we didn’t before Viet Nam.

Let’s get behind our Troops, wherever they may need to fight and watch as they give us VICTORY in all theaters of this War On Terror.


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Citizens Report on Iraq

A free download pdf file with interviews from our troops and their families, something you won't hear from the lamestream media.

86 pages in length and covers the view of the majority of our brave troops.

Citizens Report on Iraq

Monday, January 29, 2007

The Insignificance of Osama Bin Laden

January 29, 2007

The name Osama Bin Laden stirs strong emotions in nearly everyone hearing it. As the founder of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, he has admitted complicity in several terrorist attacks, most notably the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001.

On the right, his name solidifies the determination to find and kill him, or declare him dead already since he hasn’t been heard of in some time. On the left, his name has become a tool to embarrass President George W. Bush since no one knows for sure if he is dead or alive.

We hear calls of “Osama Been Forgotten” from Democrat Senators, “Where’s Osama?” from detractors of President Bush and the War on Terror in Iraq and from the right we hear calls that he is “dead in a cave.”

Very few people in man’s history deserve death as does Bin Laden, let there be no doubt. A wealthy Saudi who uses his millions to recruit others into the deceptive cult of death he too fell prey too, many he deceived have gone on to their deaths in suicide attacks that Bin Laden himself won’t perform.

Since September 11, 2001 much focus and many man hours have been expended on finding and capturing or killing him. Prior to 9/11, several opportunities of capturing or killing him were aborted or ignored as he commissioned more attacks around the globe, killing innocents and American Government workers working in embassies and such overseas. I don’t have to tell you what September 11, 2001 brought.

This isn’t the first time our Military has been sent to find and kill one individual, especially during war or after a devastating attack. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, plunging America into World War Two, intelligence soon discovered the Japanese Admiral that planned and executed that attack was Isoroku Yamamoto. As his name was spread he too was made into a larger than life demon man and in 1943, it was discovered through intercepts that he was to make an inspection tour throughout the South Pacific. Several American aircraft were stripped of unnecessary weight and set out to intercept and kill Admiral Yamamoto. The raid was successful and the Admiral was killed on April 18, 1943.

His death did not stop World War Two or bring the Japanese to their knees. The war would last another 2 years until the Japanese finally surrendered.

During Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh was the much hated leader of North Viet Nam. On September 2, 1969, he died. The Viet Nam War continued until US involvement ceased in 1973 and Saigon finally fell to the Communists in April 1975.

During World War Two, President Franklin Roosevelt fell ill and died on April 12, 1945. His death, while affecting many Americans, did not cause us to pull out of the war or even to lose it. Vice President Truman stood up, as mandated in the Constitution, and took the helm, guiding us to Victory. In spite of the death of our leader, we prevailed and succeeded in war.

Today, that evil person is Osama Bin Laden. Like I said earlier, few people in history deserve death more than he does, but accomplishing that will not bring the War on Terror to a close. He too has others that will and have stood up to guide their evil cult and continue in their quest to bring Western Culture to its knees and enslave the globe under radical Islam.

Before you get to thinking I advocate forgetting Bin Laden, I don’t. If alive, he is on the run and hiding out in caves in desolate areas of Afghanistan or Pakistan, where even the governments don’t know where he is. He is out of communication with his lieutenants, if he wishes to stay alive. If dead, his worthless body is buried deep within one of those caves to keep the West from knowing about it, as his lieutenants step up and direct matters for his terrorist group against the West.

I have no doubt that there are clandestine operations ongoing to find him or verify his death. If alive and captured or killed, though, his death won’t bring the war to a close, as didn’t the others.

I mention this because we hear politicians, primarily Democrats, but a few Republicans as well, use his name to call for a withdrawal from the War in Iraq to find and kill Bin Laden, as if they believe that will end the War on Terror. If only!

With Bin Laden reduced to insignificance from within his own terror group, we cannot allow our troops to become distracted by committing thousands of troops to find him while allowing the lieutenants to continue committing acts of terror.

Bin Laden’s group, Al Qaeda, is mostly working inside of Iraq today, having flooded into that country as we invaded to depose Saddam Hussein and deny Bin Laden the possibility of obtaining the WMD’s that nearly the entire world’s intelligence community said he had. Since they weren’t found there is still the chance they are stored somewhere and terrorists could obtain them. In the meantime, I feel it is best to allow our troops to fight terror wherever it rears its ugly head and use Special Forces Squads specially trained to seek out Bin Laden.

World War Two ended over 60 years ago and several of the Nazi War Criminals were never found. Others died in hiding, of old age. What is important with them is they could not commit their heinous acts again. Of course, once caught, they received the justice they were due and if Bin Laden is found, he will too.

We need not distract our troops with endless hunting for one man whose death won’t stop the war. We need to get behind them, build our forces as necessary, learn and train our troops in fighting terrorists as needed and reduce terrorism to the same insignificance Bin Laden has today, as small specially trained units seek the whereabouts of Bin Laden.

Wherever Bin Laden or his body is, it will become known one day. Let us not ignore the threat of terrorism allowing it to regroup and grow stronger while we distract the majority of our troops with searching for one man.


By Any Other Name, Troop Surge is Still Reinforcement

January 29, 2007

With the announcement by President Bush recently that he intends to commit an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq, to curb the sectarian violence in Baghdad and the opposition coming from most Democrats and some Republicans, I wonder if they really wish to see this war won.

Calling it a “troop surge” is a devious method of deflecting reinforcing our troops there already. You recall them, no? The ones that Iraq War opponents have been crying all along are dying due to not enough troops?

Occasionally, “escalation” is used in lieu of “surge,” in the effort to turn the War on Terror in Iraq into Viet Nam and draw away more public support.

Surge shares meaning with words as • flood • cascade • cataclysm • deluge, trying to indicate a failed strategy before it is even given a chance. Very crafty propaganda technique to hide a strategy opponents must be worried will succeed.

Reinforce shares meaning with words as • buttress • aid • assist • back up • bolster • brace, showing the real intent, to secure a troubled area and win this fight.

Throughout the history of warfare, many a battle would have been lost if not for Commanders seeing their forces weren’t large enough and sending in reinforcements. The Battle of Gettysburg, in our own Civil War in the 1800s is a prime example. The Battle of Chickamauga, one of the bloodiest in the same war, is another that would have been lost, if not for sending in reinforcements.

Guadalcanal, in World War Two, was nearly lost due to Commanders expecting reinforcements but instead, losing Marines. Sheer determination brought that campaign to Victory, after some time.

In Northern Africa, British Commander O'Conner, planned to capture Tripoli but decided to wait for reinforcements. During this time, German Commander Rommel reorganized his forces, which could have lost that battle as well, if not for the strong Australian defense Rommel ran into.

The invasion of Normandy was successful, although a very bloody battle, due to the allies being able to continually reinforce their troops while cutting of the ability of the Germans to bring reinforcements for theirs.

Today, we are in another war against a force wanting to dominate the world and yes, it too is a hard bitter fight. For all the crying of “not enough troops” in Iraq from the day we invaded you would think these same people would be elated Bush is reinforcing the troops there now, but that isn’t the case.

They label it a “surge” and “escalation,” hiding the fact that it is a reinforcing of troops to win this battle. Makes me wonder if any of these politicians opposing the reinforcement today seriously desire to see our troops killed and America lose the battle in Iraq.

Democrat, Republican, doesn’t matter. In my book, anyone not calling for VICTORY in this battle, not calling for the DEFEAT of Al Qaeda and other insurgents is a traitor and ultimately will bear the blood of many fallen troops on their hands.

It is long past time to put this partisan bickering aside and get behind our troops. Telling them they cannot win is not supporting them; it is depleting their morale and desire to win.

If you believe as I do that our troops are worth reinforcing and saving, that this battle needs won, please visit and sign the Truth Laid Bare Pledge and let’s help our brave troops achieve the VICTORY they desire.


UPDATE: In support of what I first said, Democrats have begun calling this an "escalation," designed to further convince the public it is just Viet Nam II.

Pelosi: ‘War in Iraq Cannot Be Won Solely by Military Means'

DNC – Iraq Escalation

That is just two examples of how they are fudging wording to kill any chance of victory in Iraq.

Amazing how Democrats will sell out both the country and the troops for political gain.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets

As if Viet Nam Veterans haven't received enough abuse from the lamestream media, on January 21, 2007, an op-ed was published by the L.A. Times titled the above.

Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets
Where else can Bush get 21,500 trained soldiers for his 'surge'?
By Paul Whitefield, PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.
January 21, 2007

LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles — Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth — because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes — lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.

My letter sent off to the L.A. Times, which will never be printed, I am sure;

It was with particular disgust that I read Mr. Whitfield's January 21 "op-ed" article, "Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets." As one of the “geezers” he opines are so “out of shape” and of “less value” than today’s youthful “ALL VOLUNTEER” force, who see the same threats to freedom and liberty we saw, I recall the abuse we received at the hands of today’s leftwing heroes, such as Democrat Senator John Kerry, as he accused us of being “monsters,” “murderers,” and “war criminals” while he advocated surrendering to our enemies.

I recall Jane Fonda’s trip to the enemies land and manning one of their anti-aircraft guns, of seeing episodes on TV programs of the time depicting returning Veterans, who wanted nothing more than the return of the life they left behind, portrayed as evil, demented men, demon driven to kill any and everyone in their path. That it was a lie didn’t seem to matter, we were expendable to broadcast ratings and unimaginative screenwriters plots.

We watched as we were transferred from demonic “baby killers,” although many of us do not support abortion on demand, to “hapless victims of a corrupt military,” in movies as the Rambo series, still ready to kill and rain havoc on a community that would refuse to serve us food at a diner.

Now in comes Whitefield to carry forth that lie with his depiction of 2.5 million men who honorably answered the call to duty and shed their blood and sweat fighting the spread of an oppressive style of government that eventually brought about the deaths of untold millions of dissenters and innocent civilians in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos.

Mr. Whitefield, let me tell you. I am 58 years old. I served 18 months in Viet Nam. I have a full head of gray hair, have not ridden a motorcycle, much less a Harley, since 1968 and have no plans to. I have been gainfully employed since my exiting the U.S. Army, raised two daughters to adulthood, neither of which have ever been in trouble. I do wear dentures, but not due to “Agent Orange” but due to slipping while building a doll house for my daughters and having the wrong end of a claw hammer strike me in the mouth. I do wear glasses, but did when in Viet Nam as well. I still retain a 34 inch waist and bathe daily. I miss very little work as a heavy line auto technician and apply the expertise I learned as Helicopter Crew Chief/Mechanic to my daily repairs of customer’s cars. I have not even received a traffic ticket since 1967, two years prior to my enlisting in the U.S. Army.

Last, but not least, yes, I do still own a gun that I keep for personal protection, as I am permitted under our Second Amendment. I am proud to add that my gun has killed or harmed less people than has Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy’s car.

Mr. Whitefield, if you are so worried about where an additional 21,500 bodies can be found to fill the ranks called for by President Bush and you see fit to use those up in age, to spare the youth, may I suggest you start with all those who fled the country rather than answer the call to duty and who later filed back into the country as they were granted amnesty by the great Democrat failure as President, Jimmy Carter.

You say that “we didn’t get a parade.” I don’t recall ever asking for one. Those who cowardly ran then slid back and took up hero status never received their chance to serve their fellow man and are long overdue. My guess is you never served either, so maybe you can join the draft dodgers, starting with former President Clinton, and do your service, while those of us who already served “collect our pensions and social security,” that we also paid into and earned.

We served the country once, when do you?

Lew Waters

UPDATE: Adding to this is an article ran in the Washington Post, January 30, 2007, The Troops Also Need to Support the American People where the author refers to our All Volunteer Military today as "mercenaries." Coming under heavy fire for that, in a feeble effort to either excuse his crassness or apologize, not sure which, William Arkin, the author states, "I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military." A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops

Saturday, January 27, 2007

The Late Great United States?

January 27, 2007

From comments being made by some politicians, that is how I have come to think they view America. At the least, that is the appearance they are leaving around the globe as they make comments as did Senator John ‘F’in Kerry (D. Ma.) in Davos, Switzerland when he called America, ”a sort of international pariah.”

Although just his latest gaff, Kerry isn’t new to bashing America, including those of us who served honorably while he used a short stint to build the foundation of his ever waffling political career. Back in 1971 his comments were more directed at Veterans, the very ones he often claims to revere, but stated we were “monster[s] in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence,” or when he also said on Meet the Press in 2005, "I agree with Sen. Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem."

In agreeing with fellow Senator Ted Kennedy (D. Ma.), Kerry was referring to a speech given by Kennedy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in January, 2005, relating the current War on Terror in Iraq with the Viet Nam War. Among things said by Kennedy were, “We lost our national purpose in Vietnam. We abandoned the truth. We failed our ideals. The words of our leaders could no longer be trusted.

Relating to Iraq, he continued, “We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Lest you think I find culpability only in these two Senators, I refer you to MSNBCs Chris Matthews and his show, Hardball, where on September 5, 2006, in an “interview” with New York Green Party gubernatorial candidate Malachy McCourt, addressing Capital Punishment, the following exchange took place;

Matthews: "Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?"

Malachy McCourt: "Capital punishment? I think that if, if I've got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I get him to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment.

With all the friction between political parties today, as well throughout our history, I cannot recall any call for the “execution” of a sitting President. Leaders of other nations as well as their citizens see and hear news reports from America. What do they think of a country, at war, with candidates calling for executing those leading us in war?

With all the turmoil that has been ongoing between Israel and the trumped up scam of Palestinian refugees and the efforts of past and present administrations of both parties in encouraging these people to come together, how unconscionable is it that a delegation of Democrats secretly meet with Hamas, a known terrorist group whose main goal is the destruction of Israel, the sole democracy currently in the Middle East? What message is sent to the rest of the world when we are engaged in a “War on Terror” and some of our politicians secretly meet with other known terrorists?

How must others view Americans as a junior Commissioned Officer in our Army deserts the men he took an oath to lead and is held up as a ”hero” while Military Members wounded in the war are being protested?

Having been massacred in 1975 and 1991 by the forces of Saddam Hussein, I find it totally unreasonable that Iraqi Kurds, who have long felt they were natural allies of America, should now be worried the promises of support made because a panel of 9 Politicians and one former Justice, none with extensive Military leadership background, state that we need to turn to the very ones resupplying and supporting insurgents killing our troops and the innocent Iraqis for assistance.

As the continual call of too many troops have died rings within the anti-war groups, how ironic is it that politicians oppose reinforcing the troops, as some call for, also speak of or hint at defunding the war effort?

Far from being the sole domain of one political party, we also see as Republican Chuck Hagel splits his party as fellow Republicans, John Warner, Susan Collins and Norm Coleman join forces with the opposition party in opposing any reinforcements to secure Baghdad and give the fledgling Iraqi democracy a decent chance at reaching the very political solution sought by many. What message is sent to leaders and citizens of other countries as they see all this division openly while we are once again attempting to prosecute a war that is long overdue being fought?

I grant you that many leaders of other countries were and are opposed to our eliminating Saddam Hussein and facing terrorism in Iraq, but is their opposition sincere? Or, is it because they lost the cash cow discovered as the Oil For Food Scandal unraveled and millions skimmed from that program to United Nations and European Nationals became known?

Since the hippies of my generation started placing flowers in their hair, smoking their dope, turning on and tuning out, the attitude of “breaking away or overthrowing of established order” has grown, except when the “established order” is coming from those in agreement with hippie generation. They preach “peace” and “love” but fail to see that their own ”anything goes” lifestyle contributes to fear and hate others feel towards Americans.

German author Henryk M. Broder sees this in his book Hurray, We’re Capitulating as he remembers the appeasement attitude prevalent prior to World War Two and how it only brought a temporary reprieve and a much greater fight in the coming war back then.

No doubt, America has problems, many problems. Sending messages of derision and division while we are engaged in the very fight that may determine the survival of Western Culture and Free Democracies across the globe is one of them. In spite of all of our problems, though, America is not the problem.

Fight them now or fight them later when they are much stronger, we are going to have to fight the terrorists as they seek world domination.

Ones like Kerry may view America as a “pariah,” or even “the late great United States,” but sooner or later, this Sleeping Giant will awaken and squelch the dissenting voices from within hating America and seeking her defeat.


UPDATE 1: From Australia, Radical cleric calls for Islamic utopia

UPDATE 2: In the ever conflicting reports from our lamestream media sending messages to our enemies and allies alike that we are a "paper tiger," two articles posted today on the war;

From the upcoming February 5 issue of Newsweek: More than 3,000 U.S. service members have now died in the Iraq war. At first it was difficult not to feel overwhelmed by the number of deaths. After four years, it is now difficult not to feel numb. In a nation without a draft, the emotional connection between the front and the home front is the weakest it has been in a major conflict in recent memory. There are so many news accounts of troops killed in combat that the details blur. The death of one soldier, or 20, loses its power to shock, except to the families of the fallen.

At some point, the way we talk about the war itself changes. We speak less and less about husbandless wives and parentless children, and instead obscure the suffering in vaguer, more distant and—guiltily—easier terms. We shake our heads and talk about the "losses."

In Washington, the talk is now all about Iraq. Democrats, emboldened by their control of Congress and the president's sinking poll numbers, no longer fear being labeled "Defeatocrats" if they take a stand against George Bush on the war. And some Republicans, including Sens. Chuck Hagel and John Warner, are speaking out against the handling of the war and about the cost in human life. Nonetheless, the president, trying to appear conciliatory and resolute at the same time, is determined to send an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq, no matter what anyone else thinks. If Congress rejects the idea, Dick Cheney told CNN last week, "it won't stop us."

Black Hawk Down: The True Cost of Iraq War

From today's issue of the L.A. Times: "Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so?"


"The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States."

"Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy."


"But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down."


"...the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence."

Was 9/11 really that bad?

UPDATE 3: Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq War and in 2003 stated about the WMDs not found in Iraq, "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.” now chimes today with "We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office"

Nowhere do I hear any words of VICTORY, WIN, DEFEAT THE ENEMY, or words of that effect from the left.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Democrats Trying to "Figure Out" How To Support The Troops

January 25, 2007

Posted on the Wall Street Opinion Journal Online, by James Taranto, an exchange between Sen. Schumer (D. NY) and David Gregory on the 'Today' Show.

Gregory: But how can the public really buy [that] the Democrats support the troops but don't support the mission? How can you do both?

Schumer: Well, that's the difficulty. A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that's what we're figuring out right now.

As many have continually said, you cannot "Support the troops, but not the mission." Anti-liberty Democrats eager for power are discovering their rhetoric may sound good, but placing it into action is next to impossible.

If, as the anti-liberty left keeps claiming, it is easy to do, why are the Democrats in the Senate having trouble "figuring it out?"

Talk as this demoralizes our troops and ends up costing lives. I recall hearing the same nonsense of cutting off funding and support when in Viet Nam myself and yes, it did me feeling downhearted.

Our Military people fighting today deserve and merit the best, as was done for the troops in World War Two. They have the spirit and the drive to win, as our Military always has.

Democrats grabbing power and carrying on like this to score political points underscores their confidence and lessens their chance of success, leaving them feel they are fighting for nothing, defending an ungrateful nation.

That spirit is shown in the son of junior Senator from Virginia, James Webb, who ripped at President Bush after the State of the Union Speech. Says Lance Corporal James R. Webb, “For me not to respond to the country’s call, I’d be letting myself and the history of my family down.”

Since Senator Webb is one of those staunchly opposed to the war but 'supports the troops, not the war,' perhaps he can "figure it out' to his own son.

Being in power during war carries with it an awesome responsibility. Disheartening your own troops while they are fighting far away is not "supporting the troops."


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

When Comes The End?

January 23, 2007

Those words, spoken this evening by James Webb (D. Va.) in the Democrat response to the State of the Union Speech given by President Bush, are an obvious attempt at encouraging the country to once again, “cut and run” from the battle in Iraq in the overall War on Terror.

Taken from the October 25, 1952 campaign speech, given by retired General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who went on to win the election as a Republican, titled ‘I Shall Go to Korea’ and used to give the impression that ending the battle in Iraq as did Eisenhower in Korea, is the best option for Iraq. Webb said, “As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

It is a fallacy to say the Korean War was “brought to an end” as we still have troops there enforcing a shaky cease fire that was signed some 53 years ago between North Korea and China on one side and the UN backed forces led by the Americans on the other. South Korea was not a signatory to this armistice. The armistice was signed under the conditions of "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved".

That was in 1953 and today, 2007, there still is no “peaceful settlement” between the two Koreas.

A DMZ (demilitarized zone) has existed between the two ever since with armed troops on either side warily watching the other side.

Since this shaky ceasefire was initiated, the North Koreans have failed in several assassination attempts on South Korean leaders, most notably in 1968, 1974 and 1983; tunnels were frequently found under the DMZ and war nearly broke out over the Axe Murder Incident at Panmunjeom in 1976. From late 1966 through 1969 there were several incidents of guerrilla warfare, sabotage and terrorism directed against the people of South Korea and the Americans serving there, nearly sparking a return to full hostilities in what has become known as ‘the DMZ War.’ Today, under Kim Jung Il, North Korea is threatening World Peace, as well as their neighbors, with the use and testing of nuclear weapons.

Clearly, Webb is sadly mistaken when he says “he brought the Korean War to an end.”

Conveniently forgotten or merely overlooked by Webb in the Eisenhower speech, were some other strategically placed words;

The biggest fact about the Korean war is this: It was never inevitable, it was never inescapable, no fantastic fiat of history decreed that little South Korea-in the summer of 1950-would fatally tempt Communist aggressors as their easiest victim. No demonic destiny decreed that America had to be bled this way in order to keep South Korea free and to keep freedom itself-self-respecting.

Obviously, Eisenhower didn’t feel Korea was a “mistake” or a “distraction,” as do today’s Democrats in their efforts to politicize and to paint the battle in Iraq as such. Eisenhower affirmed this view when he went on to say, “There is a Korean war-and we are fighting it-for the simplest of reasons: Because free leadership failed to check and to turn back Communist ambition before it savagely attacked us. The Korean war-more perhaps than any other war in history-simply and swiftly followed the collapse of our political defenses. There is no other reason than this: We failed to read and to outwit the totalitarian mind.

Iraq could easily be substituted wherever Korea is mentioned. For whatever reason, Eisenhower chose an easy way out and as history shows, it achieved neither the early nor the honorable end sought and promised.

Most importantly missed, or ignored, by Mr. Webb were the following words in that speech, “World War II should have taught us all one lesson. The lesson is this: To vacillate, to hesitate-to appease even by merely betraying unsteady purpose-is to feed a dictator's appetite for conquest and to invite war itself.

The Democrat effort to appease, to vacillate, even to hesitate to face the enemy that has been attacking us continually since 1979, twice now on our own soil, can and will led to an even broader war in the Middle East.

Unlike all the times before, we are not fighting a nation with a uniformed service. We are facing an ideological enemy spread throughout the globe that wears no uniform and blends in easily with the surroundings. Who would the Democrat party have us ‘negotiate’ a ceasefire with?

This newest enemy, emboldened by decades of unresponsiveness from the West, will follow wherever we go and carry the fight back to us, expecting more and more surrender from the West they see as ‘soft’ and ‘weak.’ We must fight and defeat them, now or later.

Webb ended his “response” with the usual threat he has become noted for. He said, “ Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

No, Mr. Webb. If the country chooses to follow the Democrat model of ‘cut and run,’ again, it will be the terrorists showing US the way. The way our own streets will run with blood as our children and grandchildren are forced to face these animals within our very streets.

Our Military has volunteered to face and fight this menace where they are today. I support their efforts and stand behind them fully as they fight to preserve our freedoms. I can only hope and pray you do too and ignore the ramblings of ones like James Webb (D. Va.)


UPDATE 1: If there is any doubt that Eisenhower opposed the Soviet Union and their nation grabbing, another speech he made, in which a single sentence is often lifted out of context, should clear up any doubt. From Dwight D Eisenhower, The Chance for Peace, April 16th, 1953.

"The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor."

"It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war."

"It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever."

The Chance for Peace

UPDATE 2: Unraveling Webb’s Response

UPDATE 3: Hugh Hewitt has posted an essasy from a fellow Naval Academy Graduate addressing Webb's "response." From A Naval Academy Graduate To Senator Webb

Monday, January 22, 2007

Men sue Mormon Church, Boy Scouts in abuse case

January 22, 2007

In this lawsuit, two brothers, now in their thirties, are alleging they were sexually abused by the same man who served as a Scout leader and church teacher in the 1980s. The brothers, identified only by initials, are asking for $6.5 million in the lawsuit, saying they have suffered "severe debilitating physical, mental and emotional injury."

While I see it as too early to form an opinion as to the veracity of their complaint, I do find it very odd that the Boy Scouts especially, are being sued now for not doing something about a homosexual leader that hasn't been involved with any scouts for the past 20 years, as he has spent most of that time in jail, yet the Boy Scouts are under continual fire for not allowing Homosexual men to be Scout Leaders today.

Boy Scouts Under Fire; Ban on Gays Is at Issue

It seems that anything that teaches classic patriotism and pro-America attitudes has to be destroyed, any way the left can do it.


Choose Wisely, America

January 22, 2007

Once was the time that America went to war and the citizens got behind the fight and put partisanship aside. Americans made sacrifices, even if reluctantly, suffered with less gas, meat, butter, vegetables, whatever it took to ensure our troops fighting enemies across the globe received the tools and food needed to win the fight. Along with Allies, forces desiring world domination under their oppressive ideals were pushed back over a period of years and defeated.

That was then, this is now.

After the stunning victory of America and her allies in World War Two, which was actually an outgrowth of World War One that ended in an Armistice, not unconditional surrender, someone decided to approach war in a “limited manner.” We decided to no longer defeat an enemy of freedom, but to hold them within their borders, or walk away.

Korea is a good example of that, having a shaky peace agreement now for some fifty years with the Communist North continually saber rattling. In spite of “sanctions,” North Korea’s Kim Jung Il now boasts of having obtained nuclear weapons with which to threaten their neighbors.

In Viet Nam, due to pressure from the anti-liberty leftists within America, we abandoned that ally and just walked away, allowing the country to fall to Communism in 1975 after the Democrat led Congress cut off any and all support for the struggling country, while Communist Block nations fully resupplied and supported the North Vietnamese.

Gone were any parades to returning heroes. Instead, we were scorned, ridiculed, called ‘baby killers,’ and yes, spit at, even in only to a minor number. Gone was the support to the troops fighting in a foreign land. Gone was the respect for the Armed Services. Even the history written about that war was written in a manner to make America the aggressor and yes, the loser, even though Saigon fell over two years after the last American soldier left.

On January 21, 1977, in his first official act of office, newly inaugurated president, Jimmy Carter, signed Presidential Proclamation 4483, granting amnesty to Viet Nam era Draft Dodgers, in essence, granting them hero status while snubbing those that served in Viet Nam, especially the 58,000 names now engraved on the walls of the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial.

Carter lost the presidency in the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan, in part due to Carter’s inaction towards Iran as they swarmed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 American citizens for 444 days, the hostages being released shortly after the inauguration of President Reagan.

The efforts of the left led to a very dark era for America, even if a short one. America was embarrassed over Viet Nam, especially as word of the millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians met their fate in the slaughter that followed the Communist takeover. Carter allowed that era to fester as we were referred to as a “Paper Tiger” by foes and our inflation rate reached double digit status. As it turned out, even little pisant nations like Iran lost any fear or respect they may have held for America and attacked our embassy there.

Under Reagan, we started supporting our allies in their stand against Communism, a memorial was erected to Viet Nam Veterans and many who actually dodged the draft all of a sudden became seasoned war heroes, complete with medals, falsified papers and of course, the best war stories one could imagine. Some even managed to falsely obtain benefits available to veterans only. Of course, the aura of the deranged Viet Nam Veteran that was prevalent during the 1970s gave way to the poor victimized Viet Nam Veteran who was still liable to “go off” at any time and cause great harm to others.

Most of us just shook our heads and got on with our lives, speaking very little of it unless to others who were actually there. The wannabes were easily smoked out and several were.

After the Reagan presidency, our troops were once again sent into harm’s way to liberate Kuwait under the first Bush administration. They were heroic and performed well, liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in record time. With Saddam’s forces on the run, the left, once again, undermined our efforts and we stopped short of deposing Saddam and freeing Iraq. 12 years and 17 U.N. resolutions ignored later and after the most devastating terrorist attack to ever come upon America, we were back in Iraq to do the job right, this time.

It should be noted that between the two Bush administrations there was the Clinton administration, who also did very little to combat terror, but somehow managed to deploy our troops more than any other president, after reducing their size and ability significantly.

From the start, the leftist anti-liberty whiners started in about the War on Terror, especially once it moved to Iraq. Within days of invading Afghanistan the leftist outlet, the New York Times ran an editorial asking if Afghanistan was now in a “Viet Nam style quagmire.” During the 2004 campaign we heard phrases like “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” by some of the very ones who voted to give the President authority to invade Iraq in the greater War on Terror.

We hear “I support the troops, but not the war.” “Iraq is Bush’s Viet Nam.” “Bush lied, men died,” and other such leftist rhetoric, even though none other than Hillary Clinton, justifying her own vote to depose Saddam said, “"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.”

We have a Lieutenant refusing to deploy with his troops being treated like a celebrity hero in our leftist leaning media. Minimal numbers of others have also refused to go, even though they are volunteers, some crying they never realized being in the U.S. Marines might mean killing in a war. A small handful of Veterans from this war come forward to oppose it and they are treated as if they are the majority, when the overall vast majority who actually are in support of this war remain virtually ignored.

Our enemies listen in to our newscasts, just as the North Vietnamese did, when they simply waited America out, fully realizing our Achilles heel is the left whipping up sentiment against the effort to defeat our enemies. Our left, unbridled today, is supporting our enemies in their quest to embarrass the current President and grab power for good in our government.

What they fail to realize is that this current enemy, which is in reality an enemy of freedom and mankind from many centuries ago, will not be content to just exercise their radical oppression and control in the Middle East. Ever since the failure of President Carter to respond properly to the Iranian Hostage Crisis this enemy has been building, arming, studying, learning and building support to destroy the “Great Satan,” America. Our freedoms run contrary to their radical interpretation of their religion and Democracy is a direct threat to their ultimate goal, World Domination.

We are at a crossroads, America and we better make up our minds what we will do, and fast. Do we ‘cut and run’ hoping the terrorist will leave us alone and waiting for the next terrorist attack or invasion? Or, do we support our Military and President, as was done during the last quest for World Domination, and defeat this enemy there, while our Military still has the fighting spirit?

I’ve made my choice.

Choose wisely, America, the lives of our children and grandchildren depend on it.


Friday, January 19, 2007

Democrat Promises Delivered

January 20, 2007

An email received yesterday from House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, boasts of ‘Promises Delivered’ by the Democrat Party in their “first 100 hours” as they were rammed through the legislative session in a “blitzkrieg” style flurry of activity in which any discussion or amending of their bills by the opposition party, Republicans, was denied. Most all of us saw the brief exchange between Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R. NC) and Rep. Barney Frank (D. Ma) over the revelation of American Samoa being exempted from the much vaunted minimum wage increase bill and in which Speaker Pelosi’s husband holds some $17,000,000 in assets of a company employing a large number of employees on the island.

Speaker Pelosi has subsequently said American Samoa will no longer be exempted, no conflict of any interest here.

Hoyer says in the email, “ Today, I can proudly announce that House Democrats have delivered on the people's call for a new direction and passed their entire 100 Hours Agenda.” He then lists:

We campaigned to strengthen our nation's security by passing the common sense and bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In the first working days of the Congress, House Democrats passed legislation to ensure that dozens of changes were set in motion to make the 9-11 Commission's recommendations a reality. Promise delivered.

Shortly after winning the elections in 2006, many Democrats admitted that the Bush Administration had implemented much of what the commission proposed and that the 9/11 Commission ideas are not easy to enact. Also not addressed in the fulfilled “promise,” is how to cover the BILLIONS IN EXTRA SPENDING for programs experts say will have only questionable results while raising costs to consumers and taxpayers dramatically.

In the meantime, Democrats are almost solidly opposed to reinforcing the troops fighting the very terrorists they say they will implement measures to stop, as President Bush announces sending another 21,000 reinforcements to back up the troops and secure Iraq as the Iraqi people take similar measures to defeat terrorists flooding into their country. This opposition, incidentally, is after these same Democrats calling for increasing the troops up until the time President Bush did so.

We campaigned to put money back into your pockets by cutting the interest rates on student loans, raising the minimum wage for hard-working Americans, and negotiating for better prescription drug costs for Medicare. We passed three comprehensive bills with bipartisan support to do just that and to ensure that for hard-working Americans a day's work will never again barely cover a tank of gas or a child's check-up at the doctor. Promise delivered.

Increasing the minimum wage is an ongoing favorite of the Democrat party in their pandering to voters. It dries up jobs and raises consumer costs while leaving the young employee receiving it paying more in taxes to the Government and receiving a minimal, at best, increase in their take home pay.

Cutting interest rates on student loans does nothing for me, but enforcing them repaying them might lessen my tax burden. Leaving my taxes lower does give me more money, but the Democrats also are frothing at the mouth in preparation of raising taxes, especially to cover some of these “promises” they have kept.

Of course, they cry they have “bi-partisan support” by enlisting the aid of one or two RINOs who should be drummed out of the Republican Party.

If they are really concerned about the price of gas, why do they also block any drilling efforts within our borders or construction of new refineries? They also desire to increase taxes and royalties to Oil Companies which will end up raising the cost to us at the pump as like all companies, increased costs are simply passed on to consumers.

Forcing Pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices also removes their profits along with efforts to discovering new medicines. Like other companies, even ones invested in by Democrats; say like Pelosi’s husband, they exist to make a profit. As costs go up, they must be passed on to consumers, or they go out of business. Maybe that is why they can see the harm in raising minimum wage in American Samoa, but are blinded to the harm it does elsewhere.

We campaigned to answer America's call for hope in promoting stem cell research and to bring hope to millions battling juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries. Last Thursday, House Democrats answered the people's call once again by passing legislation in favor of expanding research. We continue to hope that President Bush will heed to the will of the people and not veto this bill. But, no matter what, we will never stop fighting. Promise delivered.

This is maybe the saddest ‘promise kept.’ To date, embryonic stem cell research has shown no results while stem cell research in other areas has. Since the 2004 campaigns, empty promises of miracle cures have either been promised or strongly hinted at, convincing many in the public that aborted fetuses will benefit them. Recently, a study claimed to be able to draw embryonic stem cells from amniotic fluid and drew scorn from these same Democrats.

If there was all this ‘promise,’ wouldn’t the private sector be flocking to support it in an effort to fund these “miracle cures” and enjoy the profits of such a discovery?

We campaigned on a promise to return the People's House to the people and end the culture of corruption in Washington. On Thursday, we completed the last of 100 Hours Agenda by rolling back subsidies for energy companies and investing in renewable energy resources. We took America back from the special interests and instead passed strict new rules to ensure honest leadership, clamping down on earmarks, lobbyists' behaviors and runaway deficits. Promise delivered.

Yes, they claim they “took back the People’s House” from “special interests.” If you buy that, let me talk to you about some ocean front property I have for sale in Oklahoma. As noted in the Washington Post article, Policies on lobbying are selectively strict, ample room is left for BOTH parties to receive perks. It would appear to me that instead of taking the “PEOPLE’S HOUSE” back from ‘special interests,” they have merely changed which Special Interests will be doing business with the “PEOPLE’S HOUSE.”

If so worried about the “culture of corruption,” which they effectively used against Republicans, when do they act upon those corrupt Democrats in the House? As noted above, Speaker Pelosi could have made a windfall off of not raising minimum wage in American Samoa. Why no hearings?

Why did Ms. Pelosi try to push John Murtha (D.Pa) unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980s Abscam scandal and Alcee Hastings (D.Fl) impeached Federal Judge and current Representative, into leadership positions?

Why is Representative William Jefferson (D. La) sitting on committees while he is under investigation for accepting bribes, caught on tape and some $90,000 in cash from said bribes found in his freezer?

Dirty politicians, regardless of party, need to be eliminated from our government and the Democrats have their fair share of them. So much for the “most ethical Congress in history.” Promises made, promises kept, God help us all.

Throughout this post, you may have noted that I have emphasized wherever they use the term “PEOPLE’S whatever. Their sudden addition of this term really disturbs me as the last time I saw such a heavy use of the term “people’s” was from the Communist Soviet Union and other Communist governed countries. As I see the Democrats “promises” fulfilled I also see the country slide a little closer to the Socialistic style of Government noted in the USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea.

Hoyer’s email finishes with, “ Change is possible now because we have a Democratic Majority that is working for the people. We have taken America back from the special interests and returned it to the people.

While the President may have another two years in power, House Democrats will continue to fight to give you, the American people, a voice and to stop his misguided agenda.

Bush’s “misguided agenda” has brought us a stock market at new all-time highs and America's 401K's are back; unemployment at 25 year lows; taxes at 20 year lows; Federal tax revenues at all-time highs; The Federal deficit down almost 50%; Home valuations up 200%; inflation in check, hovering at 20 year lows and this is the result of a “misguided agenda?” I dread to think of the “New Direction” Democrats are prepared to take us on as they implement their “PEOPLE’S AGENDA.”


UPDATE: Congress’ winds of ethics change appear to have been only a breeze

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Senator McCain; What Goes Around, Comes Around

January 18, 2007

Hot on the heels of the 2006 elections, the 2008 Presidential campaign is apparently hitting full stride already. Among the perceived ‘front runners’ is Senator John McCain (RINO Az.) vying for the Republican nomination against several others.

Senator McCain, a former Navy Aviator and ex-POW from the Viet Nam War, campaigned against George W. Bush for the Republican ticket in the 2000 campaign and lost. At that time, of then candidate Bush, McCain said, “Bush’s campaign tactics were twisting the truth like Clinton,” when McCain’s skeleton’s were brought to bear.

Since losing to Bush, McCain hasn’t exactly been as ‘supportive’ of the President as one would have expected with a fellow party member sitting in the White House now. McCain’s supporters have made no bones about the 2000 South Carolina primary being a ‘smear campaign’ and even insinuating that Bush is a racist because of McCain and his wife adopting a child with ‘dark skin.’

McCain hasn’t been exactly favorable towards the Bush tax cuts that helped spur our economy to record highs throughout the Bush administration. He opposed Bush over the gun control issue. During the 2000 Florida fiasco over recounting selective counties trying to hand the Presidency to Democrat Al Gore, McCain seemed to have ignored it all, even when the Gore camp was denying including thousands of absentee Military ballots over a technicality.

The New York Times noted that when Bush warned he would never sign a bill sponsored by McCain and several Democrats to regulate health maintenance organizations, McCain instantly demanded it be considered by the Senate.

McCain helped sponsor the first attempt at restricting our freedom of speech in the ridiculous McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which paved the way for 527 groups which supported or opposed political candidates with little restrictions. Two of the more notable 527s, and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, became very active in the 2004 campaign between President Bush seeking a second term and junior Massachusetts Senator, John ‘F’in Kerry, self proclaimed Viet Nam War Hero, protester and supreme opportunist. openly opposed Bush and openly supported Kerry. The SBVT, on the other hand, openly opposed Kerry, as many had actually served alongside Kerry and several others remembered him selling Viet Nam Veterans out with his testimony before the Fulbright Anti-War Commission hearings in 1971. Unlike, SBVT took no supportive stance for Bush and wouldn’t even allow supportive comments to be made on their discussion forum during the campaign.

McCain, while never saying anything I heard about, accused the SBVT of being "dishonest and dishonorable" adding, “"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me." Hinting at a possible Bush involvement in the first SBVT ad against Kerry, McCain said, "I hope not, but I don't know. But I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad." Kerry, likewise, denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with neither he nor Senator McCain saying a word against

I have always been led to believe that silence implies consent.

In the May 14, 1973 issue of U.S. News & World Report, McCain said Kerry’s testimony in 1971 was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us." It has now been said that McCain, who allegedly held Kerry’s actions against him for some years, reconciled in the early 1990s after having "a long - and at times emotional - conversation about Vietnam" during a mutual trip to Kuwait.

Said McCain, "Our differences occurred when we were kids, or at least close to being kids. It was a long time ago, and we both came back and realized that there were a lot of difficulties in the prosecution of that war."

McCain joined with Kerry in what appeared to be the effective burial of the POW/MIA issue before we received a full accounting of our missing people left behind in Viet Nam, just prior to Senator Kerry’s cousin receiving a multi-billion dollar contract to build a deep water port in Vung Tau, Viet Nam.

He was opposed to President Bush’s tactics of trying terrorist detainees by Military Commissions.

Just last year, McCain faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the [Iraq] conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach," when President Bush has never said any such thing, always emphasizing instead that it would be a “long and bloody fight” against terror, in Iraq or anywhere else.

When President Bush and the Generals on the ground opposed increasing the numbers of troops there, McCain disagreed and now that Bush has agreed to send more, inflaming the Democrats who also have been yelling for more troops, McCain now takes a stance supportive of Bush who now agrees with him.

In all, I think you can see that McCain, who likes to carry himself as a ‘moderate’ and ‘peaceful’ Senator, but who is reported to have a near uncontrollable temper, has no problem attacking or opposing supporters and candidates who beat him, while seemingly giving a pass to those support the opposing party and candidates.

What is ironic about this is that the very 527 group he had nothing to say about back in 2004 has now started attacking him and McCain doesn’t seem very capable of handling it.

In an email received today from Terry Nelson, McCain 2008 Exploratory Committee Chairman, we read, “Yesterday, began attacking Senator John McCain for his steadfast support of achieving victory in Iraq.”

“ is an ultra liberal group that is known for running negative attack ads against Republicans. Their long list of negative and mostly false ads is well documented. In fact, they even went as far as to compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler and opposed military action after September 11.”

Imagine that, Senator McCain, they have an open agenda of opposing any Republican, Conservative or Right Winged Candidate and now that they no longer need your support, they turn on you. Where were your cries and condemnations, as you made against the highly decorated and combat tested Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group, towards Why did you give them a pass, Senator, and not expect them to turn on you as they have against all others not of the liberal persuasion? Do you not realize that you cannot make a deal with the devil and expect the devil to give you a pass?

You made no bones attacking an honorable group of Veterans and President Bush, Senator. Now, it’s come back to bite you in the butt.

As most of us learned as children, Senator McCain, what goes around, comes around.


Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Democrats Retake Power, Prepare to Throw in the Towel

January 17, 2007

It is barely over a week since the Democrat party regained control of Congress and ruminations emanating from them sounds like they cannot wait to throw in the towel and surrender to terrorists. In a maneuver that totally escapes me; the Democrat party after World War Two seems to have lost any desire to win any war we become involved in.

Korea wasn’t fought to a finish and we still have troops there and a shaky peace, at best, with the North Koreans now testing and threatening the world with nuclear weapons. Viet Nam was abandoned and allowed to fall to Communism, dragging Cambodia and Laos with it, for a short while. Cuba has been a thorn in our side ever since Castro won his ‘revolution’ nearly 50 years ago. Our embassy was attacked and occupied in Tehran Iran in 1979 and we didn’t respond for many months. And then, the response was so ill thought out that it cost American lives without the rescuers even getting near the hostages that were held for well over 400 days.

Since then we have been under steady terrorist attacks, mostly abroad, but twice on our own soil now. A U.S. naval ship was nearly sank by terrorists. Two embassies were attacked with a large loss of life. A humanitarian mission to Somalia was changed to a more Military mission, under the United Nations leadership and as soon as a couple of our troop’s dead bodies were drug through the streets, we tucked tail and ran.

We bombed the daylights out of Bosnia, protecting the Muslims there from ethnic cleansing that turned out to be exaggerated. Yet, we turned a blind eye to the genocide happening in Rwanda at around the same time.

Within a week of invading Afghanistan to throw out the Taliban regime and seek Terrorist Osama Bin Laden, we started hearing articles relating the War on Terror as a “quagmire,” “another Viet Nam,” and “Bush’s folly,” after seeing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians die in the most horrendous terrorist attack to date.

Following protocol and the desires of the left, President Bush approached Congress and the United Nations about Iraq, a rogue state the entire world believed was sitting on a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction, in an effort to eliminate those same WMD’s. Over a period of about six months he sought resolutions and made intelligence reports public that showed who all said they were there, including prominent Democrats. After a six month warning, the WMD’s were gone when we got there to secure them.

This immediately spurred outrage from the same Democrats who had been saying they existed years before Bush won the 2000 election and the politicization of the War on Terror started. Cries of “Bush lied” were heard all over during the 2004 campaign, with no mention of the Democrats who also must have “lied.”

After the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, the call came from the Democrats of “not enough troops,” “Bush didn’t commit enough troops” and so on. Last week, he announced sending another 21,000 troops to Iraq and now the Democrat cry is “No more troops.”

In a startling move at usurpation of Presidential powers by Congress, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, junior senator from New York, is calling for a cap on current U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Just in August of 2006 she tore into former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with “You did not go into Iraq with enough troops to establish law and order. ” Earlier, in November 2005, she said, “We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders.”

And now, she says, "The president's team is pursuing a failed strategy in Iraq as it edges closer to collapse." Trying to sound presidential, she added, "We need to change course."

Hillary is hardly alone in her quest to make the War on terror in Iraq a failure. Senator Chuck Hagel, a turncoat RINO said, "We are no longer just going to quietly stand by, as we have done for the last four years, and let our young men and women be thrown into this conflict when they cannot affect the outcome." That the GOP hasn’t excommunicated this person is a great disappointment to me.

Hagel adds, "I will do everything I can to stop the president's policy as he outlined it….” In this regard, he has helped DemocratLawmakers draft an anti-Bush Iraq stand non-binding resolution, joined in by another RINO, Olympia Snowe, from Maine.

Snowe says, “Now is time for the Congress to make its voice heard on a policy that has such significant implications for the nation, the Middle East and the world.” But, does she consider the implications of throwing in the towel once again and letting Iraq fall under another Taliban style regime?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sensing the shift in Washington D.C. stated Give us guns and troops can go, adding, “I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.”

Seeing America’s history of abandoning fledgling allies, I’m sure he see the towel flying through the air as the Democrat led Congress decides to take presidential powers upon itself to sell out Iraq, again, as they ended up doing at the end of the previous Gulf War in 1992.

President Bush, in a grave disappointment, seemed to have surrendered to the Democrat led Congress today as he announced letting a secret but independent panel of federal judges oversee the government’s controversial domestic spying program. Erroneously labeled as “domestic spying,” this electronic eavesdropping of suspected terrorist contacts within our borders in contact with known terrorists outside of our borders has been instrumental in curbing another terrorist attack. When the next attack occurs, guess who will be the first saying Bush should have done more to discover and stop the attack?

With public opinion favoring the construction of a fence along our southern border, to curb the influx of illegal aliens, along with suspected terrorists traversing through Mexico, the newly elected Dems are in no rush to build a border fence. Yet, again, let terrorists slide into our country and succeed in another massive attack, will the Democrat Congress be blamed? No, blame will fall upon President Bush, sure as can be.

In the meantime, Democrat Robert Kennedy Jr. blogs on Huffington Post, For the Last Stubborn Holdouts on Global Warming, and informing us that robins and bluebirds in upstate New York are returning early and Crocuses and daffodils were in bloom everywhere. Somehow, he must have missed the strong winter storms blanketing the nation outside of his office. In a “related news story” immediately under his blog post, we read, “At Least 19 Killed In Nation-Wide Ice Storms... “

Maybe if he and the rest of the Kennedy Klan sobered up long enough and stopped opposing a Cape Cod wind farm in his own backyard, ‘global warming’ might not be the worry he makes out to be. But then again, Democrats have a long history of demanding we give up luxuries and materials they deem inappropriate or causing harm, as long as they don’t have to.

In all, what we are seeing coming out of the Democrats isn’t surprising. In their quest for more power, they are even proposing reinstating the Fairness Doctrine in an effort to silence their critics on talk radio and force the public to hear the message they want you to hear. Give them the chance and kiss Freedom of Speech goodbye.

So far, I’d have to say it’s been an ‘interesting’ couple of weeks since they re-grabbed power. I can only say, “don’t blame me, I voted Republican.”


Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Flag Waving Democrats

January 10, 2007

President Bush made his speech tonight outlining a new strategy for the War on terror in Iraq. Even before he made the speech, Democrats and RINOs were lining up in opposition to any increase in troop strength, labeled as a “surge” in their semantic laced calls.

Newly ordained Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D.Ca.) says, "If the president is proposing an escalation, we want to see a justification for the mission." She added that any funding for a surge would be "subjected to some pretty harsh scrutiny."

What more “justification” does she need than VICTORY?

When asked, back in May of 2004, "Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?" Pelosi answered "Yes."

On Meet the Press, May 30, 2004, Pelosi stated, "What I would do is, and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are, and there has to be a leveling with the American people and with Congress as to what's really happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground."

From Ted Kennedy’s website, we see, “On the eve of the war in 2003, the Bush Administration sidelined the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, because he said we would need more than 200,000 troops. After the fall of Baghdad, the Administration ignored the Coalition Provisional Authority Director, Paul Bremer, when he said America would need more troops.”

Now, Kennedy says, “In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. Instead, each one led only to the next. There was no military solution to that war. Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."

Under the Democrat led Congress of the time, South Viet Nam fell to Communism and millions of innocent people in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos simply disappeared, being slaughtered by Communists “purging” opposition. So much for a “political solution.”

Nearly all of the Democrats and many RINO's were complaining of “not enough troops” all the way through the 2004 campaigns and before. They would complain that Bush wasn’t listening to field commanders calling for more troops.

Now, that Bush has decided to send in more troops, these same Democrats, as well as the RINO’s, are adamantly opposed. It appears the opposition is just to oppose anything that might bring this war to VICTORY, a word Democrats threw away right at the close of WW2.

In December of 1944, the German Army mounted an offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge. In the end, 19,000 American lost their lives. When it appeared the Germans were succeeding in over running Allied Forces along the front lines, strong reinforcements were sent in and the German Offensive failed.

Earlier that year, on the 6th of June, Allied Forces invaded the coast of France to start driving the German invaders back. At the end of the day, American casualties amounted to about 4,900. It was going so poorly, General Omar Bradley was actually considering a withdrawal of the troops for a while. By sheer determination and reinforcements, the Allies prevailed and pushed inland and won World War Two with an unconditional Surrender.

The same was repeated all across the pacific by U.S. and Allied Forces. Whenever things looked bleak, reinforcements were called for and sent in and our side, the side of freedom, prevailed, each time. In that war, we suffered over 300,000 deaths to combat, with a significant number to other causes. Senator Kennedy has made the connection that we have been involved in Iraq longer than we were in World War Two. Deaths so far are just over 3,000. Or, one one hundredth of what we suffered 60 years ago.

While each and every death is significant and painful, I see the death rate as much lower than we have ever seen.

In Washington D.C. there is a black granite wall dug into the earth containing over 58,000 names of the dead from the Viet Nam War. In my opinion, they died in vain as the Democrat led Congress prevented any support or help in any manner to prevent that struggling free Democracy from fending off the Communist North Vietnamese. They gave their all and in return, we abandoned an ally in their time of need, in what has become the style of America.

In World War Two, neither party whined about sending reinforcements. Neither whined about too costly. Neither worked diligently to undermine the President as he Commanded the Forces needed to defeat Nazism, Fascism and the Japanese. If any did, they were promptly shouted down. America pulled together, made sacrifices at home and supported our troops to total and complete Victory. How unlike today’s Democrats and RINO’s.

Tonight, President Bush announced a bold new strategy for the War. In addition to our troops the Iraqi Army is stepping up to fight more in the forefront and secure Baghdad. I can already see the terrorists and unlawful militia’s there won’t like it and will resist fiercely. They desire world domination under their perverted view of Islam so they will fight like the animals they are to succeed.

Our troops, along with the Iraqis and the few others supporting the defeat of terror can and will succeed if we let them. Send in reinforcements as needed. Take the gloves off and untie the hands of our troops and let them do the job they were trained to do. Learn patience, as we displayed in World War two. Don’t let our troops keep asking ”Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”

Above all, Democrats and RINO’s need to stop waving their flag. It isn’t the American Flag they wave, but the white flag of surrender.


UPDATE: Newly installed Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Sylvestre Reyes, himself a fellow Viet Nam Veteran and who had trouble distinguishing between Hezballoh, Sunni and Shiite, is quoted as saying in a December 5, 2006 Newsweek article, "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … I would say 20,000 to 30,000-for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."

Now, in the January 11, 2007 edition of the El Paso Times, he says, "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level... The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics." He goes on to say, "sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. Bush [is] continuing his "go-it-alone" approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions."

In the January 12, 2007 El Paso Times, he also says, "We are sending brigades on a very thin promise from al-Maliki, who's got a very bad track record."

Of all people, Representative Reyes, you should know how this type of talk demoralizes our troops in harm's way.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh has compiled a short list of more Democrats who have been for increasing the number of troops and now, who oppose it as soona s Bush calls for it. If Bush Wants More Troops, Democrats Are Against

Second Amendment Assault Continues

January 10, 2007

Now that we have the leftist Democrats seated in power in Congress in both Houses, it didn’t tale long for Mayors Thomas Menino of Boston, Massachusetts and Michael Bloomberg of New York to decide to approach newly seated ‘Queen Bee’ Speaker of the House, Nancy ‘Stretch’ Pelosi to “push for stricter gun laws.”

Says mayor Menino, "We need to convince Congress to pass common sense gun laws -- laws that punish immoral gun dealers and protect our citizens." He also claims, "Guns create fear that can kill our communities." How often have we heard this continual cry from left?

As during the Clinton administration, we once again are told we need “tougher national gun laws” and also that “Attempts at tightening gun laws are opposed by advocates of unrestricted access to firearms, led by the National Rifle Association.”

In typical leftist disinformation, no article advocating taking our rights under the Second Amendment away from us will miss a chance at dissing the NRA (National Rifle Association). A visit to the NRA/ILA’s A Citizen's Guide to Federal Firearms Laws website shows us: “Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.

Before blindly accepting the left’s charge of “we need stricter gun laws,” I urge all to visit the NRA’s website and read actual gun laws currently on the books and not being enforced, as they should be.

Obviously, if the NRA “supports the Federal Firearms Laws” listed, they DO NOT advocate unrestricted access to firearms as claimed by the left. But, as we see time and time again, the left has no scruples when it comes to matters of personal integrity in furthering their agendas.

For the record, I own guns and have been exposed to guns my entire life. I acquire them legally and keep them maintained in good condition and safely put away so my grandsons won’t accidentally find one and have an accident. I do not have a concealed weapons permit as I don’t carry. The size of my .357 alone would keep it from being concealed, anyways. I do not belong to the NRA, although I think I will be joining shortly to help counter the assault on my constitutionally granted right to “keep and bear arms.”

We need to take notice of the city of New Orleans as the flood waters began to recede after Hurricane Katrina and city officials started started confiscating legal guns from citizens, leaving them unarmed in the face of increasing violence from criminal elements. New Orleans now won’t give them back, even though they lost the Federal Lawsuit and motions to dismiss.

New Orleans, as was well reported, is a traditional Democrat City. Once they enter your home and take your legally acquired firearm, you won’t see it again. Bear in mind, these are not illegal firearms, machine guns, stolen weapons or assault rifles, but legal firearms, some being in families for decades and passed down and used only for legal hunting or self protection. None have been used in committing crimes or were being brandished amount senselessly. Still, they were confiscated, never to be seen by legal citizens again.

I do not advocate everyone owning a gun. That would be ridiculous as not everyone is entitled nor should be entitled to a gun. That is why we submit to background checks when purchasing one. Of course, that is when one is acquired legally, not the way criminals acquire theirs. What good are stiffer laws when current laws aren’t enforced and criminals still operate outside the law to obtain them?

As I noted above, “the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years.” I haven’t heard lately of any criminals receiving the maximum sentence, have you?

After Morton Grove, Ill banned all guns in their city in 1981, Kennesaw, Ga. passed an ordinance requiring heads of households "to maintain a firearm" and ammunition "to provide for the civil defense" and "protect the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."

Morton Grove hasn’t seen much change in their crime rate, citing "We were fortunate to have a low rate of violent crime before the ordinance was passed, and we are fortunate now that the rate is still low.” In Kennesaw, not far from Atlanta, crime plummeted.

One of the more staunch advocates of controlling our rights to gun ownership is Senator Ted Kennedy, (D. Ma.). To date, Senator Kennedy’s car has killed more people than any of my guns.


Friday, January 05, 2007

Democrats Declare “A New Era”

January 5, 2007

In an email received just today from Democrats Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel declaring “A New Era,” we read, “Democrats swept to a historic victory by promising the American people an end to the gridlock and the mindless partisanship that was slowly destroying our nation.

Naturally, the statement is followed by the obligatory “We intend to keep our promise” [this time] (added).

So, how does this “New Era” begin? In a move to end gridlock, Democrat Nancy “Stretch” Pelosi uses a House rule to deny Republicans any input or comments whatsoever on their bills they are currently ramming through the House without even Committee reviews.

It is certainly an end to gridlock, but hardly what I would call “bipartisan.”

If we really want an idea of just what this “New Era” will be like all we need do is look back prior to 1995 when Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Maybe if the Congressional Republicans had looked back at how America turned away from those actions instead of mirroring them themselves, they might not have lost political power.

In labeling this “New Era” as “Historic,” left wingers seem to forget that Democrats controlled the House for 40 years prior to 1995. Of course, seating “Stretch” as Speaker of the House is a first in that a female has never held that seat before. But seriously, a politician is a politician, male or female, especially when it comes to left winged liberals like “San Fran Nan.”

In her declarations of “the most ethical Congress in History,” the first two or her nominees for leadership positions both have extensive scandalous and ethical histories of their own. In her nomination of chairman of the House Intelligence Committee she passed over the Democrat “female” Jane Harman, who has sat on the committee for some 8 years and was the ranking Democrat on the Committee, in favor of Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) a male. Maybe “Stretch” only has room for one “historic” moment at a time.

Missing from this “New Era” and “historic” takeover were the comments from our allegedly unbiased lamestream media pundits as to what Republicans must do to return to power next election, as we heard immediately after every election in which the Democrats lost since 1995.

Comments heard on NBC’s Today Show were, "Look, it's a very historic day on Capitol Hill. Nancy Pelosi the first woman to become Speaker of the House. I'm excited as a woman to see that happen." Meredith Vieira.

"It's a history making day on Capitol Hill. Democrats take control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12 years and they're set to elect a woman, Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker for the first time ever." Natalie Morales.

Comments from NBC’s Today Show this time in 1995 were, "You are sounding very moderate this morning. You and I both know that a lot of Democrats and, frankly, some moderate Republicans are suggesting that ultimately your tongue will cost you." Bryant Gumbel to Newt Gingrich.

"Is someone, anyone, going to have to muzzle the new Speaker a bit?...But should Newt Gingrich watch himself?" Katie Couric to Bob Dole.

"Mr. Gephardt, you called Gingrich and his ilk, your words, 'trickle-down terrorists who base their agenda on division, exclusion, and fear.' Do you think middle class Americans are in need of protection from that group?" Bryant Gumbel to Dick Gephardt.

"By June or July, though Tim, this 100 day edict will be long gone. Is this smart to put the 100 day deadline on the House of Representatives. Are they trying to have expediency at the risk of well thought-out legislation?" Katie Couric to Tim Russert.

I imagine Pelosi’s “100 hour” push of her agenda doesn’t qualify for “expediency at the risk of well thought-out legislation.”

Another part of this “New Era” is John Murtha’s declaration of Extensive Hearings on Iraq. He promises to hold hearings on “accountability, military readiness, intelligence oversight and the activities of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, everything except TO WIN.

Winning the ongoing war against terror in Iraq seems to be the one thing not in the cards with Democrats and their “New Era.”

House Speaker, Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid today sent their Letter To President Bush in which they say, “ No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq,” and “ we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months,” and, “ only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.”

Don’t forget these are the same Democrats who were recently up in arms over the Iraqi’s execution of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein because they didn’t follow a U.S. model.

The letter continues, “Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq.” What they refuse to take into account are calls from the troops of Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”

We have seen this “New Era” once before. In the early 1970’s under pressure from the anti-liberty pundits of both parties, we initiated a “peace with honor” “responsible redeployment” from another ally in need of our help from falling victim to Communists, South Viet Nam. As the former Soviet Union and Red China rebuilt and resupplied the forces of the invading North Vietnamese Communists our Democrat led Congress refused to help the struggling country of South Viet Nam in any manner. We totally cut them off and left them all alone, leading them to fall and the Communists to take over in April of 1975 and making a mockery of 58,000 brave Americans who sacrificed their lives to keep Viet Nam free, not to mention the rest of the 2.5 million of us who served there and survived.

“New Era” Democrats in the 1970’s brought up to the highest inflation rates we have ever seen as a nation and the embarrassment of being labeled a “Paper Tiger” by our enemies over our refusal to help a friendly ally. It brought us to attack and hostage taking of our embassy in Tehran, Iran which is directly the start of today’s War on Terror, when we finally fought back under President George W. Bush.

Today’s “New Era” Democrats wish to repeat the folly of abandoning another friend to radical Muslim terrorists in their false belief of “if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.” As has been repeatedly said, “if we leave, they will follow us.”

As we end up with ever rising taxes, higher gas prices, increased unemployment and most likely another horrific terrorist attack somewhere, all I can say is “don’t blame me, I voted Republican.” For Republicans that decided to “teach the GOP a lesson,” thanks for nothing. Your day of realizing My God, What Have I Done? is coming too.


UPDATE: A Seattle Times article yesterday, One man’s obsession with Iraq informs us of even more lunacy from the Democrat party. It seems that Dal LaMagna, Maria Cantwell's campaign co-chairman and Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott both flew to Amman, Jordan to meet with members of the Iraqi parliament and others.

McDermott is trying to gain Visas for two unidentified Iraqis to travel to Washington D.C. with the express purpose of telling Americans to "get out of Iraq." McDermott and LaMagna claim they have developed a plan they say reflects what Iraqis want. They want U.S. troops out of the cities and sent to close the borders with Iran and Syria. They also want the Iraqi constitution rewritten and the former Baath party government brought back to run things. To protect the country, the old Iraqi army must be reconstituted and rearmed.

In other words, these two Democrats desire to undo every advancement made in Iraq in favor of restoring it to what it was prior to our invasion and the desposing of Saddam Hussein.

I wonder if they also plan on resurrecting Saddam to lead the country and murder, rape and gas his own citizens, all over again.