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

Category: Politics

  • JFK terror plot was Bush’s fault, of course

     

    As soon as I heard about the busted terror plot this last weekend, I shot over to Yahoo and searched for news stories. The only national network that had anything on the internet was CBS (shiver), but I went over to read the details. At the end of the story were readers’ comments. Every comment was about how this was a story planted by “BushCo” to scare the American people into submission. I should have screen-shot the article, but I figured “Well, it’s just a fringe”. People remember 9-11 sort of, these writers were just lunatics. I mean, someone must take these stories seriously besides Republicans, right?

    But, SisterToldja reports that the LA Times says that the plot wasn’t a big deal anyway. So the terrorists that BushCo didn’t really catch in the act, weren’t going to be successful anyway. Bloodthirsty Liberal takes the NY Times to task for similar treatment of the story.

    See, here’s the way I see it. Yeah, these four dimwits and the Dix Six were pretty incompetent and borderline retarded in their planning, but the fact remains that they were committed to killing scores, if not thousands of Americans on our own soil. Left to their own devices, sooner or later they would have been successful. Maybe not as successful as they’d have liked, but somewhat successful. Even one life lost would have been one too many.

    So why are these acts being marginalized in the media? Lord help me, the media still brags about Clinton’s awesome success at stopping the Millenium LAX bombing – which was just as half-assed as any of these. And Eric Rudolph’s Atlanta, Georgia bombing at the Olympics still killed 2 and injured 111 people – again a half-assed attempt by an incompetent moron. 

    Even the Murrah Building bombing was accomplished by a gaggle of want-wits who didn’t have a plan more complicated than the old infantryman’s demolition math (P=Plenty, for the uninitiated) and parking a truck in front of the target and skee-daddling. McVeigh couldn’t even do that right – driving down the interstate with no license plate on his car.

    All criminals are stupid – that’s why they’re criminals.

    And yesterday I heard rumors about John Murtha blaming Bush for these terrorists, but I wanted to see it for myself (I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my Sunday morning staring at that idiot George Stephanopolis and his ridiculous 12-year-old schoolboy haircut).

    So this morning, sure as it rains, I find the video at Newsbusters and Flopping Aces. Murtha claims that if President Bush hadn’t attacked Iraq, those terrorist plotters wouldn’t have been tempted to bomb JFK airport (not that it would have been successful or that the terrorists really existed in the first place).

    One of them had been in this country, working and retired for 30-fricken-years. He just decided in 2003 that we needed to be attacked? And how about the attack in 1993? Was that because we attacked the Iraqi Army in 1991 while they barbequeing in Kuwait? How about the embassy bombings in Africa, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole – did those attacks happen because of something we had done?

    Murtha is cranky old fool and the Democrats had better put a lid on him before he becomes the face of their party. Or before someone takes a swing at his wrinkled old mug.

    Makes me agree with Brit Hume when he said a few months ago;

    Even the “Washington Post” noted [Murtha] didn’t seem particularly well informed about what’s going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not — this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.

    And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what’s really going on over there.

    Maybe if we put Murtha’s office in Okinawa he’ll have a better idea of what’s happening in the world.

    But, put him in the group of idiots like one of my own crackpots who emails me (because I won’t let him post here) this morning that since 17 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis we should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq. That’s just simplistic and naive – can you imagine what the Democrats would be saying if we’d attacked Saudi Arabia?

    It also demonstrates the childishness of these morons. They’re convinced that our foreign policy should be based on pure, simple revenge – an emotion – instead of reasoned insight about who are our enemies and who wishes us ill because of who we are. The Saudis are fighting the same groups that we’re fighting – for the same reasons we’re fighting them. How does it make sense that we’d turn on the Saudis?

    But no one has ever accused the Left of being reasonable people. 

  • WaPo: Partisanship is admirable – for Democrats

    Paul Kane of the Washington Post gushes over what he calls the “unity” in the Democrat Congress;

    Through the first five months of the year, the average House Democrat has voted with a majority of his/her caucus colleagues on 94 percent of the 425 roll calls. Enjoying their honeymoon period, 110 Democrats — nearly half of the 232 Democrats — have sided with a majority of the caucus on at least 98 percent of the votes cast this year.

    Consider this: Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) has been the most partisan Republican in the 110th Congress, voting with a GOP majority on 98 percent of votes. But if someone prints out the washingtonpost.com’s chart of most partisan voters in the House, they will have to turn through eight and a half pages of House Democrats before they see Putnam’s red-headed mug shot (Rep. Charles Norwood R-Ga., who died on Feb. 13 and cast only nine votes in the 110th Congress, is the lone exception.)

    No other caucus of House Republicans or Democrats has maintained such a unified voting bloc over a two-year Congress, according to washingtonpost.com’s vote tracking feature.

    Just for grins, I did a “Yahoo search” of “rubber stamp congress” and got 1.3 million hits from the likes of Glen Greenwald, Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars – none of them refering to the partisanship of the Democrats in this session of Congress, of course. Another search, “partisanship congress” got another 1.1 million hits, again most about the last Congressional session. And one odd one about this session needing MORE partisanship in Congress.

    So I did a search on Washington Post just on the word partisanship – I got 43 hits in the last 60 days. Every one of the articles (except the one I linked above) was about the evils of Republican partisanship.

    I’m just sayin’….

  • Playing right into their hands

    Let me say this upfront; I don’t like illegal immigrants. They are lawbreakers, just as much as anyone robbing a liquor store or jacking a car. And just like a thief robbing a store or stealing a car, economics is no excuse for breaking the law. I certainly sympathize with the conditions with which people are forced to exist in Central America (having spent quite a few years down there, I understand it better than most Americans). The United States is certainly an irresistable beacon to the millions mired in poverty south of our border. But that’s a problem better-solved with local solutions. 

    I don’t like that the current administration is crafting a plan to give what might be considered “amnesty” with the likes of Ted Kennedy. Today in the Washington Times I read that declining donations to the RNC triggered the firing of their solicitors;

        Several of the solicitors fired at the May 24 meeting reported declining contributions and a donor backlash against the immigration proposals now being pushed by Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans.
        “Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue,” said a fired phone bank employee who said the severance pay the RNC agreed to pay him was contingent on his not criticizing the national committee. 

    The RNC denies falling revenues, but I believe the people who were fired. I’ve been snubbed by a couple of the Right’s biggest bloggers in the past few weeks and I’m pretty sure it’s because of my wishy-washy position on immigration that I wrote about a week or so ago calling for calm on the Right.

    I honestly believe the Right is overreacting – overreacting on the same scale that the anti-war Left is overreacting to the collapse of their Congressional heros. And I think that it’s playing right into the hands of the Democrats.

    The Democrats know that unless they come up with a coherent strategy for the war against terror next year, they’ve lost the election. So they pretend there is no war against terror – and they try to divide the Republican party. How do they do it? They know this president is a man of action – unlike his predecessor who just had blue-ribbon commissions and town hall meetings and the press tried to convince us that he had solved whatever problem he was interested in that moment.

    They know this president wants to solve the immigration problem. They also know that the reactionary xenophobes on the Far Right will run to the microphones and their PCs and condemn anyone who avocates anything short of shipping 12 million illegals home and they’ll whip the blogs into a frenzy of anti-immigration platitudes. Which is exactly what happened.

    Yeah, we all feel betrayed by Republicans, but are we going to let our emotions drive us into a third and fourth Clinton term? On one single issue? I’ll grant that it’s an important issue, but is it so important that we’ll gamble the future of our country?

    I guess I’ve set myself up for some more snubbing.

  • They never learn

    The Democrats are heading towards their socialist roots again. At least during the 2004 campaign, John Kerry gave the impression that he was concerned about our national security. But since Kerry’s defeat, the Democrats have decided that the American people will never elect their candidates to national office as long as there’s a war going on – so they act as if there is no war.

    Jackie Calmes in the Wall Street Journal writes that the Democrats no longer fear mentioning their plans to inflict a national health care system on us;

     Now, the growing list of Democratic presidential candidates calling for universal, cheaper coverage — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama yesterday became the latest — suggests the days of health-care incrementalism are over. Nor are these Democrats alone in embracing the once-toxic political cause of universal care: The best-known state models have been championed by Republican governors, including Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who is now running for president.

    This shift reflects rising and inflation-topping out-of-pocket costs for health care and insurance premiums, co-payments and deductibles. Also, the number of uninsured has spiked to about 45 million, from 37 million when Mr. Clinton was president. Business leaders increasingly are seeking a government-imposed solution, saying employee health costs put them at a disadvantage with foreign competitors.

    Those forces, in turn, have combined to embolden politicians in both parties to once again propose universal health care that inevitably would mean a big role for government — and possibly upend the powerful insurance, medical and pharmaceutical industries.

    Never mind that national healthcare systems are undoing the economies of Old Europe, nevermind that Canadians are flocking across our borders for neccessary health treatments that their government can’t provide in a timely manner. Nevermind that States are more easily able to tailor a healthcare system for their own people’s needs better than a huge, uncaring bureaocracy in Washington could ever provide.

    And how does Obama plan on funding this healthcare plan of his? Why, it’s easy – just roll back the Bush tax cuts on the rich. I wonder how many of us who consider ourselves middleclass will suddenly find ourselves among the rich when his plan is launched.

    Think Hillary learned a lesson about proposing her national healthcare system back in 1993? She thinks so;

    Now, as Mrs. Clinton campaigns for president, a staple of her speeches is a self-deprecating nod to the scars she bears from that fight — and assurance that, as she puts it, “I know what not to do.”

    But healthcare isn’t the only bugaboo looming on the Democrat’s horizon. Hillary is coming for our wallets, too, according to an AP story;

    The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

    “I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

    That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

    “Fairness” is a Democrat code word for increased taxes on the middle class. Taxes and growth are not words usually paired, so she replaced the word “taxes” with the word “fairness”.

    Ownership – that’s one of the reasons we warred against the King of England in the 18th Century. Now, we’re supposed to trade our personal property for the good of all. I’m sure this resonates well with the lazy people in the country – the people who squandered their equal opportunities to be productive.

    But here’s Clinton’s punchline;

    Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit….

    See? Clinton is insinuating that all money belongs to the government, so Clinton is going to help you save money by giving you back more of the money that the government took from you. I’m sure she got a big round of applause for that one. Especially up there in State-tax-free New Hampshire.

    Remember when her husband promised us a middleclass tax cut in the 1992 election campaign? I’m still waiting for it. All of his targeted tax cuts weren’t targeted at a family of five with two parents working, apparently. It took me ten years to completely recover from Clinton’s tax policies.

  • That’s what we get

    On this morning’s front page of the Washington Post, reporter Jon Ward Anderson announces that “US, Iran Open Dialogue“;

    The United States and Iran held their first official high-level, face-to-face talks in almost 30 years Monday to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, and officials emerged generally upbeat about the renewed dialogue, suggesting additional meetings were likely.

    Yay! We did what the Iraq Study Group said was crucial for ending the war in Iraq.

    This morning, Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs calls it the “Worst Idea of the Year” and the Iranians waste no time proving Johnson right. According to AP, by way of Fox News Channel;

    U.S. academic Haleh Esfandiari and two other Iranian-Americans have been “formally charged” with endangering national security and espionage, Iran’s judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

    “Esfandiari has been formally charged with endangering national security through propaganda against the system and espionage for foreigners,” Judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters. “She has been informed of the charges against her. The complainant is the Intelligence Ministry.”

    So that’s what we get. To us Westerners, negotiating is just the civilized thing to do – discussing our differences is reasonable. But to 7th century throwbacks like the Iranians, it’s a sign of weakness. This just an attempt to see if they can push us even further than they’ve already pushed us.

    In fact, on the main issue, that of Iranians supplying anti-government forces in Iraq, the Iranians were evasive and downright mocking in their tone;

    The American envoy called the meeting “businesslike” and said at “the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own.”

    However, he said: “What we would obviously like to see, and the Iraqis would clearly like to see, is an action by Iran on the ground to bring what it’s actually doing in line with its stated policy.”

    Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: “We don’t take the American accusations seriously.”

    They don’t take our accusations seriously is probably the understatement of the year. Mainly because no one in the West has the cajones to stand up to the goat ropers of Iran because we’re hamstrung by the anti-Bush/anti-US Democrats and the “Peace at any cost” Euro-weenies. And the Iranians are fully aware of it – these talks are just attempts at running out the clock on their nuclear program. In addition, any fingers they can stick in our eye are just frosting on the cake. 

    More here from a relative expert.

  • Sheehan leaves politics (she says)

    In a piece entitled “Good Riddance Attention Whore” (at DailyKos), Cindy Sheehan claims to be leaving the political stage and retiring to her villa in the south of France (OK, I made that last part up, but…), in some ways I feel for her…no, really. I’m not just saying that. Here, let her tell you why I said that;

    The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party.  This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

    However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

    She found out that this nation’s Left can turn on it’s own people faster than a mongoose – something most of us have known all along. But, the Left, in the personage of Maureen Dowd, gave her “absolute moral authority”;

    But [President Bush’s] humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

    But that absolute part was less absolute than Ms. Sheehan realized. She learned that the American Left, despite the fact that they claim otherwise, really don’t care about the troops or the troops’ parents – only to the extent that they can use it against Republicans and the current administration.

    Sheehan fell for it, and even in this piece, she chastizes the Republicans for calling her a “”tool” of the Democrats”. Probably the most painful thing for her, is realizing that Republicans were correct. Of course she’ll never admit that we were right, but I think she knows it.

    But some of us understand how she feels at this point, some of us who’ve been Democrats and dreamily drifted towards the Democrats’ siren song, were also awoken to the reality that the Democrats are all about politics and votes – nothing more. There’s nothing altruistic about being a Democrat – you can convince yourself that it’s compassionate, but only to the extent that it keeps Democrat politicians in their positions.

    Look at what they did to Joe Lieberman. Did you really expect them to be different to you, Cindy? In fact, Lieberman threw the pro-Life crowd under the bus so he could be the Democrats VP candidate, and they still dumped him for disagreeing with them ON ONE SINGLE ISSUE.

    But then she loses all of my sympathy in her last line;

    Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

    It’s up to you now.

    Um, Cindy, baby, we were around two-hundred or so years before you, I think we’ll make it through the rest without you. With or without your advice. And drop the anti-American crap, it doesn’t play well in Peoria.

    Maybe you should go to Venezuela and hang out with your buddy Chavez, I hear they’re having a big party in the street this week.

  • Jimmy, Cindy, Joe and Hugo (Updated 5-29)

    Fox News is broadcasting that Adam Housely (who live blogged the protest), on the scene in Caracas, Venezuela is reporting that the crowds fairly peacefully protesting Chavez’ decision to shut down the popular, dissenting RCTV television station are being fired upon by federal troops with rubber bullets, tear gas and shot guns are being fired over their heads. The reporter also said that the crowd wasn’t budging – which means that if Chavez intends to squelch this dissent he will have to ratchet up his response.

    Chavez claims were that RCTV was engaged in “subversive” activities. How many times have we heard that phrase used in the last 50 years?

    Housley made the point that international media is the only way to get word out about Chavez now because he’s shut down the last dissenting media voice in Venezuela. Housley also displayed what appeared to an expended low-base 12-guage shotgun shell he claims he recovered from the ground after federal troops fired it in the air (the video of Housley appeared to be via cell phone).

    There’s nothing to link here yet, just some background in a generic AP story on Fox News;

    Inside the studios of RCTV — the sole opposition-aligned TV station with nationwide reach — disheartened actors and comedians wept and embraced in the final minutes on the air.

    They bowed their heads in prayer, and presenter Nelson Bustamante declared: “Long live Venezuela! We will return soon.”

    Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network’s signal over to public use.

    Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, expressed concern that Venezuela let RCTV’s license expire “without holding an open competition for the successor license.” It said the EU expects that Venezuela will uphold freedom of speech and “support pluralism.”

    I’m sure Chavez is quaking in his stumpy little boots having seen the Euro-weenies “expect” all kinds of civilized behavior in the last few years.

    My question is how do Jimmy Carter, Cindy Sheehan and Joe Kennedy feel about their pal, Hugo now? Will they rush out to condemn, not only the poor treatment of protesters, but the silencing of opposition – which is a basic human right according to our own traditions. 

    I’d guess not. The Left in the United States kept silent about Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, even North Korea for several decades. I’m waiting for evidence that our own administration has done things worse than Chavez has done. I guess the authors of the Black Book of Communism will be able to write a Hugo Chavez chapter, now. And Joe, Jimmy and Cindy will go down in history as Chavez’ enablers.

    Because, why should the Left acknowledge that socialism is a morally bankrupt philosophy that runs counter to basic human rights?

    A-ha! found the story at that CNN place. Must be new network, I’ve never heard of CNN before.

    National Guard troops fired tear gas and rubber bullets Monday into a crowd of protesters angry over a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a critical television station off the air.

    University students blocked one lane of a major highway hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV’s broadcast license, accusing it of “subversive” activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

    Two students were injured by rubber bullets and a third was hit with a tear gas canister, said Ana Teresa Yepez, an administrator at Caracas’ Metropolitan University. She said about 20 protesters were treated for inhaling tear gas.

    The new public channel, TVES, launched its transmissions with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, “Now Venezuela belongs to everyone.”

    Got news for ya, pal. Venezuela only belongs to Chavez. Criticize him and see for yourself.

    With her usual clarity, The Anchoress picks apart the media’s coverage of Chavez’ “liberation” of the Venezuelan people from the truth.

    Update: Apparently, Chavez is in the process of tossing out the international press, too, according to AP:

    Venezuela said Monday it was filing charges against US cable network CNN for linking President Hugo Chavez to Al-Qaeda, and against a Venezuelan TV network for encouraging Chavez’s assassination.

    I guess it was only a matter of time.

    Not surprisingly, we read at the Daily Kos, (via Little Green Footballs) that the American Left – who like to call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” and the true defenders of human and civil rights, the inheritors of the Jeffersonian legacy – support Chavez’ actions of the type Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to preempt in the very first amendment.

    I guess the Left forget that our Constitution’s Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority from the heavy-handed majority in just such circumstances. And that the Constitution protects all citizens from government. It’s not to protect government from criticism – and the Declaration of Independence was a universal declaration for the liberty of all people, not just those living in the English colonies, to exercise the rights and protections given us by our Creator.

    It’s not a multiple choice test which has fluctuating correct answers depending on the season or culture.

  • Edwards wants to “honor” Memorial Day with protests

    I came across this little gem while viewing the VFW website today:

    Edwards’ Call to Protest Dishonors Memorial Day

    WASHINGTON, May 17, 2007

    A (http://www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com/) plea by presidential candidate John Edwards to encourage war protests at Memorial Day events across the country has drawn the anger of the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. “Memorial Day is a solemn occasion to remember the service and sacrifice of more than one million American servicemen and women who gave their lives to create our nation, to save our Union, and to help free the world from tyranny,” said Gary Kurpius, who leads the 2.4 million-member VFW, the nation’s oldest major veterans’ organization and its largest organization of combat veterans.
    “Memorial Day is not a time to call people to protest the war in Iraq under the guise of supporting the troops,” he said. “To do so dishonors those who served, those who continue to serve, and to the families who grieve.” The candidate’s message is a link from his main website to another site that lists 10 things people can do over the Memorial Day weekend to “support” the troops while calling for an end to the war. “My generation went to war with a divided country and Congress, and our nation does not need to relive that experience ever again,” said Kurpius, a Vietnam veteran from Anchorage, Alaska.
    “Calling for protests for political gain is not how you support the troops. You support them by ensuring they are fully trained, equipped and funded, and you ensure they and their families are taken care of every step of the way,” he explained. “To support the troops is to support what it is they do,” he said, adding that U.S. troops in harms way believe the new diplomatic, economic and military strategy has a chance of succeeding. “And if they have faith, then we, as Americans, must have faith and patience, too.”

    A () plea by presidential candidate John Edwards to encourage war protests at Memorial Day events across the country has drawn the anger of the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. “Memorial Day is a solemn occasion to remember the service and sacrifice of more than one million American servicemen and women who gave their lives to create our nation, to save our Union, and to help free the world from tyranny,” said Gary Kurpius, who leads the 2.4 million-member VFW, the nation’s oldest major veterans’ organization and its largest organization of combat veterans.“Memorial Day is not a time to call people to protest the war in Iraq under the guise of supporting the troops,” he said. “To do so dishonors those who served, those who continue to serve, and to the families who grieve.” The candidate’s message is a link from his main website to another site that lists 10 things people can do over the Memorial Day weekend to “support” the troops while calling for an end to the war. “My generation went to war with a divided country and Congress, and our nation does not need to relive that experience ever again,” said Kurpius, a Vietnam veteran from Anchorage, Alaska.“Calling for protests for political gain is not how you support the troops. You support them by ensuring they are fully trained, equipped and funded, and you ensure they and their families are taken care of every step of the way,” he explained. “To support the troops is to support what it is they do,” he said, adding that U.S. troops in harms way believe the new diplomatic, economic and military strategy has a chance of succeeding. “And if they have faith, then we, as Americans, must have faith and patience, too.”Link:  http://www.vfw.org/

    Newsflash for John Edwards: The typical Democrat double speak of “supporting the troops” without also supporting the mission, is some of the most incongruous crap I’ve ever heard. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    The Democrat’s idea of “support” is an “exit strategy” that involves cut and run as well as handing the al Qaeda a withdrawal date on a silver platter.

    I don’t blame President Bush for vetoing a funding bill with a cut and run tactic attached. I would have gone to the floor of the Senate and ripped it up right in front of you.

    Tell me John, are you a “peace at any price” pacifist, or is there actually a point where you would grow a set of balls and say yep, we should not just fight back, but eradicate them and finish the job while we’re at it?

    Another ploy by the Left is to assign the “Vietnam” mantra to every war it disagrees with. No matter how badly they want it to be another “Vietnam” it isn’t happening, and their historical amnesia kicks in every time this war is debated.

    Here’s an easy scenario:
    In spite of ominous indicators, and turmoil that was contained on someone else’s turf, we remained complacent.
    An enemy sends planes to bomb and crash into U.S. territory. The attack kills roughly 3000 Americans.
    War is declared and retaliation begins against the perpetrators and their allies.
    Sound familiar?
    It happened 7 December 1941.

    There’s your comparison, Mr. Edwards.

    It’s simple: We were attacked by Islamic thugs supported not only by Iraq and Afghanistan but throughout the Middle East and they are two good places to start retaliation. Just ask Hussein, Uday, Qusay, Zarqawi, and al Masri how they feel….oh that’s right, they’re not available for comment.

    You didn’t expect them to be very happy at the fact that we brought the war they started, back to them, did you? Of course they’re going to be pissed. Of course they’re going to fight back, not just with weapons but through media exploitation. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century and all you leftist blockheads are capable of is spouting nonsense and being al Qaeda apologists.

    Soldiers are going to die in war. They go into harms way for good reasons, and I can’t think of a better one than protecting Western Civilization from being subjugated by Sharia Law.
    In case you still don’t get it, they want to kill us. They made that pretty clear on 11 September 2001.
    If you don’t understand that, maybe they didn’t hit close enough to your own back yard.

    The Left loves to wallow in body counts and pervert the sacrifice of U.S. troops into an anti-war statement, but they never praise, appreciate, or really support the military.  Dick Durbin calls us “Nazi’s”, Harry (”white flag”) Reid announced that he thinks the war is “lost”, John Murtha calls us “murderers”, and the rest of the Democrat obliviots never hesitate to add their two cents. What a wonderful way for the Democratic Party to show its true colors. (Hint: it ain’t Red, White, and Blue)

    Tell you what Senator, if you really support the military, then get your butt on the first plane smoking to the war zone, and speak with the troops. You will find that they do not want to leave without finishing the job and they want all of the resources and weapons necessary to accomplish that….if you really “support” them, that is.

    GI JANE

    sfcmac@wordpress.com