Category Archives: Politics

2008 Election, Politics, Uncategorized, War On Terror

Democrat Leaders Indifferent To Life, Freedom

1 Comment

For the party that claims the human rights mantle, and are just consumed with concern over what the world thinks of us, “Our reputation around the world” has become the preamble to stump speeches by Democrats. So in that context it is astonishing how little concern these same Democrats in Washington have for the Iraqi people who hear them talk about leaving Iraq on a daily basis.

The millions of Iraqis that were glad to be rid of Saddam and voted for the first time to govern themselves and live in freedom, are still living in a war zone. Their army and security forces are not yet able to protect themselves against Iran and al-Qaeda. The Iraqi people are seeing their hopes and dreams for freedom be doused by impatient politicians in Washington. So the Americans (if you listen to the Dems) are now willing to leave them for al-Qaeda to deal with.

What kind of human being will go in to a country (remember ‘you go in there and you own it’?) and tear it apart, tell the people there that we’re going to help you get setup as a free people, and then leave before fulfilling that promise?

Is this what they mean when they say that Bush has hurt the reputation of the United States around the world? Do they really believe that leaving Iraq to become a terrorist haven while setting up its population for slaughter will improve our image?

All allies who want to join us in our next military challenge, please raise your hands.

2008 Election, Media, Politics, War On Terror

When Shortsightedness Shines

One almost has to characterize people like Hillary Clinton of being totally short-sighted when talking about the war in Iraq on or off the campaign trail. I say short-sighted, giving her the benefit of the doubt (undeservedly so) because the alternative is simply stupid or treasonous. There are numerous examples of Democrats providing propaganda material for our sworn enemy. The most recent example being the sleepover in the Senate last week.

After Sen. Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton if you prefer, again spoke publicly about strategy and tactics, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman spoke up about Hillary Clinton’s actions like this . .

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote. He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Hillary’s response is just too predictable. She says, and the media listens, accusing the Pentagon of impugning her patriotism like this . . .

Clinton said she and Kerry were “shocked by the timeworn tactic of once again impugning the patriotism of any of us who raise serious questions” about the Iraq war. Kerry accused the Bush administration of making “planning a dirty word and an alien concept.”

This is the same lie these two used in the last election, and the media did its best to support it. Never questioning not only the absence of the word but ignoring the gazillion explanations of “no it’s your judgment, not your patriotism,” idiot. The media stuck with the template. But I digress, patriotism, or her alleged patriotism, was not mentioned by Edelman or the Pentagon. The words were exactly this “premature and public discussion,” emphasis added for the mainstream media.

The Democrats, both running for office and in leadership positions in Washington, are laying themselves out there now for all to see just how they support our troops and the objectives of our involvement in Iraq. They despise the mission, could care less of the welfare of the Iraqi people, and dismiss the troops and their families purely for political gain. And last but not least, they show us what lousy a Commander in Chief they or she would make in front of a microphone and camera. In a Hillary Clinton administration there would have to be a draft (another of their goals) because no one would sign up to fight for someone who lives and breathes by polls and special interest (wacko left) organizations.

Whether it blows up in their face depends on how well the mainstream media can gloss over the fact that they are helping the enemy.

related: Overnighter Not A Total Loss

Politics, War On Terror

Pelosi Makes Video Available

1 Comment

As an update to last week’s post about Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Ca) one-minute speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, where she castigates the Iraqi legislature for not being able to pass significant legislation, the political benchmarks. It was something you had to see to appreciate, and now I have the video.

The transcript does not capture her reaction to what she said when she said this, “Legislation to make the Iraqi political process more inclusive is stalled in the Iraqi legislature.”

It was one of those “priceless” moments. The video does capture it however, and I’m so happy to have found it. I found two versions. One from the speaker and another with the super secret speech decoder turned on from Ft. Hard Knox. The line begins at 1 min 55 sec. into the 6 min. 43 second speech. That’s roughly a minute.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlXu55FFSaQ[/youtube]

Video 1, Video 2, related

Media, Politics, War On Terror

That’s No Threat, That’s A Bumber Sticker

For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a bumper sticker, a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that’s the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

But now with the U.S. government, as well as the British and German governments warning of major terrorist attacks this summer, the Treason Lobby is facing the possibility that the “bumper sticker” could blow up in their faces.

The Democrats’ entire national security calculus is based on the premise that we have no important enemies, as stated by former senator Mike Gravel. He’s one of the Democratic presidential candidates who doesn’t know he’s supposed to lie when speaking to the American people.

Ironically, the Democrats’ ability to sneer at President Bush hinges on Bush’s successful prosecution of the war on terrorism, despite the Democrats. It’s going to be harder to persuade Americans that the “war on terrorism” is George Bush’s imaginary enemy, the Reichstag fire, to quote our first openly Muslim congressman Keith Ellison,  if there is another terrorist attack.

So naturally, they are blaming any future terrorist attacks on the war in Iraq.

The Democrats blame everything on Iraq, but their insane argument that we are merely annoying the enemy by fighting back has been neurotically repeated since the failed terrorist bombing in London a few weeks ago. The venue of the terrorists’ latest attempt, a hot London nightclub, might even shake up the young progressive crowd. Apparently their soirees are not off-limits, notwithstanding their dutiful anti-imperialism.

In anticipation of their surrender strategy becoming substantially less popular in the wake of another terrorist attack, the Democrats are all claiming that the threat of terrorism was nonexistent — notwithstanding 9/11, the Cole bombing, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Achille Lauro, etc. etc. — until George Bush invaded Iraq.

In the past week, B. Hussein Obama said the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Americans are “more at risk,” he said, “and less safe than we should have been at this point.” We would be safer with “better polices” such as, presumably, Bill Clinton’s policy of pretending Islamic terrorists don’t exist and leaving the problem for the next president.

Hillary Clinton said we need to start “reversing our priorities. Let’s stop sending troops to Iraq and let’s start insuring every single child.” Yes, that should put a good healthy scare into the insurgents. “Run for your life, Ahmed! All American children are getting regular checkups!”

Sen. Chris Dodd miraculously straddled both arguments, that the threat of terrorism is a fraud and that the Iraq war had increased its danger. He said “al-Qaida is insurgent again” because we’ve “turned Iraq into an incubator” for jihadists. But simultaneously with warning of a terrorist attack, Dodd also said he was “more skeptical than I’d like to be” of the Bush administration’s warning of a terrorist attack. Damn that Bush! He’s inflamed an imaginary enemy!

As with the Democrats’ claim that the greatest military in the world is “losing” a war with camel-riding nomads, the claim that the war in Iraq is what created our terrorist problem,  a terrorist problem that began about 30 years ago, has entered the media and is now stated as fact by the entire Treason Lobby.

CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux matter-of-factly reported this week: “President Bush says the central front in the war on terror is Iraq. But when the U.S. first invaded the country almost five years ago, al-Qaida had very little presence. But the intelligence report says that has changed. Al-Qaida not only has become a dangerous threat, the intelligence community expects the terrorist group will use its contacts and capabilities there to mount an attack on U.S. soil.”

Say, wasn’t the attack of 9/11 an “attack on U.S. soil”? How could that have happened since we hadn’t invaded Iraq yet? What a weird aberration. How about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The taking of our embassy in Tehran?

Another CNN correspondent, Ed Henry, followed up Malveaux’s report with the somber news that “the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you’re going to give al-Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence.”

Similarly, Hitler and Goebbels never had much to say about the United States, not, that is, until we started fighting them!

But as soon as we entered the war, taking the bait of Hitler’s declaration of war against us, which Democrats are urging us to avoid falling for in the case of al-Qaida, Hitler began portraying FDR as a pawn of the Jews. Soon posters started appearing in Germany showing the United States as a country run by Jews and Negroes. Fake dollar bills with the Star of David were air-dropped over Paris.

According to the Democrats’ logic, FDR’s policies made the United States less safe. Had Germany attacked us at Pearl Harbor? No. Was Hitler able to use America entering the war as a recruiting tool? Yes. Fighting the enemy always seems to make them mad. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

Democrats think they have concocted a brilliant argument by saying that jihadists have been able to recruit based on the war in Iraq. Yes, I assume so. Everything the United States has done since 9/11 has galvanized the evil people of the world to fight the U.S. In World War II, some Frenchmen joined the Waffen SS, too. And the good people of the world have been galvanized to fight on the side of the U.S. The question is: Which side are the Democrats on?

COPYRIGHT 2007 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

That was so well said that it had to be shown in its entirety. Thank you in advance Ann, for not suing me.Ross

2008 Election, Media, Politics, War On Terror

Top Terrorist In Iraq Captured

The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq was captured on July 4. It was a good day. But the way James Tarranto puts it is much better.

“The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group’s foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter,” the Associated Press reports.

That’s al Qaeda in Iraq or, as the New York Times calls it, al Qaeda Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq in Mesopotamia Which Also Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It’s Another Name for Iraq Which Has Nothing to Do With al Qaeda, a Homegrown Iraqi Group That Has Nothing to Do With Iraq Even Though It Is Mostly Iraqi, Albeit With Some Foreign Involvement Which Has Nothing to Do With Iraq.

What do you think Harry Reid, should we let the guy go? Would you like to negotiate with him?

Politics

Hidden Earmarks Pick Our Pockets

1 Comment

There are $7.5 billion in unclaimed earmarks. That is, money approved to be spent but has not yet been claimed by the senators that sponsored them.

As a proposal to require full disclosure of all Senate earmarks languishes, senators have not claimed responsibility for at least $7.5 billion worth of projects approved by the Appropriations Committee, according to an analysis by a budget watchdog group.

An earmark in one of the spending bills approved by congress is a $1 million to build a hippie museum about Woodstock. Remember the 60’s? The sponsors of that one are Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. That one was tucked in the Fiscal Year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. Details of the 1016 earmarks in this bill, amounting to $392 million, are available at the Americans for Prosperity website.

Remember the ‘transparency’ in budgeting we were promised by Speaker Pelosi? She’s apparently having trouble with that too. Says Steve Ellis, vice-president of programs for a budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense. . .

“Part of the whole effort of transparency is to move the budget out of the shadows and into the light. The public deserves to know what Congress and the administration are doing with their tax dollars.”

Earmarks should not be a hidden piggy bank that our representatives can dip into. Can you say pick-pocket? Let the light shine in on earmarks.
Contact Your Representative to Stop Earmarks in Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations and everywhere else.

reference: Taxpayers for Common Sense

Media, Politics, United Nations

Biofuel, A Liberal Record Of Failure

We have the environmentalists to thank for an energy policy that promises not to use it, but to use biofuels instead. And of course we have wimpy politicians that enable them. The financial impact on this increase demand of corn for biofuel production has become oppressive on poor countries like Mexico and the rest of Central and South America who depend on corn as a staple food source.

There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City’s poor recently protested this “ethanol tax” in the street.

Now the United Nations is saying that the UN cannot afford to feed the world because of the increase in food cost as a result of this increased biofuel demand.

policymakers were becoming more concerned about the impact of biofuel demand on food prices and how the world would continue to feed its expanding population.

Like raising taxes to boost the economy doesn’t fly, trying to use biofuels to replace oil is not only not increasing our domestic oil supply, but it is contributing to a hunger problem in undeveloped and poor nations around the world. It’s like trying to win the war by quitting before we win. Another liberal solution proven to fail that you won’t see much of in the mainstream media. It definitely doesn’t fit the template.

reference: Washington Post, Financial Times

Politics, War On Terror

Direct Talks With Iran?

Since Iran has chosen to participate in the war on terror by providing weapons and training to the enemy we are fighting in Iraq, I agree. Says State Dept. spokesman Sean McCormack. . .

“We think that given the situation in Iraq and given Iran’s continued behavior that is leading to further instability in Iraq, that it would be appropriate to have another face-to-face meeting to directly convey to the Iranian authorities that if they wish to see a more stable, secure, peaceful Iraq, which is what they have said they would like to see, that they need to change their behavior.”

It is time for direct talks. In light of all the evidence that shows Iran’s support, it needs to be effective. In this case, something like “halt or I’ll shoot” is in order.