Sunday, July 29, 2007
Democrat Anti-War Hoax: I suggest the entire "anti-war movement" is a hoax. There is NO national outcry to leave Iraq. The thinking reader will ask how I can come to this conclusion. It's easy.
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
This country recently experienced a real "anti" movement- Immigration Reform. Look at the outcry and national response to that legislation. Stopped it in it's tracks.
Where is that outcry on Iraq? Have you heard of the phone bank at Congress being shut down due to overload? Are we hearing of e-mail blizzards? I rest my case.
I submit the entire "anti war" platform the Democrats and Democrat Party is standing on is a pure, political hoax. If so, the question becomes why are Democrats so anxious for our troops to fail and surrender in Iraq? Why are the Democrats actively working for the defeat and humiliation of the U.S. military on the field of battle? The answer can only be political....
Labels: Dem-no-crats, Democrat Party, Democrats, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Al Gore on Terrorism- Obviously an Expert: I found an interesting video of Al Gore discussing Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Terrorism, and WMD way back in 1992. Here's a link to that video:
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Al Gore Discussing Iraq and Terrorism in 1992
It's about a 9 minute video, but well worth the time spent viewing it!
Labels: 1992, Al Gore, Bush, CSPAN, Hussein, Iraq, Terrorism, War in Iraq, War on Terror, WMD
Sunday, May 20, 2007
bin Laden, Jihadists Winning?: Personally, I think yes. But I have an article that supports my position. The item is by Bernard Lewis, a leading expert on the Middle East and on Islam.
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Labels: al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Democrats, Hoyer, Iraq, jihadists, Levin, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War on Terror
Sunday, February 11, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth- The Democrat Party and The War: Okay, after listening to the Democrat Party- the Demo-quitters- for over a year, I want to present some "Inconvenient Truths" to rebut some of the disinformation and general garbage eminating from their leaders regarding the war.
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to Ayman al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq.
2. Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of America to take on our civilians (a la 9/11). We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are now fighting our military force instead.
3. There is no one to negotiate with. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.
4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.
5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.
6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signal victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.
7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they support the troops.
8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?
9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.
10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.
Here are some relevant quotes:
Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."
Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.
To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal.
How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?
Labels: Democrats, Inconvenient Truth, Iraq, Terrorism, War
