Friday, September 29, 2006

Why Democrats will not win 2006, 2008





Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.

How stupid are Democrats? They have been decimated and they don’t even know it! And the sad but true fact is that they’ve done it to themselves again! And because of their hatred for Conservatives and their propensity for lies and deceit they will lose the 2006 and 2008 national elections.

Democrat Senators leaked the NIE report to their allies in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the New York Post and told the papers that the report was proof that the war in Iraq is causing an increase in terrorist.


• Leaked intelligence report says Iraq war is increasing Islamic radicalism
• Democrats say report proves that U.S. war strategies must change
• White House says media reports mischaracterized full report
• Leak comes as terrorism, war in Iraq are top election issues

This was meant of course to show that the war in Iraq is wrong on every level.

Leaking classified information is a crime punishable with prison time. The statutes are on the books, folks. Those who leak classified information and those who publicize it should go to jail but this is an election year and if the leakers are Democrats they are considered Whistleblowers but if Republicans are accused of leaking they are called traitors al a Valerie Plame. (By the way President Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove have been completely absolved of these spurious charges which were advanced by Democrats!)

The latest example: the selective leak from a National Intelligence Estimate – on the war on Iraq. According to the media's version of what was leaked, Americans are less secure now than before Iraq was invaded. It is not inconsequential that this report was leaked just over a month before national elections: In order to challenge these allegations, President Bush as forced to declassify a very sensitive NIE document.

It has been alleged that Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi is responsible for this leak; nevertheless, the intent for this leak was purely political and shows a long sustained pattern of disregard for national security, (at a time of war no less!) for the sake of political gain for those in the Democrat party.

As previously stated, this dangerous act of Democrats playing politics with American secrets forced the President to release a de-classified version of the intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign. But ironically the report refutes the original claims of the Democrats who point to it! The very report exposes those Democrats, and the liberal favoring MSM Papers, as Dan Rather liars who are again attempting to affect the outcome of an American political election by broadcasting unfounded lies about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.

* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."

Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.

This is not the first time Democrats and main stream media have collaborated to hurt the U.S. Iraqi war effort. There was the Abu Ghraib leaked report, a leaked report from the US army’s internal investigations.

There was the Leaked CIA secret prisons information leaked by CIA agency employee Mary McCarthy which bears directly on the way we conduct investigations into terrorism and how we gather terrorist information.


Finally there is the NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program leaked to The New York Times and, first reported by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, which impacts the way in which America protects itself from terrorists plots.


It is not only these Democrat’s leaks that put America’s security at risk, but also out right false Democrat generated committee reports meant to put the Bush administration’s war on terrorism in the most negative light possible.

Jack Kelly reports such an instance in which a report when read is totally opposite of the reported conclusions drawn by Democrats who claimed that the report advises against the war. Kelly reports that after reading the whole 205 pages, he was stunned by the degree to which the "findings" in the body of the report did not support the "conclusions" made by Democrats at the end of it.

Two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine -- joined with Democrats to adopt "conclusions" designed more to abuse Mr. Bush than to convey what committee investigators actually found.

The committee voted, 8-7, to strip from the report this statement by Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks describing an American raid on Salman Pak, an Iraqi base about 21 miles southeast of Baghdad:

"This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between (Saddam's) regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests."

The reference to what was found at Salman Pak had to go because it clashed with the committee's "conclusion" that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaida. Saddam "was resistant to cooperating with al-Qaida or other Islamist groups," the committee majority concluded.

To come to that conclusion, the Democrats not only had to drop Gen. Brooks' statement down the memory hole, they had to ignore a mountain of other evidence of Iraq's links to terror groups

Democrats have undermined America’s war effort in all instances to attempt to show that the Bush administration is not effectively waging productive war against terrorism.

They have leaked information, often classified secret documents, in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people concerning the war in Iraq.

The truth is it is Democrats who have made us less safe from terrorism and terrorists threats not Republicans as they are charging.

The last sad and finally point is that Democrats have proven that they are willing to lose the war in Iraq in order to win the hearts and minds of the American people by turning Americans against the war on terror.

That is the reason why Democrats will lose in 2006 and 2008, because a Democrat win would mean that America would lose. Not only a loss in Iraq but a loss of the hearts and minds that the Democrats are so desperately vying for which would be a lost of the very soul of America, alas the very soul of America would be lost too!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Backhanded Regards to Karl Rove


More on the Chris Wallace Fox news interview where former President Bill Clinton continued to give insight into the political machinations of his mind. In the interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton took time to complement (though tongue in cheek) Karl Rove.

Clinton said that he honors Karl Rove because he is good! Yes good according to the former President. It was like Socrates paying Plato a complement. In that subtle bit of admiration the former President tells a lot about himself. Mr. Clinton shows that he believes it is good to dis-inform the American people to win elections, that’s what he means with that complement to Rove. What else could he mean?

This writer doesn’t think that Mr. Rove is purposely deceiving the American people but apparently Democrats and President Clinton do. Clinton said, “That’s their job their job’s to beat us, I like that about Rove but our job is not to let them get away with it and if they don’t then we’ll do fine.”

What Clinton was referring to is getting away with making the Democrats appear to look like they don’t care about terror or make it seem that Democrats are weak on terror. Clinton seems to think that the Republicans have the power to make Democrats look as if they are not serious about terror and the security of this country. Not John Murtha, John Kerry or any of the Cindy Sheehan Democrats.

The White house and the Republicans want to make the America people afraid according to President Clinton. Not Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or the defeatist Democrats who constantly cry that we can’t win in Iraq.

However here is a key mistake that the former President made in this interview, Clinton tipped the Democrat’s hand by suggesting that the Democrats stacked their political deck with military candidates this time around. Clinton said that Democrats have nine candidates that are Iraq war veterans who are running for house seats. Humm? I wonder if any of them or all are like Rep. John Murtha?

He also bragged that, “We've got President Reagan's secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.”

All of this is to give the appearance that Democrats have a huge military appearance in the 2006 elections. What this means is that the Democrats know that they are weak on defending America and they are adjusting cosmetically to appear strong.

This of course is Democrat transparent election strategy to off-set any Republican advantage on the war on terror as was Democrat’s recent effort to connect with Christians by having Senator Barack Obama invoke his religious beliefs in the media and on the campaign trail.

Clinton then began to outline political the machinations of issues and counter issues which he seems to believe is all a big game of “us against them” a game where it’s who is more successful in framing the political argument before the American people, you know, the Clinton game of spin and triangulation that he “is is” so famous for.

According to Clinton his only worry is that the Republicans may come up with a rhetorical devise that would put the Democrats in a box that they can’t get out of.

See to Clinton politics is all about the spin it’s all one big political game whoever’s deal works just keep on working it. It’s the spin stupid!

Spin, triangulate and frame the argument the way you wish it to be perceived by the America people. That’s the reason the former President was on Fox news Sunday.

This was an attempt to go right into the heart of Conservativism, that’s what Democrats perceive Fox to be, and do damage control on the questions that the movie “A path to 9/11” raised on the way the Democrats handled terrorism for eight years of the Clinton administration and if the other side can do it better than Clinton on framing the argument, then caudles to them from President Clinton.

Even if your name is Karl Rove!

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Orwellian Truth According to Bill Clinton


According to former President Clinton the vast right-wing conspiracy got it all wrong and he’s going to set the record right! President Clinton believes that Chris Wallace was attempting to move his bones in yesterday’s Fox news interview, he also believes that ABC and Fox are a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to defame him regarding what his administration did to prevent terrorism in the eight years of his presidency. And finally Mr. Clinton believes that Richard Clark is the sole authority on terrorism in the world. You got all that? But wait there’s more.

Also President Clinton says that it was the FBI and the CIA’s fault that he didn’t kill Osama bin Laden and Chris Wallace’s interview was a conservative hit job set up to deflect criticism from Rupert Murdock’s support of Clinton’s work on climate change. You believe that? Well if you’re a Democrat you might.

What is so incredible about this exchange is that in the span of four questions Clinton transformed from a cool in control former President into a radical partisan hack, all on the posing of one fatal question, why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business?

Using partisan hack language like neo-Cons and right wingers, language that one would find on any Liberal anti-Conservative internet chat board the former President became argumentative and combative while leaning forward into Wallace as he attempted to defend his administrations failure to deal with terrorism.

Clinton said, “I worked hard to try to kill him (Osama bin Laden), I authorized the finding the CIA to try to kill him we contracted with people to try to kill him I got closer to killing him than any one’s gotten since.”

The former President then went on the attack by impugning Chris Wallace and the Fox networks integrity he said, “You set this meeting up because you’re going to get a lot of criticizisms from your viewers because Rupert Murdock supported my work on the climate change and you came here under false pretenses and said that you would spend half of the time talking about you said you spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise 7 billion dollars plus in three days from 215 different commitments and you don’t care.”

Whew! Then I realized. To President Clinton fighting terrorism is a little like playing football for the Detroit Lions. You know, after one day after Detroit lost 9-6 to Seattle and failing to score a touchdown Detroit wide receiver Roy Williams thought that it was, “ … stupid how close we were to putting 40 points on the board." President Clinton probably thinks that it was stupid just how close his administration came to killing Osama bin Laden!

I’m betting that President Clinton, like Williams, would do well in a game of horse shoes!

It wasn’t the former President’s fault, he authorized the CIA to kill bin laden and the CIA failed.

President Clinton said that he didn’t do anything about the bombing of U.S.S. Cole because the FBI and the CIA did not certify that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the bombing while he was President. Boy those FBI and CIA guys just aren’t doing the job are they?

And though the 9/11 commission report shows that his administration was at fault in many failed attempts to get bin Laden according to Clinton the 9/11 commission report is just a political document. A political document?

The former President said, “ After the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan over throw the Taliban and launch and full scale attack and search for bin laden but we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11 the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there they refused to certify so that meant that I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in in helicopters to refuel at night and even the 9/11 commission didn’t do that, now the 9/11 commission is a political document too.”

So let’s count the excuses. There was the, At least I tried excuse, the vast right-wing Neo-Cons is out to get me excuse, the I got closer than anybody else excuse, the FBI and CIA don’t certify bin Laden did it excuse, the CIA don’t kill him excuse, and the 9/11 commission is a political document excuse. Did I get them all?

So I’m thinking that Clinton like ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey has a truth that is solely his and for him. Mr. Clinton can say in the same fashion of McGreevey, My own personal truth is that I am a President that has done more to try to kill bin Laden then any other President and failed. Now all he needs is for anyone who is not a Democrat to buy his spin.

Hey Oprah you gonna do that interview?

see related story

Friday, September 22, 2006

The Devil, Hugo Chavez and Jim McGreevey


This week Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in the most diplomatic language that he could manage expressed his dissatisfaction with the United States of America.

To a chorus of jiggles and grins from an anti-America United Nations audience Mr. Chavez defamed the United States of America by ad hominem attacks against our president.

On Oprah Winfrey this week disgraced ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was showcased as he self promoted his new book “Confessions”


What do these two things have in common? Why they are two despicable men, two despicable acts. There was a time that despicable human conduct was frowned upon but today it’s celebrated, adored and put before the world.

In a world with standards Hugo Chavez’s speech would have been shouted down and he would have been removed from the podium from which he stood by the U.N. sergeant-in-arms for undiplomatic conduct.

Only Reps. Charles Rangel, Nancy Pelosi and Chaka Fattah have the wherewithal to stand up for America! Later former President Bill Clinton denounced Hugh Chavez’s remarks too.

In a world with standards McGreevey would be vilified for two failed marriages, cheating on a current wife, putting his current wife in a very embarrassing public light, exposing their private sexual lives, that’s not even to mention the embarrassment of McGreevey’s political corruption and malfeasance in public office which lead to his stepping down from elected office. Yet he is applauded on Oprah.

After O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman he vowed to look for the “Real” killer. I say that Mr. Chavez was wrong about who the devil is because al Qaeda called President Clinton the devil when he was in office, so any president would have been called that by Chavez.

I think if the America people would look for the “Real” devil they might find him standing in the United Nations speaking profane words against America and its leaders while he is plotting to kill Americans with planes and bombs.

Or on the Oprah show hawking his corruption and perversion to hundreds of thousands of American people.

His imps are all of those who jiggled, grinned and applauded his profane remarks that were to and against America!


Wednesday, September 20, 2006

For Peace Pope must Convert to Islam


Well friends if you didn’t understand what the western world is actually dealing with make no mistake that really the only thing that will completely satisfy Muslims is that the whole world converts to Islam.

Now that certain Islamic elements have money and weapons, they have abilities that were not available to them hundreds of years ago in the past. Without these resources they would simply be running around in the deserts only threatening one another.

However oil money and countries like China and Russia selling weaponry to Islamic countries has set the stage for conflict that will ultimately involve a face off between Islam and the Non-Islamic world.

At a press conference in Gaza City, a number of Muslim clerics said the pope's statements were "the result of his hatred for Islam and not the result of ignorance."

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

It is foolish to think that this situation concerning the Pope is an isolated insular incident. Rather it is a warning. A grave warning that the world is only years away from answering the questions of whether it will accept Islam, migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs or if they refuse to migrate they must accept the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims. If the just mentioned options are reject then the non-Muslim world must be destroyed.

In essence for peace to exist not only the Pope, but the world must convert to Islam. If you don’t think that this is the meaning of all of the things which we are witnessing now you are indeed na├»ve!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Of Infallibility and Islamic Hypocrisy


"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."-- Anjem Choudary


If Infallibility means never having to say you’re sorry then being a religion of peace must mean never calling for the death of a leader of another religion.

There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians world-wide of which 1.1billion are Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of those 1.1 billion Catholics.

There are approximately 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and a fraction of them are participating in the corrupting of a major world religion. Their religion, Islam.

In his sermon yesterday at the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Pope Benedict spoke amid strengthened security.

He said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

No other Pope is thought to have made such an apology. Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

Adherents of Islam are now defaming the Pope and threatening to murder the religious leader of the Catholics. They have burned him in effigy called him “…dog of Rome” and threatened violence against him, his followers and all of Christendom.

Why would Muslims threaten, defame and insult the living leader of the Catholic faith especially when they would not allow such regarding any of their leaders. Why? Because they claim that the Pope insulted their dead Prophet Muhammad.

They are saying in essence; you said we are violent; we’ll kill you for saying that we’re violent! (Hmmm?)

The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasized by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

If the Pope’s apology is not good enough for Muslims, some are saying that it is not, then that would be the second thing that Pope Benedict has done wrong in the span of a couple of days. So much for the doctrine of infallibility.

Should Muslims continue on this path of unwarranted violence, protest, murder, and terrorism it must be recognized that they are not a religion of peace, they will have to be rightly considered a religion that causes destruction of governments, countries and religions; their own religion and countries and also the destruction of Catholicism and the world.

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Pope Submits to Islam


Is exactly what a Pope apology is in the face of this present Islamic vitriol. Right before our eyes we are witnessing the west acquiescing more and more to senseless Islamic demands for apologies and special concessions to Islam.

In the Danish editorial cartoon flap the whole western media world submitted to Islam by not republish cartoons that where deemed offense to Islam even though American media has repeatedly publish National security leaks that have jeopardized the U.S. war effort against Islamic terrorism. U.S. media has publish war secrets under the veil of first amendment rights but those same first amendment defenders made puny excuses for not publishing cartoons when face with perceived threats from Islam.

Islam is now controlling the world. You don’t believe it? What do you have when the world media refuses to print anything truthfully negative about Islam or what do you have when all other world religions pay homage to Islam? After the Pope apology for offending Islam no other religious leader will dare speak against the Prophet and his religion of tyranny even thought Muslims are wrong!

During one rally gunmen in Gaza city opened fire at the Greek Orthodox church; no injuries or damage were reported. An unknown organization named “The sword of Islam claimed responsibility for the incident.

“We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches,” the group said in a statement.

Do Islamists think that people of world are stupid? Muslims are the ones threatening violence and war yet they think that they can blame the Pope for this latest show of Islamic intolerance? This is totally despicable!

Should speech in the whole free world be regulated because Muslims may be offended? Allow me to answer that… NO!

That’s called tyranny by any one’s standards. Muslims are threatening Islamic tyranny, Western media has already acquiesced to Islamic totalitarianism. Now Muslims have forced psychological submission on the Pope by succeeding to force Catholicism’s figurehead, the Pope, to apologize where there is no apology warranted. Muslims are attempting to force a psychological submission to their faith on the entire free world.

Muslims are out of control and they are solely the reason for the present unrest in the world. This Muslim raging must no longer be tolerated by the world community.

The world community must demand that Muslims stop the 7th century theatrics and join the 21st century. Any further threats against Jews, Christians or Catholics should be met with unified world rebuke and these world-wide puerile Islam temper tantrums should not be accepted by the world community.

This must stop and it will not be tolerated. The Pope may not be able to say it and the media is afraid to say it but all of Islam is corrupted when some of Islam acts this way!

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Muslims continue to see offense where there is none!

Holy cartoon wars! I can’t believe that the Main Stream Media would propagate such a story after the puerile behavior of Muslims world-word over the Danish editorials that rightly showed a connection between Islam and world conflict and violence.

But here we go again playing into the Muslim victimization game while Muslims themselves cut off heads of those who oppose them. Why they have even threaten to assassinate past popes.

That being said here is the latest offense against the Ummah (the world-wide community of Muslims). Pope Benedict XVI in a lecture quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

That was it in a lecture the Pope read a quote from a book and Muslims worldwide are upset the that Pope would have the nerve to read something aloud from a past record that seems to them negative to Islam.

When are Muslims going to grown up? And when is the MSM going to stop placating this type of nonsense?

Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz was quoted as saying by the state-owned Anatolia news agency. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," he said. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini."

Come on! These were not the Pope’s remarks he quoted them from a book during a lecture. If this is a problem then every College Professor in America and abroad should be beheaded because this has been done every day of the year for thousands of years in the civilized world. It’s called education!

Muslims should not be allow to deflect their inability to answer rightful criticizisms of their faith by attempting to pretend that they are offended by the slightest remark or quote in this case.

On Thursday, Turkey's top Islamic cleric, Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict to apologize for the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity.

In Beirut, Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks Friday and demanded the pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.

Here’s a question, why does Ali Bardakoglu feel that he can attack Christianity and at the same time demand an apology for what he considers an offense against Islam?

Islamic clerics and Imams have been defaming Judaism and Christianity since Islam’s inception and they continue to do it daily with the hate that they preach against Christians and Jews.

This all seems like Muslims want to do evil unto others but kill others if they seem to be doing something unto you! (I bet that’s not in the Quran…or maybe it is.)

No apology is warranted by the Vatican but the world is still waiting on the countless apologies that Muslims owe the world for daily acts of violence against humanity!

And Islam is an Insult unto itself!

Friday, September 15, 2006

First Muslim to Congress in Minnesota?

Does it matter if a Muslim is elected to Congress? Will a Muslim show allegiance to America first or to Islam first? Will a Muslim write laws to favor Islam? Are exstremist Muslim organizations backing his candidacy and do they see this as a foot in the door into American Politics?

In Minneapolis Democrat voters are preparing to send a Muslim to Congress because they agree with his message of peace, withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and universal health care, but the question is does he value America over Islam?

Many America Muslims have problems with allegiance to their faith opposed to allegiance to their country when asked the question.

The question is, is this the beginning of the balkanization of American politics?

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Feckless Dems Politicizes 9/11


President Bush spoke on Monday 9/11 to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of the attack against America and Democrats according to their plan to neutralize the Bush administration attacked President Bush’s speech saying that the speech was partisan and that it politicized 9/11.

These polarizing Democrat ideologues are also calling for network television to give them equal time. Equal time?

Just what office in the Democratic Party is equal to the Presidency of the United States of America? Are the Democrats suggesting that they have the equivalence of a Confederate Presidency? Just who is the Democrat’s President? Pelosi? Reid? Kerry? Gore? Dean?


The way it works in America comrade Democrats is that a party wins the Presidency (there’s only one Presidency) and that party leads the nation.

What the Democrats have attempted to do since President Bush has been in office is created a co-Presidency one which they are equal to President Bush and that’s wrong.

Democrats contended the president used a prime-time address commemorating the 9/11 terrorist attacks to make partisan arguments bolstering support for the Iraq war.

Wait a minute… is there something wrong with the President of the United States of America paying tribute to the nearly 3,000 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and described the enemy as a global network of extremists who hate freedom and tolerance? No! There is nothing wrong with that.

The president said "The war against this enemy is more than a military conflict," he said. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the calling of our generation."

Much of the speech described the administration's foreign policy following the attack and the decision to go after enemies before they could harm Americans.

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat."

According to Democrat strategy no Republican statement will go unanswered or unchallenged. Any fair minded person can see that this kind of political tactic is what is causing the divisiveness in Washington D.C. and American politics.

Senator Harry Reid and Representative Diane Pelosi circulated a letter they sent to the television networks and cable news channels asking for equal coverage of Democratic viewpoints on terrorism and Iraq. "There has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues," they wrote.

In the Democrat’s attempt to displace Republican elected Senators and Representatives they have created an absolutely unworkable climate in Washington D.C. After 6 years and two failed attempts to defeat President Bush at the polls Democrats think that their hatred, obstructionism and counter-political terrorist tactics will win them control of the Senate and House of Representative and eventually the White house.

All of this has been done at the expense, safety and security of the American people. Democrats in their pursuit for political control and power have obstructed government, hindered the war effort and endangered the troops, and finally they have caused the current political uncivil wars in America.

If the Democrat’s would focus on the people who have declared war on America (al Qaeda) with the same ferocity as they attack Republicans, their fellow countrymen, al Qaeda would be defeated, the insurgency in Iraq would cease and the split in America would be healed.

Instead Democrats join with the enemies of this nation working from the inside as our enemies plot America’s destruction from the outside.

If Democrats want time to be equal then let there be reduced liberal time on broadcast and cable television and add Conservative programming in equal amounts to liberal programming. Also let’s change liberal news broadcast on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and Fox news to give the conservative view equal time.

If Democrats really want “equal time” then they owe Republicans half of every movie, sit-com, cable-show and news broadcast and Conservatives are owed back broadcast time too!

I figure Liberals owe Conservatives 20 to 30 years of back broadcasting time to make things equal!

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Ahmadinejad Wishes to Debate Bush


Oh Boy the debate of the century President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad verses President Bush and what shall they debate? They would debate democracy of course, world affairs and the ways to solve world issues.

Well just how much do you suppose President Ahmadinejad knows about Democracy? The last I checked he takes orders from a religious mullah and Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that would constitute a theocracy and knowing that Iran has never been a democracy seems to me Ahmadinejad’s information regarding democracy would be a tad lean.

But nevertheless Ahmadinejad is insistent, “Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" He asks. But Iran’s government is not a democracy neither does the people of Iran enjoy equal rights under the religious rulers of Iran so why do you suppose the President of Iran would appeal to international democracy and equal rights of nations if his country does not offer those opportunities for his own citizens?

Here’s something else that is interesting President Ahmadinejad wishes a debate between he and President Bush be televised for the America people to see. Ahmadinejad says, "I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.

"The debate should go uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."

Okay anything funny about that request? Yes you’re right if you said that it’s a bit one sided. Ahmadinejad wants the American people to “hear the truth” but there is no mention that the people of Iran should be able to hear the debate so that they might hear the truth also.

Why? Because Ahmadinejad is not interested in Democracy silly! He is only interested in “the mockery!” The mockery of Democratic ideas as he does his part to ensure that Shari law is established world-wide as he helps bring about the defeat of any form of western government.

According to Sharia law a Muslim can enter into any agreement with an infidel, he can sign any contract knowing full well that he intends to break his contractual word because the Muslim does not owe the truth to an infidel.

That is all the more reason that a debate would be nonsensical Muslims know that by Sharia that it is permissible to lie to those that they consider infidels. If that is the case why would a Westerner go through an exercise of futility that a debate would be with a Muslim?

There is a long history of U.N. resolutions that have been ignored or disregarded by Muslims. Could it be that Muslims don’t find U.N. resolutions binding according to Sharia law?

It is becoming increasingly clear that Muslims are manipulating Democratic ideas only to use those ideas against people who believe in truth, justice and equal rights so that the knife that slits the throat of Western Democracy will be the wests own knife the knife of Democracy. And then after that Muslims will simply bind the hands of the rest of the world with Sharia law.

If President Ahmadinejad wishes to debate why not talk about the rights of women under Islam, the civil rights and personal liberties of Islamic citizens in his own country and overall religious freedom in the Muslim world, that’s the discussion about democracy that we should have and let’s have it televised so the Iranian people can hear the truth!

Well Mr. Ahmadinejad how about that debate?

Monday, September 11, 2006

9/11, Paper Tigers and Shameful Defeat


"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."—Osama bin Laden, May 1998 (Link)

The Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia October 3 and 4, 1993 in which eighteen American soldiers died and 73 were wounded After terrorists attacked U.S. troops Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S. Bin Laden said that the low military morale under President Clinton and President Clinton’s order for American troops to withdraw from Somalia proved to the Muslim world that the U.S. is a paper tiger unable to withstand the hardships of war.

Since 9/11 five years later bin Laden has demanded several times that America submit to Islam or be destroyed. The reality is bin Laden is counting on the paper tiger that he once talked about to leave Iraq with it’s tail tucked between it’s legs, dragging it’s corpses behind it in shameful defeat and if we listen to the likes of Rep. John Murtha again bin Laden’s vision shall be realized.

Bin Laden was correct in 1998 when he made that fateful assessment of America’s Leadership it was in fact a paper tiger. It took the political elections of 2000 and 2004 to remove the big fake cat from the American psyche and it will take the elections of 2006 and 2008 to prevent him from coming back to retake his territory.

As 9/11 has taught Americans today’s world is no place for paper tigers, today world demands that America’s leaders show the ferocity that a mother tiger would demonstrate when protecting her young from those who would harm them.

In today’s world there are many predators who have stated that they are attempting to harm the young of America. No mother tiger is going to run and leave her cubs abandoned unless of course they are the kind of tigers that Osama bin Laden is talking about.


Paper tigers, John Murtha and Democrats are the kind of tigers that Osama bin Laden knows that he can cause to have a shameful defeat. He would have had it already were it not for the American’s people rejection of defeatism in 2000 and 2004.

To keep America strong we must once again, in 2006 and 2008, reject the defeatism of the paper tigers or we must submit to Osama bin Laden's vision. According to bin Laden those are the only options that he will accept.


Europe is in the process of submitting even now and if America is a paper tiger then we are next!

Saturday, September 09, 2006

I didn’t have sex with Osama bin Laden


That’s what this demand to censer the ABC made for television Docu-drama is shaping up to be about.

And just like his claim that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky President Clinton is attempting to claiming that he had little or nothing to do with the events that lead up to 9/11. The Democrats have been intimating and some claiming that international terrorism is the direct result of policies of the Bush administration.

The fact that the 9/11 commission report blamed the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration and this docu-drama will serve to remind Americans, of the events and philosophies of a Democratic administration that was partial distracted by its own immorality and also focused on the threat of Saddam Hussein, that Clinton completely failed to deal with the menace of Osama bin Laden event when repeated opportunities to either capture him or kill him presented.

What is also telling about this whole outrageous partisan attempt to censer television content from the American people is that the Docu-Drama is just as hard on the Bush administration if not harder but not one protest has come from the right!

Surely there are things enacted that the Republicans don’t say or do exactly as the film portrays so why aren’t the Conservatives suing and why isn't the Republican Congress writing ABC demanding editing at least or withdrawal of the film?

I’ll tell you why, the Democrats have much more to lose if average Americans, ones who didn’t read the 9/11 commission report, see this Docu-drama those America who just assumed that Democrat partisans where telling them the truth about how this is Bush’s war, and all the other Bush lies, those Democrats will be exposed for the partisan hacks that they are.

Even if this mini-series is quashed by the Democrats enough interest has been created that fair-minded people will do the work of buying a copy of the 9/11 report and read for themselves what the Democrats don’t want you to see.

No Clinton didn’t have sex with Osama bin Laden but no one said that he did. But neither did he capture or kill bin Laden when he had multiple opportunities to either that's what the Democrats don't want you to see. Holy Tora Bora!

Friday, September 08, 2006

CENSORSHIP !

Democrats the purveyors of free speech rights and movies for informing the general population a al Fahrenheit 9/11, have absolutely gone crazed as a movie drama depicting the events leading up to the attacks on America is prepared to air on ABC.


The admitted liar in Chief Bill Clinton and the convicted liar and thief Sandy Berger have no creditability and can not tell us what is or was actual in the events leading up to 9/11.

Bill Clinton is an admitted lair and Sandy Berger was caught red handed stealing documents pertaining to 9/11 from the U.S. National Archives. Berger destroyed some of those documents.

These same people along with Senator Harry Reid, who lied about Democrat involvement with Jack Abramoff saying that no Democrat received one cent from Abramoff when Reid himself received hundreds of thousands of dollars connected with Abramoff, now want you to believe them?

Clinton and Reid are liars and Berger is a thief and a lair and if ABC changes one line in this movie to comply with the Democrats ABC will further damage its already weak reputation and confirm suspicions that ABC is a Liberal biased news organization.


ABC should resist Democratic calls for censorship
and show the unredacted version of the movie which is based on the 9/11 commission report a report that reveals the very same things that the original film would show anyway.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

All Talk and No U.N. Action


Iran has managed to defy resolutionU.N. Security Council which calls for the stoppage of it’s processing of uranium. It has supported Hezbollah in its attack against Israel and it has questioned the reality of the Holocaust yet when called into account for these actions Iran has been able to turn the responsibility for their actions on Israel and the United States.

Kofi Annan has been snobbed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding uranium processing and did not appear with the U.N. Diplomat at the post meeting news conference. Also Iran announced during Mr. Annan’s visit that it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust.

Tehran hid it's nuclear program for 18 years as well as Tehran's continued lack of full cooperation with U.N. inspectors has increased suspicions about Iranian aims. Iran insists the program is peaceful, intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.

Iran's slowness in responding to the incentives package prompted the Security Council to issue a resolution July 31 ordering it to halt uranium enrichment by the end of August.

Iran claimed that any resolution by the Security Council would be pressured by the United States or Britain thereby making any sanctions by the six member body tainted by Western influence.

Here’s the outrageousness of Iran’s thinking. They hide their nuclear program for 18 years and they now claim that it is the West that must repair relations with Tehran?

"Iran's trust has been undermined during the past three years," Iranian Foreign Minister Moocher Mistake said. "They (the West) should try to win our trust to solve the issue."

Outrageous! Instead of the Secretary General representing the world’s interest by demanding Iran’s compliances with U.N. resolutions he has allow Iran to use his visit as a propaganda campaign against the U.N. the West, Israel, the United States and Britain.

What’s clear is that Iran has figured out the weaknesses in the diplomatic approach of the United Nations. The United Nations is all talk and no action which gives Tehran all the room it needs to keep the West at bay while Iran gains time and resources to arm itself with nuclear weaponry.

The blame falls squarely on Russia and China who are the members on the Security Council that keep any U.N. resolution weak or useless because of their support for Iran as well as their low grade cold war against West.