This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Antiwar crowd

  • A political strategy that will surely kill us all

    The Democrats have decided that they can’t convince the American voters that Democrats are committed to protecting us. They ran what they perceived to be a war hero as their Presidential candidate in 2004, not realizing that he came with loads of baggage that real war heros would recognize as snotty, elitist Hollywood faux-heroism.

    Democrats realize that they can’t win the 2008 presidential election within the confines of the current state of affairs in the world – that being the global war against terrorism – without a candidate that can prove they are committed at any cost to defend Americans. They can’t find a candidate like that while their base voters are a bunch of Left-wing nutballs convinced that any war Republicans fight is illegitimate and some sort of conspiracy.

    So what’s the Democrat strategy to overcome such an obstacle? Deny that there’s a war against terror. John Edwards is just the latest to tell us to ignore the man with the bomber’s vest behind the curtain. Last month Dick Durbin claimed that he knew the American people were being misled to war by the White House – there was no threat, but anyone who has been half-awake for the last six years knows Durbin would have leaked any damaging information to the press in heartbeat if he thought he could hurt the administration.

    Dennis Kucinich, last month declared that the war was lost the minute the administration fabricated a cause to go to war. So there was no reason to go to war, because the Global War on Terror doesn’t really exist, except in the minds of some nebulous neo-con organization somewhere.

    So that’s the strategy – deny there’s a war so they don’t have to prove that they can defend us. Mainly because Americans will never trust the Left with our National Security. Rational people might try to formulate a coherent policy to answer America’s problems. But, then, we’re not talking about rational people here.

  • Gore discovers 20/20 hindsight (Updated)

    Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the TV, Al Gore is back and on book tour for his latest act of public mental masturbation “Assault on Reason” – a more apt title I can not imagine. From ABC News;

    On the one hand, Gore has written an un-nostalgic look back at the previous six years that lays out his case as to how the world might look today had the chads fallen another way — a world where U.S. troops would not be fighting in Iraq, Abu Ghraib would just be a town’s name and the nation would have been better prepared for Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and, yes, perhaps even Sept. 11.

    Funny but I saw an episode of Family Guy last night that touched on the same subject. Without going into detail, Al Gore becomes the President in 2000 and the cast comments on how he hunted down and captured bin Laden himself (bin Laden was hiding out amongst the cast of MadTV) and cars all ran on vegetable oil. I wonder if the show’s writers had a sneak peak at Gore’s book.

    According to Dan Fromkin in the Washington Post Gore claims;

    “‘History will surely judge America’s decision to invade and occupy (Iraq) as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd.’

    “He does not flatly state that Sept. 11 would not have occurred during a Gore administration. But, he writes, ‘Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable, it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes.’”

    Look, Al, you and your country-ass hick master had eight years to do something about al Qaida and Hussein, you did nothing – only because you needed something to distract the American people from your constant failures and they made nice, easy targets at which to fire off cruise missiles. And finally, when they did strike, we had no choice – thanks to you, dimbulb. And what did the Clinton Administration do to protect New Orleans from Katrina. Have you forgotten that you were Vice President for eight years?

    As for the title, I’m sure that everyone will agree that you assault reason just by writing your crybaby crap – thinking that any rational person would have the slightest interest in what you would have done if only we’d had your hindsight as foresight.

    I had a girlfriend like Al Gore once – she never let me go. To this day, she still emails me after 35 years and tells me how wonderful our life would have been if I’d married her instead of my wife of 30 years. And then she complains that I don’t answer her email.

    Al Gore, you’re America’s pathetic ex-girlfriend.

    UPDATE: Ben Smith at Politico has a “User’s Guide to Gore Fever”.

    A fawning EJ Dionne professes his non-sexual man-crush on Al Gore in his Washington Post column “Free to be Al Gore“;

    Gore, to his credit, won’t talk about Florida, but I will. Whatever flaws he has, Gore suffered through an extreme injustice with great dignity. His revenge is to have been right about a lot of things: right about the power of the Internet, right about global warming and right about Iraq.

    I guess it’s easy to be declared right when it’s impossible to prove whether it’s true or not. Apparently, even some on the Left aren’t buying Dionne’s deranged hug-fest.

  • Rolling Thunder/Gathering of Eagles Rally II

    I know I’ve mentioned this before, here and all over the internet, but next Saturday, May 26th from 1100 – 1500 (that’s 11am to 3pm for ya’all civvies) at the Lincoln Memorial, Rolling Thunder and the Gathering of Eagles are jointly conducting a rally in support of our troops. I’ll be there and try to get some picures for ya’all.

    But this weekend, the GOE organization in New York City countered some moonbat Guantanamo theater in Times Square. I guess they had the lunatics frightened.

    Urban Infidel captured the moonbattery with her camera.

    Spree at Wake Up America declares “War Protesters Not Welcome“.

    Conservative Thoughts demonstrated their support for Navy, Marine and Army recruiters in my old stomping grounds in Canadaigua, NY as members of the Gathering of Eagles’ Operation Recruiters Appreciation.

  • Democrats discuss unringing the bell

    According to S.A.Miller in today’s Washington Times, Democrats are looking for another way to surrender to Islamofacist terrorism;

    “The 2002 authorization to use force has run its course,” said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
        He announced the planned legislation jointly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat who serves alongside Mr. Byrd on the Armed Services Committee.
        “It is time — past time — to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives,” Mr. Byrd said on the Senate floor. “The president must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way.”

    I guess they figured that the President’s veto didn’t absolve them of their 2002 vote for the use of military force against Saddam Hussein like they planned – so they’re just going to unring that bell. 

    Why would they, the day after they pledged to work with the President after he vetoed their first Capitulation Proclamation, decide to take another run at the surrender route? Easy. They climbed in bed with Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org, the KosKids, and ignorant oafs like Eugene Robinson and they’ve staked their political futures on being anti-George Bush and because they’re tied to the uneducated, emotion-driven drama queens of the Left and there’s no room for compromise with those emotional, intellectually-vacant freaks.

       “There is nothing off the table — including timetables. Nothing,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
        His words were directed at peace activists who have unleashed their wrath against Democratic leaders in Congress for indicating that they will back down from Mr. Bush and nix a troop-pullout timetable from the war funding bill.
        “If they prove unable to stand up and do the job they were elected to do, there is no telling what will happen next [election] time,” said Dana Balicki, national organizer for Code Pink, a feminist group opposing the war in Iraq.
        “It’s about what you do, not what you say,” she said. “We will hold them accountable.”
        Cindy Sheehan, the activist who famously picketed the president at his Texas ranch, says her least favorite politician now is Mrs. Clinton because of her “unflinching support of George Bush’s war.”

    What’s that old saw about laying down with dogs? It’s all about holding on to their political cash now – having money for the 2008 election is more impoartant than our National Security.

    Meanwhile, over in the House, they’ve settled in to their own set of schemes, according to Anne Flaherty of AP;

    In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money after that point, but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

    Two months of funding at a time. Good job, nimrods. How brave of you all. And since the terrorists know know they only have to wait a couple of months, or they only have to fight a couple of months and sacrifice a few thousands of their jihadists to make it appear as if they’re stronger than they are, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyone remember Tet of ’68? The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out – their losses were so bad that they ceased being an effective fighting force for the remainder of the war in Vietnam. But because they’d fought so tenaciously, the media thought they still had fight left in them and declared the war unwinnable – a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

    Elsewhere on the web, Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey writes about Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari’s plea in the Washington Post that we (Americans) not abandon Iraqis to the terrorists there. Roy Robison, on the American Thinker, accuses the Democrats of going “cowboy”.

  • Pelosi’s a hit – with Syrians

    Betsy Pisik writes in the Washington Times about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s new constituency – in Syria;

       The California Democrat warmed Syrian hearts with her trip last month to Damascus, an event that people still share with visiting Americans as conversational currency.
        “Nancy Pelosi is good, yes?” asked a Damascus laborer who found himself sitting next to an American at a greasy gyro stand this week. “Nancy Pelosi, good American?”

    No, my friend, she’s not a good American. She’s a good Democrat which means, how you say, she talks a good game but she’s an empty suit. For example she made peace overtures to Syria from Israel which were lies and unsolicited. She did it to make nice with your slick-ass President and to embarrass ours as pointed out in this Washington Post editorial;

     Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

    Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

    She not only took it upon herself to presume to speak for the American people, she also presented herself as a messenger of the Israeli government. If the Syrians like that, they don’t deserve a democracy.

    But back to the Pisik/WashTimes article;

        “She was enormously popular here, a hero,” said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions.” 

      Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi’s trip “bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won’t work.”

    See? By concessions, Syrians mean stopping Hezbollah attacks on Israel and infiltrating support to the anti-government forces in Iraq. In other words, Syrians think Pelosi gave them permission to continue to support terrorists. Pelosi is not a good American. 

    Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria’s support for terrorist groups. 

    I’m pretty sure that if Pelosi did bring up those issues in her “private” meeting with Bashur, it was in such convoluted double-speak popular with elitist diplomats that only confuses the intended recipient.

    But this Iraqi woman kind of sums it all up;

      “She is a different face of America, but she does not have ideas, any solutions,” the Iraqi woman said. “I watch TV all day, and I know that only the faces change.” 

    I guess she fooled the Syrians, but the folks who have to bear the brunt of the results of her insolent posturing can see right through her.

     

  • Joan Baez banned from Walter Reed

    I don’t usually comment on news about entertainers, but I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that Joan Baez stopped entertaining anyone about 40 years ago – so my self-imposed restriction remains intact. Anyway, the Washington print media are a-buzz about the Army denying Baez entry to Walter Reed to screech for the troops. From the Washington Examiner;

    Folk singer and anti-war activist Joan Baez says she doesn’t know why she was not allowed to perform for recovering soldiers recently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as she planned.

    In a letter to The Washington Post published Wednesday, she said rocker John Mellencamp had asked her to perform with him last Friday and that she accepted his invitation.

    “I have always been an advocate for nonviolence and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago,” she wrote. “I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that’s why I didn’t hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, four days before the concert, I was not ‘approved’ by the Army to take part. Strange irony.”

    “Strange irony?” I don’t think it’s strange or ironic. For one thing, I don’t think most of the troops at Walter Reed even know what the ancient gasbag does or did. Other than playing for aging hippes who long for their wasted youth, what does she do for a living these days so anyone the age of our troops would recognize her?

    For another thing, we know that the 66 year-old would feel a need to “speak truth to power” and what volunteer soldier who just sacrificed a limb or their youth for their country want to hear about how Baez thinks they’re babykillers and puppy-rapers?

    From the Washington Post;

    Reached by telephone yesterday at her home in Menlo Park, Calif., Baez, 66, said she wasn’t told why she was given the boot, but speculated, “There might have been one, there might have been 50 [soldiers] that thought I was a traitor.”

    …or there could have been one soldier who actually remembered who the Hell you are. Maybe not that many, even. The fact that you contributed greatly to the disrespectful treatment of our troops when they returned from Viet Nam and the Army’s desire to comfort the wounded troops might have something to do with the Army’s decision. Think?

    “One of my more cynical friends said, ‘They let the rats in, why not you?’ ” Baez said, laughing, referring to a recent expose of living conditions at Walter Reed.

    I don’t know why you’re laughing. Do you and your friend think you’re better than a rat? Well, the rest of us don’t, ya old hag.

    After the concert, Baez said, Mellencamp left her a message to say, “I hope you’re not mad at me.” Her response: ” ‘Of course not. It’s an honor to be turned down by the Army.’ . . . But I would have been happier getting in . . . I thought times had changed enough.”

    You’re still living in the 60s and you “thought times had changed”? Remember the veteran who spit on Jane Fonda a few years back? What makes you think that there’s a statute of limitations on treason in the minds and opinions of Americans.

    The fact that Baez thinks that it’s an honor to be turned down by the Army, as opposed to being ashamed she’s been rejected by the institution that defends her right to sing what she wants, is proof the Army made the right choice.

    Personally, I applaud the Army’s decision. Usually, the Army makes the politically correct decision for PR purposes – this time they just made the right decision. Why give this brain-dead, crotch-rotted, screeching hag a platform from which she can bite the hand that feeds her?

    Army Strong!

    UPDATE: According to the Washington Post , “At Walter Reed, Mellencamp Shuts His Mouth and Sings”. You can bet that we couldn’t have counted on Baez to behave similarly.

  • Code Pink; US troops “terrorists”/new GOE Rally

    Redhunter has all of the Freeper links to the dust up that happened outside of the Walter Reed gate this last Friday when Code Pinks aging hippies decided to interupt a Canadian TV crew interviewing the DC Freepers supporting our wounded troops. But to summarize, some old bag said our troops were the terrorists in Iraq. After getting some nasty, bleeped responses from the Freepers and consulting with another old bag, she corrcted herself to mean our troops were “terrorizing” – as if that made the comment better.

    Odd what the Left thinks “supporting the troops” means.

    Now, I’ve been to the Walter Reed main gate on Friday nights, and when I confronted the Code Pinks hags, I was escorted away from the scene by Metro police last Spring when Code Pink first started their protests. 

    Yeah, that was the crowd, and that was the cop protecting them.

    Here’s the rest the contingent;

    The little old bag in the front begged me to take her picture and when I told her she was too fugly, she sicced the cop on me – demanding that I apologize or she’d file assault charges. I didn’t apologize, but I moved along as the officer demanded.

    Doesn’t look like the Freepers enjoy the same protection from Code Pink, though, looking at the video they’ve linked up. I didn’t see any cops on the Freepers’ corner in the video.

    It looks like the Code Pinkers have abandoned their post on Friday nights – the Freepers appear to occupy every corner at that intersection of Georgia Avenue. Despite the fact that they had a major protest planned in DC yesterday, according to Ankle Biting Pundits’ Patrick Hynes. Seems that they would have had a bigger crowd for Friday.

    Sweetness and Light has a characteristically long post on the worldwide “Impeach!” movement and points out that the Washington post didn’t even have a picture of the protesters.

    See the mighty Code Pink website report of the nationwide Impeach Bush protest – they have even linked to YouTube with a stunning video of 164 yellow plastic cups stuck in a fence to spell “Impeach!” some-damn-where in California. Those folks are so fearless. What a bunch of ‘tardbats.

    According to ANSWER’s website, another protest is scheduled for May 23rd – a Wednesday. I suppose they figure that if they have protests during the work week, fewer counterprotesters will attend – cuz we have jobs. Code Pinks plans another Mother’s Day protest in Lafayette Park across from the White House. I think I’ll skip that this year – I got escorted by Park Police out of that one, too.

    I guess the Leftists are getting all of their protests out of the way before the Memorial Day Rolling Thunder event happens and all of those patriots from the Gathering of Eagles will be back in town.

    Speaking of Gathering of Eagles, May 26th from 11:00 -3:00 will be the GOE and Rolling Thunder coordinated “Support Our Troops” rally at the Reflecting Pool east of the Lincoln Memorial for the largest troop support rally ever held in the nation. Clear your schedule.

    Completely unrelated but while I have your attention, Mike at Flopping Aces channeled Doctor Suess yesterday, and wrote this hillarious piece about Harry Reid. Kept me giggling all night.

  • Democrats; Bush won’t veto defense bill

    Obviously, Democrats haven’t been paying attention lately. They honestly think that the president won’t dare use his veto to block their pork-laden, cowardly spending bill for Iraq. Why? I’ll let the head moonbat tell you – from Anne Flaherty of AP via the Washington Examiner:

    “For the first time, the president will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Tuesday. “And he does not want to face that reality.”

    Hey, Blinky! Ya’all have been calling this “Bush’s War” since the first sandstorm slowed our advance on Baghdad. There have been two elections since the war started and the only thing you ran against was the president and the war. How is he avoiding responsibility?

    Ya’all are avoiding the responsibility of accepting the fact that there was no alternative to this war, and you’re not taking responsibility for the troops you get killed because of your careless words and your anti-American rhetoric.

    Ever since the war started you Democrats have been running away from your vote for the war. Ever since 9-11, you Democrats have been avoiding your responsibility to the citizens of this country by placing personal politics ahead of our national security.

    As Dick Cheney said yesterday, as reported in the S.A. Miller and Jon Ward of the Washington Times;

    Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for making “uninformed and misleading” statements about the war in Iraq.
        “What is most troubling about Mr. Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism,” the vice president said in a rare Capitol Hill press conference. 
        “Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost, and the timetable legislation he is pursuing would guarantee defeat.”

    Hear the Cheney rant at Flopping Aces, courtesy of Curt, read it in it’s entirety at the White House website or watch part of it thanks to Big Mo at Hang Right Politics.

    That’s all there’s been from the Left – hell, since before the war actually when the Bonior/McDermott surrender mission went to Iraq six months before the “rush to war” and declared that Hussein was more reliable than our own President.

    Luckily, the President doesn’t show signs of backing down, according to Bill Sammon of the DC Examiner;

    “I’m disappointed that the Democratic leadership has chosen this course,” Bush told reporters on the South Lawn. “Instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they choose to make a political statement.”

    Bush reiterated his vow to veto the bill, which would provide $100 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus billions more in unrelated “pork” spending. The bill also orders the administration to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq by Oct. 1.

    And Captain’s Quarters reported yesterday that the Democrats slipped in a minimum wage hike to insure the President wouldn’t sign the bill. What does the minimum wage have to with Iraq?

    It’s a purely partisan political exercise and the Democrats aren’t afraid to admit it. Why should they be ashamed, they’ve got their willing accomplices in the press;

    Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said, “We feel very good about where the caucus is.”

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats will send Bush the bill with the hope that the president has a change of heart. But, Hoyer added, they don’t expect it.

    “We are very, very hopeful that the president will sign that bill, will change his mind and come to the recognition that this bill does in fact set off a new policy for our engagement in Iraq,” Hoyer said.

    See? They’re hopeful – very hopeful. And we all know how the Left measures success by intentions, not by results. So what if more troops are dying this week in Iraq as a propaganda move by al Qaida to influence public opinion in the US during this debate. Jules Crittenden has the backstory on the 9 killed yesterday that none of the wire services have deemed important enough to tell us yet.

    Vice President Cheney isn’t afraid to tell the truth, however;

    “Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics,” Cheney told reporters at the Capitol after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch. “Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.”

    “It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage,” Cheney said.

    He’s being kind – it’s criminal to declare the war lost to gain a political advantage. Like Uncle Jimbo says – treasonous. Punishable by hanging. But I’ll go along with David Broder’s idea of Reid’s canning (via Crotchety Old Bastard). Too bad Broder is too politically correct to advocate for the firing of Nancy Pelosi, too.