Have you had enough?
WHATS WRONG WITH DEMOCRATS?
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No
matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the
field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants
America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable
progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the
game just to embarrass the Bush administration. Just set a time-table
for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an
unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes
involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and
fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us
to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They
need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a
real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even
though they made it themselves.(Ralph Peters)
"We Democrats need not worry. The 2008 election is three years off, and
that gives us at least two more years of mischief before we have to
start coming up with some positive ideas of our own, which won't even
be necessary if we're able to pressure Bush into the catastrophic
mistake of a precipitous withdrawal.
"So cut us some slack. We're just doing what is in the best interests
of the country, which is to hoodwink the people into returning us to
power." (David Limbaugh)
One indication that Murtha's comments can only encourage the enemy not
to quit is that they flashed around the Arab world on al-Jazeera TV
within moments of his making them. What must Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head
of al-Qaida in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden think of this? Just that their
prophecy is coming true: America doesn't have the stomach for war and
if the terrorists can hold us off for a while, we will give up.
This is a world war, the results of which can only end in defeat for
one side. There is no "coming home" from this war. We are engaged
whether we like it or not. Religious fanatics aren't going to
participate in a U.S.S. Missouri moment, signing documents of
surrender. They must be crushed and demoralized so that they will have
no hope in this life or the next of achieving their dreams of a
worldwide caliphate. Those are the stakes. Democrats had better ask
themselves whether politics or national survival means more to them and
what actions and words help or harm America and our troops. (Cal
Thomas)
The Democratic mindset — cakewalk or cut and run — has already had
parlous consequences. It is the reason why President Clinton did not
take meaningful action against Al Qaeda in the 1990s. He figured that a
serious military response — an invasion of Afghanistan or even a covert
campaign to aid the Northern Alliance — would run steep risks, like
body bags coming home. So he limited himself to flinging a few cruise
missiles at empty buildings, leading our enemies to think that we were,
in Osama bin Laden's words, a "paper tiger" that could be attacked with
impunity. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq today, aside from sparking
a Balkans-style civil war in which hundreds of thousands might die,
would confirm this baleful impression and encourage Islamo-fascists to
step up their predations.
"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Al Qaeda's deputy
commander, Ayman Zawahiri, apparently wrote to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the
top terrorist in Iraq. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power
in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy."
Even more noteworthy is that so many Democrats seem so sanguine about
letting history repeat itself.(Max Boot)
WHAT IS WRONG WITH BUSH?
The President has just honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom
someone whose life features a sordid personality, ugly career, vicious
politics, and extremist religion. Awarding of the Presidential Medal of
Freedom to Muhammad Ali gratuitously celebrated a man profoundly
opposed to Bush's own, his party's, and the country's principles. It
represents, I submit, the nadir of his presidency. (Daniel Pipes)
The president seems to have bought into all the worst slogans of the
State Department and the CIA: Stability is more important than
revolution, exit strategy trumps victory, and so on. It may get him
love letters from Foggy Bottom, and maybe even benign treatment from
the New York Times, but it will also get him new attacks, both in Iraq
and elsewhere (most certainly including our own country), and it will
fuel a new counterrevolution that will make our mission far more
perilous.
Remember Churchill's great judgment on Chamberlain at Munich: He had a
choice between war and dishonor; he chose dishonor, and got war.
Bush should not want those terrible words to define his second term,
but he is certainly moving in that direction right now.
READ THE UGLY
DETAILS:(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/ledeen120105.php3)
(Michael Ledeen)
WHATS WRONG WITH THE REPUBLICANS?
The Republican Party in Washington is in trouble not because it's
overrun by crooks, but because it's packed with cowards — and has
degenerated into a caricature of the party that swept to power 11 years
ago promising to take on the federal bureaucracy and liberate the
creative genius of American society. (Tony Snow)
WHATS WRONG WITH THE CIA?
The Dec. 1 edition of The New York Times carried a story about the
damage done to U.S. interests by the revelation that the CIA maintains
a number of secret interrogation prisons for terrorists in Europe and
elsewhere. How did this bit of classified information become public?
It was a leak from within the CIA (to The Washington Post in that case)
— and a breathtaking one at that. Though the agency has been steadily
leaking damaging stories about the Bush administration since 9/11, it
has now crossed a new threshold with a leak that severely damages CIA
activities and arguably harms national security — all for the sake of
crippling George W. Bush. Political correctness reigns in the U.S.
government at every level, and the CIA is no exception. The result is
an agency that is conducting a steady leak campaign against President
Bush designed to discredit the Iraq war and undermine the war on
terror. The CIA is no longer in the business of political
assassination. It has, however, moved on to character assassination.
The oversight committees of the Congress would do well to investigate.
(Mona Charen)
WHERE IS THE CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION?
Not the phony one but the serious one. Who in the CIA is leaking
classified and secret information to the Washington Post, designed to
harm the war effort and endanger the nation and the troops. How do you
draw the line between spying for the enemy and putting it in the
newspaper for them to read it?
THIS IS NOT NEWS
The biggest turncoat is former President Bill Clinton, who not only
spoke out against the war and a sitting president, but also did it on
Arab soil. As usual, Clinton tried to have it both ways, telling
students at the American University in Dubai, it's a "good thing"
Saddam is gone, "but I don't agree with what was done." What a slime
bug...
WHAT IS THE ANSWER?
If a captured terrorist knows where a nuclear bomb has been planted in
some American city, and when it is timed to go off, are millions of
Americans to be allowed to be incinerated because we have become too
squeamish to get that information out of him by whatever means are
necessary? Ramsey's answer: Let them all die.
DID YOU KNOW?
Five million Iraqi students are back in school, with 51 million new
Ba'ath-free textbooks in circulation
• Academics forced into exile under Saddam are coming back to teach
in Iraqi universities
• There are now over 200,000 trained Iraqi security forces personnel
• The Ministry of Industry has issued 7661 licenses for new
businesses
• There's been a LARGE boost in economic activity due to tax-cuts
• A complete rebuilding and renovation of major telecommunications
infrastructure
• A new sewer system is stimulating the Iraqi economy & improving
health conditions
• Public Health Centers are bringing family healthcare to Iraqi
neighborhoods
JUST A REMINDER
From the day America moved to oust Saddam, the usual suspects -- from
CBS to the New York Times -- eagerly predicted calamity and searched
fervently for any signs of it. Yet virtually all their prognostications
failed to materialize.
Casualties? Minimal. Oil fields? Protected. Saddam attacking Israel?
Never happened. Post-war refugee problems? Nope. Iraqis weren't
leaving; they were returning in droves to their Saddam-free homeland.
And since Saddam's removal, guess which part of Iraq has garnered
virtually all of the Bush-bashing media's attention? Why, the Sunni
Triangle, of course, Saddam's home turf.
Never mind that nearly everywhere else, there is no "insurgency."
Never mind that the "insurgency" is doomed so long as virtually
everybody but a handful of Sunnis opposes it.
Never mind that across Iraq, the progress is overwhelming, as
Americans and Iraqis together build schools, enhance security, empower
civil society, and ensure a brighter economic and political future.
Never mind that most of the fighting -- and dying -- for the new, free
Iraq is being done by patriotic Iraqis. And never mind that the
endlessly-reported U.S. death toll is half the rate even of U.S.
training deaths each year.
Never mind that literally millions of Iraqis -- alone in the Arab
world -- have twice stood up to terrorist bullies, voting first to
elect new leaders and just recently to ratify their new constitution.
And that includes 105,000 Iraqis in Fallujah, once the heart of the
insurgency, who turned out last month to vote on the new constitution.
Oh, and never mind that before each of these elections, al Qaeda
proclaimed loudly that merely holding the election -- regardless of
outcome -- would be a "crushing defeat" for their cause.
To the left-leaning media moguls and those in their employ, none of
this matters, because all of it vindicates President Bush.
Which is partly why so little of it gets reported.
BRING THEM ON - OVER THERE
By bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the
central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has
effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is
why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the
terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel
bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not
between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just
like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war
into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot
hope to win.(Wiliam Stuntz)
CLEAN UP THE CIA BEFORE THEY SELL US OUT
Do you remember back a few months when it was reported that the CIA
had determined that Iran was probably 10 years away from being able to
develop a nuclear bomb? It was in all the papers, and it made almost
everyone feel much relieved. It certainly put those hothead alarmists
and warmongers in our places. We had been citing Israel's assertion
that by the spring of 2006, Iran could have the bomb.
My, how time flies. This week, El Baradei, the chairman of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Israel's assessment
to the British liberal newspaper, The Independent, and stated that if
Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as
threatened, it will take Iran only "a few months to produce a nuclear
bomb."(Tony Blankley)
FOR VETERANS DAY
This is sad song but it will touch your heart. If you know someone who
has a relative who served in WW2 send it to them.
Click on
http://www.managedmusic.com/beforeyougo.html
or http://www.beforeyougo.us
Tibby
PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C. (among others) is 80.6 per 100,000.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
our
Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
the
nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
KEEPING IT SIMPLE
Explain how immediate withdrawal from Iraq is in the best interest of
our national security?
Explain how withdrawal at any time before Iraq is able to function as
an independent nation is in the best interest of our national security?
HERE IS HOW, BY RICHARD NIXON ON VIETNAM
" So by spring, if not earlier, Bush will announce that progress in
Iraq allows U.S. forces to start coming home. He will say that an
American drawdown is the best way to help the Iraqis stand on their
own. He will argue, much as he did with his tax cuts, that whatever
pace he sets is precisely the right pace, and that withdrawing any
faster or slower would be the height of irresponsibility. He may also
say that withdrawing is "not a formula for getting out of [the region],
but one that provided the only sound basis for America's staying in and
continuing to play a responsible role."
Those were the words of Richard Nixon, who, somewhere, is wanly
smiling."(Jonathan Rauch)
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS SLIGHT OF HAND?
" George W. Bush campaigned against the proposed McCain-Feingold
campaign finance "reform" in the 2000 election. At the time Bush
argued, rightly, that the legislation violated numerous constitutional
principles. When the bill wound up his desk, however, in a more
egregious form than the earlier versions, Bush signed it. If his
erstwhile "serious constitutional concerns" had been justified, the
president explained, then, heck, "the courts will resolve these
legitimate legal questions." But when the law went before the Supreme
Court, Bush's Justice Department defended it and the justices in turn
upheld it, out of deference to the "government." (Jonah Goldberg)
CORRUPTED HEROES
In 1994 the Republicans won the elections by promising to stop the wild
spending by Democrats. Today the Republicans are wild in spending and
the Democrats are trying to stop them. How did the get corrupted? Power
corrupts. Unfortunately we can do little without throwing out the baby
with the bath water.
SAFETY VS FREEDOM
The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and
freedom. "Safety from external danger," Hamilton declared, "is the most
powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty
will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction
of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm
attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most
attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions
which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To
be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being
less free." The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.
At present, the President has opted to exercise only a few of his
emergency powers. Under the National Emergencies Act, at this time, he
is only utilizing provisions relating to the military.
Will the President choose to use additional powers? It depends on the
future. Because we don't know what shape this war on terrorism will
take, we can't know what powers this president - or any successor -
might need to cope with the problems of terrorism.
An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers.
Those powers potentially include what political scientists have
described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No
President has ever had to go that far - although they have come close.
Now, however, it is not difficult to conceive of scenarios where
terrorist groups, hell-bent on our destruction and refusing to abide by
any known rules of war, could employ weapons of mass destruction or
bio-terrorism in a manner that could threaten our existence as a
nation. What happens then? It depends who the president is. Surrender
vs. constitutional dictatorship.
HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH?
Iidiotic Senators declare that it is more important to lose millions of
American lives in a terrorist attack than force information out of a
terrorist by degrading him or humiliating him to prevent the attack.
Would beheading one to make the other one talk be acceptable under the
new rules? Doesn't beheading gives a terrorist instant access to all
the virgins in paradise therefore it is neither degrading nor
humiliating, but really promoting religious ambitions?
People in high places are betraying secrets to hurt the war effort to
gain publicity and political power.
American Reform Jews declare the war against Islam wrong and illegal.
Part of the CIA. inherited from Clinton, works against the President
and discloses national secrets to damage the war against terror.
Saudi "students" are back in large numbers flooding universities and
Saudi imams are taking over mosks.
Israel has been under rocket and mortar attack for days following the
withdrawals forced upon it by Bush and Rice. Iran plans to destroy
Israel. Why has the US not decided yet if we would shoot down Israeli
planes flying over Iraq while attacking Iran's nuclear installations?
How long took the United States to vote in a national election after
adapting our constitution as compared to Iraq? When did as large a
percentage of Americans vote as Iraqis voted in their election?
When was the last time the words treason, subversion, sedition were
used by the media in the 21st Century?
Habitat for Humanity is building $800,000 houses for the poor .
Catholic Bishops declare the death penalty illegal, conveniently
ignoring the entire Bible and New Testament.
Do-gooder idiots declare a black criminal killer innocent because
neither the victims nor the the witnesses against him were reputable,
high class whites.
The Journal of Science announces the beginning of a new ice age and the
cooling of the Gulf Stream. The cause: same as for global warming=the
USA.
The UN announces Iran will have a nuclear weapon in a few months. They
promise to destroy Israel. The solution proposed in Europe: Have Israel
turn over some its nuclear arsenal to Iran as a sign of good will and a
form of MAD that kept the Soviets and the US from nuclear war.
Idiot Senators want to allow foreign terrorists use Verizon to
communicate with each other and prevent the US from listening since
they are domestic subscribers.
A Senator who spends $30 million to get elected to a low paying job
declares him/herself a crook by design.
The untouchables are the juidiciary. They can touch you deep in your
pockets and ruin your lives but they can not be held responsible for
anything they do.
Prisons are full of innocent people sent there by hapless and crooked
forensic experts with full knowledge of the criminal justice
establishment. But not if you have $$$.
ABOUT HUMAN JUDGMENT
Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who
were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had
syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before looking at the answer for this one.
Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here
are the facts about the three leading candidates.
Candidate A -
Associates with crooked politicians and consults with astrologists.
He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.
Candidate B -
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in
college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C -
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and has never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Candidate A: is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B: is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C: is Adolph Hitler.
And, by the way, the answer to the abortion question: If you said yes,
you just killed Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging
someone's character.
And in case you never saw this one... Can you imagine working for a
company that has a little more than 500 employees and who a few years
ago had the following statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses.
* 3 have done time for assault.
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits.
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year.
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group of
idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep
the rest of us in line!
Remember: Amateurs built the Ark... Professionals built the Titanic!
