November 28, 2005
Anti-war Buffonary ::
Well, the anti-war revisionists were all over the Sunday morning pundit shows. They were given almost free rein to espouse their version of the Iraqi war for several minutes unchallenged by anybody. They presented with several lies about the administration's rationale for the war. They were allowed to use hindsight as a legitimate argument as if it is a new morality.
If I knew what I know now I wouldn't have done it. What kind of intellect uses this argument?? It is philosophically and intellectually disingenuous and they should be called on it.
One argument that is interesting is the one that we are now causing the problems in Iraq. The terrorists wouldn't be doing what they're doing if we weren't there and if we just stop it and come home then the terrorists will stop. Do they really believe this?? If they do then they are complete fools. It is like saying the Nazis were fighting because we liberated France and if we'd just come home then the Nazis would stop. I certainly hope the reader can see the folly of this line of reasoning because apparently the buffons who use it don't. It's funny they never talk about the Iraqi people and their suffering under Saddam and in this war. They (the anit-war buffons) never mention the deliverance of the Iraqi people from tryanny??
This whole matter of the buffons strategy is immoral and dishonest. History will judge them severely and negatively.
November 26, 2005
November 21, 2005
Cheney Lays It Like It Really Happened...
The Democrats are bordering on outright treason and the whole world is a witness.
Some More Quotes for the Hour ::
"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged... occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."
~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case; you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
~~ Winston Churchill
Relevent Quotes for Today's Debate::
"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
~~ Theodore Roosevelt
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
~~ President Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 2005
Murtha becomes darling of anti-war MSM...
Anti-war crusader Murtha ready to throw in the towel. Cut and run, quit, surender and abandon the Iraqi people.
November 17, 2005
Fools For The Enemy...
This is a foolish and dangerous man with foolish and dangerous ideas. How can someone with any degree of intelligence come to this conclusion ??
November 16, 2005
November 15, 2005
Bush Speech Aims At Dems and War Critics ::
Ouch, this is going to get ugly for the Dems....
Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war – but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my Administration and members of Congress from both parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq – and reached the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Let me give you quotes from three senior Democrats: First, quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” End quote. Here’s another one, quote, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam Hussein] is in power.” End quote. And here’s the way another Democratic leader summed it up, quote, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion.”
The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world – and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, quote, “Iraq was in clear material violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.” Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, quote, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
November 14, 2005
Bush is on the warpath about the war rationale...
get'em good for the sake of the American soldier and those who suffered under Saddam and for those who have suffered under the terrorists. The Democrats and anti-war critics are to be shamed for their miserable attempt to undermine the war on terror for political partisan reasons.
"Only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world — and that person was
Saddam Hussein," Bush added.
Truth Will Set You Free; But It May Make The Democrats Miserable As Hell...
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004
book title Disinformation, by Richard Miniter
National Security & Defense
WMDs Found in Iraq
Posted Nov 9, 2005
Contrary to ongoing reports by media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.
November 13, 2005
Nothing Less Than Victory...listen up war critics @@
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein.
They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."
"While it's perfectly legitimate
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decisions or the conduct of the war,
it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."
- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2005
Can You Imagine This Dude Believes What He Writes !! That's What Is Scary !!
John Cusack: Bush is “Depressing, Corrupt, Unlawful, and Tragically Absurd” | NewsBusters.org
November 04, 2005
What's the Point?
Good article from Powerline::
[Via Power Line]The Democrats appear to be putting all their eggs in the pre-war intelligence basket, but why? Certainly not because they actually believe it's a legitimate issue. Several investigations have already concluded that the Bush administration didn't manipulate pre-war intelligence, and the Democrats, from Bill Clinton on, made all the same claims about Saddam's weapons, etc., that the Bush administration did. Moreover, the whole idea that the administration would use Iraq's WMDs as a "pretext" for war is stupid. If the administration knew Saddam didn't have the weapons, then it also knew its "pretext" would be exposed as soon as the invasion was complete. No one would be dumb enough to go to war on the basis of a claim that was not only wrong, but would quickly be shown to be wrong. So the Democrats aren't acting in good faith, they're playing politics.
But it's a funny kind of politics, isn't it? The point seems to be to drive down President Bush's approval ratings. To some degree the Dems' slander has succeeded in doing that, although it's hard to measure because so many of the polls are meaningless, like the new CBS poll I commented on last night.
But how does this strategy, even if it works, make sense? Bush doesn't have to run again. The Dems should be focused on next year's Senate and House elections. But it's hard to believe the "pre-war intelligence" theme will be effective next November. For one thing, conditions in Iraq are likely to be better by then, with troops coming home. More important, while the war was rightfully a pre-eminent issue in last year's Presidential race, it is at most a sideshow in any individual Senator's or Representative's race. None of the Republicans running next year bear any particular responsibility for the war, and there is unlikely to be much difference of opinion as to how the conflict should be handled going forward. If Democratic House and Senate candidates think they can win by running, McGovernlike, on an immediate withdrawal platform, they're badly misreading the American people.
So I can't see how the Dems' strategy makes sense in the context of next year's elections. If that's true, why are they focused so single-mindedly on the Iraqi intelligence red herring?
I think perhaps the Democrats in the Senate are trying to distract their activist base from the reality of their own impotence. Vital events are, of course, transpiring in the Senate right now, including ANWR drilling--approved today--and, most notably, President Bush's Supreme Court nominations. Nothing is more important to the Democratic base than preserving the liberal orientation of the Supreme Court. But the President has now dealt two hammer blows to liberal control of the Court--the only branch of the federal government still under liberal control--in the form of the Roberts and Alito nominations.
Democratic activists desperately want to block Judge Alito from ascending to the Court, but the reality is that Senate Democrats are powerless to achieve that goal. Alito's qualifications are unassailable, the Democrats are a minority party, and the Republicans are united in the conviction that Alito deserves a vote. A filibuster isn't out of the question, but if the Dems try it, it will fail.
So the Senate Democrats can't come through for their party where it counts. I doubt that the timing of the Month of Valerie is a coincidence; I suspect it is intended mostly to distract the Democratic base from the reality of the Senate Democrats' impotence.