Monday, May 21, 2007
The Worst President in History: Now this is just hilarious! Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Freakin' Carter called President Bush the worst president in history! I just can't pass up the opportunity to comment on this one! Jimmy Carter who created and gave us the modern day Iran! Maybe we should see if Bill Clinton who gave us the modern day al-Qaeda agrees!
Jimmy Carter, who gave us gas lines, darkened Christmas Trees, a Misery Index, and 21% interest honestly attempts to paint George W. Bush as not just a worse president, but the worst president in history!
I would suggest the only true runner-up to Jimmy Carter for this title is ex-President Clinton who gave us Perjury (admitted and so found in court), Ruby Ridge, Waco, World Trade Center 1, Blackhawk Down (Mogadishu), the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, two wars in the Balkans, Albanian Muslim refugees that come to the U.S. to plot attacks against Ft. Dix, sex in the Oval Office, the DotCom bubble, Ken Lay and Enron, and school uniforms.
Yep, who says there's no natural comedy in politics!
Jimmy Carter, who gave us gas lines, darkened Christmas Trees, a Misery Index, and 21% interest honestly attempts to paint George W. Bush as not just a worse president, but the worst president in history!
I would suggest the only true runner-up to Jimmy Carter for this title is ex-President Clinton who gave us Perjury (admitted and so found in court), Ruby Ridge, Waco, World Trade Center 1, Blackhawk Down (Mogadishu), the U.S.S. Cole, Kobar Towers, two wars in the Balkans, Albanian Muslim refugees that come to the U.S. to plot attacks against Ft. Dix, sex in the Oval Office, the DotCom bubble, Ken Lay and Enron, and school uniforms.
Yep, who says there's no natural comedy in politics!
Labels: al-Qaeda, Bush, Democrats, Edwards, history, hostages, Iran, Jimmy Carter, Murtha, Pelosi, President, Reid, W.
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
Saturday, April 28, 2007
al-Qaeda in Iraq- Crusade Against Islam: Just heard on the news that al-Qaeda in Iraq has slaughtered at least 40 more muslims in Iraq today.
When you go back to the beginning of the U.S. operations in Iraq, you see where al-Qaeda has slaughtered far more Muslims than have died as a result of military operations by the coalition forces.
al-Qaeda has launched, at the order of al-Zawahiri, a Crusade against muslims in Iraq and surrogates there are murdering as many muslims as they can as fast as they can.
al-Qaeda- apostates. They have turned from the teachings of The Prophet and violate every tenet of Islam.
al-Zawahiri- apostate, usurper, and blasphemer. This man has claimed to speak for The Prophet, has twisted The Prophet's words, and blasphemed Allah by ordering the mass murder of good muslims in Allah's name.
How long will al-Qaeda's Crusade against Islam be allowed to continue before true Muslims put an end to it?
When you go back to the beginning of the U.S. operations in Iraq, you see where al-Qaeda has slaughtered far more Muslims than have died as a result of military operations by the coalition forces.
al-Qaeda has launched, at the order of al-Zawahiri, a Crusade against muslims in Iraq and surrogates there are murdering as many muslims as they can as fast as they can.
al-Qaeda- apostates. They have turned from the teachings of The Prophet and violate every tenet of Islam.
al-Zawahiri- apostate, usurper, and blasphemer. This man has claimed to speak for The Prophet, has twisted The Prophet's words, and blasphemed Allah by ordering the mass murder of good muslims in Allah's name.
How long will al-Qaeda's Crusade against Islam be allowed to continue before true Muslims put an end to it?
Labels: al-Qaeda, apostate, Baghdad, blasphemer, coalition, Crusade, Iraq, Islam, muslims, U.S., Zawahiri
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Senator Harry Reid and Iraq- Part 2: Senator Reid, D-NV, is playing personal power politics with the lives of our troops in combat. The so-called "senator" is a disgrace and an embarassment to this nation.
This is an unambiguous call:
Mr. Reid- RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!
There is no room in our political leadership for those who would treat our troops in combat as chess pieces in a political game of chicken. The actions of "the senator" are emboldening Iran and the jihadists and he MUST RESIGN!
This is an unambiguous call:
Mr. Reid- RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!
There is no room in our political leadership for those who would treat our troops in combat as chess pieces in a political game of chicken. The actions of "the senator" are emboldening Iran and the jihadists and he MUST RESIGN!
Labels: al-Qaeda, Bush, Cheney, D-NV, Democrats, Funding, Iran, Iraq, Nevada, President, Reid, resign, Senate, Senator, troops, War, withdrawl
Friday, March 09, 2007
How Would al-Qaeda Vote?: The Democrats in Congress are about to try to pass legislation mandating a date certain for withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq, probably in 2008. One simple question clarifies the issue completely for those who may not understand the Democrat position:
How would al-Qaeda vote on the legislation?
To clarify even further, you can answer these questions:
1. How will Republican vote on the bill?
2. How will Democrats vote on the bill?
3. How would Osama bin Laden vote on the bill?
4. How would Ayman al-Zawahiri vote on the bill?
5. If he was alive, how would Saddam Hussein vote on the bill?
6. Whose side are the democrats on?
How would al-Qaeda vote on the legislation?
To clarify even further, you can answer these questions:
1. How will Republican vote on the bill?
2. How will Democrats vote on the bill?
3. How would Osama bin Laden vote on the bill?
4. How would Ayman al-Zawahiri vote on the bill?
5. If he was alive, how would Saddam Hussein vote on the bill?
6. Whose side are the democrats on?
Labels: al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Democrats, Osama, Usama, Zawahiri
