Iowahawk has discovered the first draft of Prof. David A. Bell's disgusting diatribe about our "over-reaction" to 9/11: Historically Speaking, Shit Happens
Historically Speaking, Shit Happens
[Found in a dumpster behind the Encino Galleria: first draft of historian David Bell's gripping L.A. Times OpEd]
by David A. Bell
IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. Okay, I know we’re talking a fantasy here, but just roll with it. Guess what? This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and I don’t remember Uncle Joe Stalin getting his panties in a bunch about it. Maybe these stoic Bolsheviks could teach us crybaby Americans a thing or two about perspective in our current “war” “against” “terrorism.”
This historical thought experiment raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? If we did so, why are we still doing so, and how can we best stop doing so? By show of hands, how many of us have navels that are “innies”? Does history provide us any insight?
Of course it does, dumbass. Lucky for you that one of us has a Ph.D. in the subject.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Admiral Fallon's Confirmation
Adm. William Fallon's confirmation hearings to head up the US Central Command have begun. He has completed a pre-questionaire.
Read it
Read it
Citizen's Report on Iraq
Here's something very interesting. It's not going to be in the NYT, WaPost, or anywhere else in the MSM. Just not newsworthy. Give it a read.
Citizen's Report on Iraq
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
Citizen's Report on Iraq
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
Monday, January 29, 2007
Kerry in Davos. Sleeping with the Enemy?
From Brutally Honest:
This was John Kerry just one year and two weeks or so ago:
"Ultimately if we are not able to find any diplomatic resolution in the next weeks I don't think we have any choice but to take it to the international community. I think Iran has made a very dangerous and a very silly decision and it is inviting confrontation not with the United States but with the global community that cares enormously about the control of nuclear weapons."
This is John Kerry now:
Addressing a world Economic Forum meeting in Davos Switzerland on Saturday, Kerry also strongly rejected West's demanded prerequisites for the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran. Kerry, whose remarks followed a speech by Iran's former President Seyed Mohammad Khatami, stated his support for Khatami's views, and said Americans find out - only when they are outside their country - that the world is different from what they imagine. "We should give up pessimism and pick up a realistic view," he said, and further stressed the need for the US to change its policies towards the world countries and issues. The US politician also approved of Khatami's views about increased tension and violence in the world, and concluded, "As Mr. Khatami said, violence increased in the region after the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Bin Ladenism."
I can't believe this guy came so close to being the President. Thank goodness that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy holds sway over Diebold.
He's made the front page of the Iran Daily, but no mention of his remarks in the NYT.
Big surprise, eh?
Here's more from Michelle Malkin
This was John Kerry just one year and two weeks or so ago:
"Ultimately if we are not able to find any diplomatic resolution in the next weeks I don't think we have any choice but to take it to the international community. I think Iran has made a very dangerous and a very silly decision and it is inviting confrontation not with the United States but with the global community that cares enormously about the control of nuclear weapons."
This is John Kerry now:
Addressing a world Economic Forum meeting in Davos Switzerland on Saturday, Kerry also strongly rejected West's demanded prerequisites for the resumption of nuclear talks with Iran. Kerry, whose remarks followed a speech by Iran's former President Seyed Mohammad Khatami, stated his support for Khatami's views, and said Americans find out - only when they are outside their country - that the world is different from what they imagine. "We should give up pessimism and pick up a realistic view," he said, and further stressed the need for the US to change its policies towards the world countries and issues. The US politician also approved of Khatami's views about increased tension and violence in the world, and concluded, "As Mr. Khatami said, violence increased in the region after the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Bin Ladenism."
I can't believe this guy came so close to being the President. Thank goodness that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy holds sway over Diebold.
He's made the front page of the Iran Daily, but no mention of his remarks in the NYT.
Big surprise, eh?
Here's more from Michelle Malkin
Sowing the Seeds for 9-11...
Jimmy Carter is a sad old man...
His recent book "Palestine, Peace not Apartheid" is an abomination of omission and historic revision. How this peanut farmer from Plains, Ga became President is still a mystery to me. I actually toured Plains when I was in high-school. Our marching band was on a bus to Florida to perform at Disney World and we stopped on the way to tour magnificent Plains, Ga. We went to Billy's Gas Station and everything. Ah, good times.....
Anyway, Jimmy Carter was the worst President in my lifetime. Here is a good article about Jimmuh's administration enabling the islamist movement:
Dinesh D'Souza
The man has absolutely no class. There was always the unwritten rule in D.C. that former presidents do not publicly criticize sitting presidents, but that went out the window with Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton. They spend so much energy trying to cement their own legecy that they are willing to undermine the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Often while being paid by America's enemies. Sad really....
UPDATE:
Here are several great articles on this subject (Hat tip to LGF):
Joshua Muravchik
Alex Safian, PhD
Kenneth W. Stein
His recent book "Palestine, Peace not Apartheid" is an abomination of omission and historic revision. How this peanut farmer from Plains, Ga became President is still a mystery to me. I actually toured Plains when I was in high-school. Our marching band was on a bus to Florida to perform at Disney World and we stopped on the way to tour magnificent Plains, Ga. We went to Billy's Gas Station and everything. Ah, good times.....
Anyway, Jimmy Carter was the worst President in my lifetime. Here is a good article about Jimmuh's administration enabling the islamist movement:
Dinesh D'Souza
The man has absolutely no class. There was always the unwritten rule in D.C. that former presidents do not publicly criticize sitting presidents, but that went out the window with Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton. They spend so much energy trying to cement their own legecy that they are willing to undermine the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. Often while being paid by America's enemies. Sad really....
UPDATE:
Here are several great articles on this subject (Hat tip to LGF):
Joshua Muravchik
Alex Safian, PhD
Kenneth W. Stein
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Victor Davis Hanson is Da Man.....
Here's another fantastic essay by my favorite political writer and historian, Victor Davis Hanson. VDH is one of the most eloquent essayists out there and he always makes a good read. Read this:
VDH
While you're there click the archives and read some of his past essays. You won't be sorry you did, he's always lucid and illuminating.
VDH
While you're there click the archives and read some of his past essays. You won't be sorry you did, he's always lucid and illuminating.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth
Gerard Baker is one of my favorite Brits. Thank goodness there is someone in the British media that hasn't drank the BDS kool-aid. He works for the Times, one of the most respected British newspapers.
The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth
The vaulting ambition of America's Lady Macbeth
Um gee....no kidding....
Here's one for the "that's obvious" section of the Iraq debate.
As referenced in a previous post, the symbolic, non-binding resolutions criticizing the recent troop build-up in Iraq would encourage the terrorists. Duh. Do you think? How can anyone of sound mind argue otherwise? It borders on giving aid and comfort to the enemy!
Sadly, I am afraid that congressional democrats (except Lieberman) don't care about anything but humiliating President Bush, and many republicans don't care about anything but saving their cushy jobs. I'm disgusted with the lot of 'em. To hell with the troops, to hell with the Iraqis, to hell with everyone except our do nothing selves.....
There are exceptions of course, but you don't hear about them.
General Petraeus has said it, Sec. of Defense said it, you'd think the senate would believe it. But no, partisan politics trumps all these days.....
Here are some articles about this issue:
Townhall
Hugh Hewitt
Fred Barnes
As referenced in a previous post, the symbolic, non-binding resolutions criticizing the recent troop build-up in Iraq would encourage the terrorists. Duh. Do you think? How can anyone of sound mind argue otherwise? It borders on giving aid and comfort to the enemy!
Sadly, I am afraid that congressional democrats (except Lieberman) don't care about anything but humiliating President Bush, and many republicans don't care about anything but saving their cushy jobs. I'm disgusted with the lot of 'em. To hell with the troops, to hell with the Iraqis, to hell with everyone except our do nothing selves.....
There are exceptions of course, but you don't hear about them.
General Petraeus has said it, Sec. of Defense said it, you'd think the senate would believe it. But no, partisan politics trumps all these days.....
Here are some articles about this issue:
Townhall
Hugh Hewitt
Fred Barnes
Friday, January 26, 2007
SandyPants Berger Gets Off Easy
Not enough has been said in the media about Sandy "Sandypants" Berger and the stolen documents, so I'm going to link to a couple of stories about him. This was the National Security Advisor for heaven's sake! And he was stealing documents from the National Archives and destroying them before the 9-11 Commission could get their hands on them. Who was he trying to protect? Gee, I dunno. Himself and B.J. Clinton perhaps? The sad part is, he plea-bargained before we knew the extent of his shenanigans. He got off with a slap on the wrist (a $50,000 fine and a 3 year suspension of his security clearance). My guess is that kind of loyalty will find a place in the next President Clinton's administration. Heaven forbid...... Check out these articles:
Townhall
Ann Coulter
Ronald A. Cass
Joel Mowbray
There's more out there, but you won't find much about this criminal in the MSM (mainstream media). For some reason the NYT, LA Times, and WaPost don't seem to care.....
Townhall
Ann Coulter
Ronald A. Cass
Joel Mowbray
There's more out there, but you won't find much about this criminal in the MSM (mainstream media). For some reason the NYT, LA Times, and WaPost don't seem to care.....
Oliver North, True Patriot
I had to link to this recent article by Ollie North. I've been a fan of his since the Iran-Contra hearings in the 80's. His exemplary conduct during the hearings when faced with the questions posed by smarmy congressmen was inspiring. He now spends his time as a journalist, often embedded with troops overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq. His articles are always spot-on. Here's his latest at Real Clear Politics, one of my favorite sites:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/does_anyone_in_congress_care.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/does_anyone_in_congress_care.html
What is Germany's Intelligence Service Doing in Iraq?
I found this interesting.....
http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=498
Hat tip: David's Medienkritik
http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=498
Hat tip: David's Medienkritik
Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism
I received this mail from one of my friends who suffers from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). If you’re not familiar with that term, it was coined by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer (great name eh?). He defines it as:
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
Anyway, this message is being forwarded around as “proof” that this administration (in this case Dick Cheney) thinks that the President shouldn’t be criticized. Thankfully the VP stopped short of mentioning that anyone who criticizes Mr. Bush should be transported to one of our many secret gulags in a black helicopter.
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:03 AM
To: deleted
Subject: FW: Presidential criticism?
Q How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, that's not going to happen. The problem that you've got --
Q Very -- very -- warming up to Iran and Syria right now.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time. But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --
Q Here's the Nouri al Maliki --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- that we don't have the stomach for the fight.
Q Here's the problem.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the biggest threat right now.
Vice President Dick Cheney 1-24-07
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/cheney/index.html
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149May 7, 1918
Great mail, eh? At least they used a real quote, as opposed to the oft-used erroneous quote: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” from Thomas Jefferson (which he never said).
It's obvious to me that Dick Cheney isn't saying that we can't, or even shouldn’t, criticize the President. This was (although not noted in the above post) in the context of the new democratic resolution in the senate condemning the strategy in Iraq, and what he's saying is that all the democrats who at one time agreed that Saddam needed to be deposed (see quotes below), now see fit to undermine the morale of our troops and embolden the enemy via their ill-advised "resolution", which is just playing politics for their BDS affected base. In my opinion, the troops and the war trump any partisan calculations, but many people, including some of those in Congress, seem to actually want us to lose in Iraq because of their childish, petulant hatred of George Bush. I have put the Democrat's quotes at the bottom of this post.
First though (from Hugh Hewitt):
Eager to assure that the Senate somehow undermined the war effort, however, Virginia’s John Warner once again stepped forward with a second, slightly milder resolution blasting the president’s war strategy in its most crucial aspects. Some GOP senators indicated they were favorably disposed to the Warner resolution, including Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and Gordon Smith of Oregon.
On Wednesday, general David Petraeus, widely regarded as the best man for the job of winning the war in Iraq, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In response to a direct question from Senator Lieberman, General Petraeus testified under oath that any resolution denouncing the strategy in Iraq would encourage the enemy. There can be no doubt about what the question was and how he answered.
What does it mean to “encourage the enemy?” It means to increase their will to fight on, and their courage to do so even in the face of the arrival of reinforcements. It also means to increase –substantially—the likelihood of redoubled and retripled efforts on their part to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. To vote for the sort of resolution that General Petraeus addressed is a profoundly wrong action.
General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday --which has to mean that the senators who voted for him have confidence in his military judgment.
Many Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.
Chuck Hagel is thus far the only Republican to indicate that he is willing to issue the same encouragement to the enemy.
Senator Warner’s resolution has the same effect as Senator Biden’s. General Petraeus testified as to any resolution blasting the new strategy. Biden’s resolution blasts all of the strategy. Warner’s blasts the most important parts.
There is no meaningful difference in my eyes –or the eyes of General Petraeus, the MSM, or the eyes of the enemy—between the two resolutions.
And now for the quotes from some anti-war Democrats, and if you think that Bush knew that Hussein's arsenal was greatly diminished, but lied to congress about it, you're a certifiable moonbat. Don't even get me started on the hundreds of chemical artillery shells found after the invasion, or the multitude of semi-trucks that left Iraq for Syria while we waited for months of hand-wringing at the UN before the invasion.
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
By the way, have you been reading about Sandy Berger lately? This was President Clinton's national security advisor, who stole top secret documents from the national archives and destroyed them to keep them away from the 9-11 Commission. If you haven't heard about SandyPants I'm not surprised. It was on page 47 of the New York Times, page 14 of the LA Times, and missing completely from most major papers. If Condoleeza Rice had done that, I'll bet it would have been front page news for 4 straight months. But there's no liberal bias in the MSM, couldn't be......
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Flip-flopping doesn’t even begin to describe it.
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
Anyway, this message is being forwarded around as “proof” that this administration (in this case Dick Cheney) thinks that the President shouldn’t be criticized. Thankfully the VP stopped short of mentioning that anyone who criticizes Mr. Bush should be transported to one of our many secret gulags in a black helicopter.
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:03 AM
To: deleted
Subject: FW: Presidential criticism?
Q How worried are you of this nightmare scenario, that the U.S. is building up this Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with an enormous amount of military equipment, sophisticated training, and then in the end, they're going to turn against the United States?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, that's not going to happen. The problem that you've got --
Q Very -- very -- warming up to Iran and Syria right now.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs. You've got to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is, we've made major progress, we've still got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of provinces in Iraq that are relatively quiet. There's more and more authority transferred to the Iraqis all the time. But the biggest problem we face right now is the danger that the United States will validate the terrorist strategy, that, in fact, what will happen here with all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq, with the pressures from some quarters to get out of Iraq, if we were to do that, we would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task --
Q Here's the Nouri al Maliki --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- that we don't have the stomach for the fight.
Q Here's the problem.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's the biggest threat right now.
Vice President Dick Cheney 1-24-07
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/25/cheney/index.html
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149May 7, 1918
Great mail, eh? At least they used a real quote, as opposed to the oft-used erroneous quote: “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” from Thomas Jefferson (which he never said).
It's obvious to me that Dick Cheney isn't saying that we can't, or even shouldn’t, criticize the President. This was (although not noted in the above post) in the context of the new democratic resolution in the senate condemning the strategy in Iraq, and what he's saying is that all the democrats who at one time agreed that Saddam needed to be deposed (see quotes below), now see fit to undermine the morale of our troops and embolden the enemy via their ill-advised "resolution", which is just playing politics for their BDS affected base. In my opinion, the troops and the war trump any partisan calculations, but many people, including some of those in Congress, seem to actually want us to lose in Iraq because of their childish, petulant hatred of George Bush. I have put the Democrat's quotes at the bottom of this post.
First though (from Hugh Hewitt):
Eager to assure that the Senate somehow undermined the war effort, however, Virginia’s John Warner once again stepped forward with a second, slightly milder resolution blasting the president’s war strategy in its most crucial aspects. Some GOP senators indicated they were favorably disposed to the Warner resolution, including Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, and Gordon Smith of Oregon.
On Wednesday, general David Petraeus, widely regarded as the best man for the job of winning the war in Iraq, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In response to a direct question from Senator Lieberman, General Petraeus testified under oath that any resolution denouncing the strategy in Iraq would encourage the enemy. There can be no doubt about what the question was and how he answered.
What does it mean to “encourage the enemy?” It means to increase their will to fight on, and their courage to do so even in the face of the arrival of reinforcements. It also means to increase –substantially—the likelihood of redoubled and retripled efforts on their part to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. To vote for the sort of resolution that General Petraeus addressed is a profoundly wrong action.
General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday --which has to mean that the senators who voted for him have confidence in his military judgment.
Many Democrats are willing to encourage the enemy if it means hurting George W. Bush. They are willing to disregard the advice of the general they have just sent to do a mission if it serves their political purposes.
Chuck Hagel is thus far the only Republican to indicate that he is willing to issue the same encouragement to the enemy.
Senator Warner’s resolution has the same effect as Senator Biden’s. General Petraeus testified as to any resolution blasting the new strategy. Biden’s resolution blasts all of the strategy. Warner’s blasts the most important parts.
There is no meaningful difference in my eyes –or the eyes of General Petraeus, the MSM, or the eyes of the enemy—between the two resolutions.
And now for the quotes from some anti-war Democrats, and if you think that Bush knew that Hussein's arsenal was greatly diminished, but lied to congress about it, you're a certifiable moonbat. Don't even get me started on the hundreds of chemical artillery shells found after the invasion, or the multitude of semi-trucks that left Iraq for Syria while we waited for months of hand-wringing at the UN before the invasion.
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
By the way, have you been reading about Sandy Berger lately? This was President Clinton's national security advisor, who stole top secret documents from the national archives and destroyed them to keep them away from the 9-11 Commission. If you haven't heard about SandyPants I'm not surprised. It was on page 47 of the New York Times, page 14 of the LA Times, and missing completely from most major papers. If Condoleeza Rice had done that, I'll bet it would have been front page news for 4 straight months. But there's no liberal bias in the MSM, couldn't be......
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Flip-flopping doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Say It Ain't So!!!
This is terrible news! One of the reasons that I started this blog was to enjoy laughing at this guy's expense:
Ah well, there will be others to make fun of besides Mr. Kerry
Still a bummer though.....
Hello Blog World!
Hello Everyone,
This is my new blog. I will use it as a venue to express my own opinions about life, politics, and anything else I want. That's what blogs are for.
I'm an American who has been living in the heart of Europe for over 9 years, and I hope I can give some insight from the point of view of a proud American living abroad.
It seems to me these days that the only Americans that Europeans like are the self-loathing kind. I'm not that way and it causes some difficulty as one can imagine.
I'll start posting soon and I hope to update daily and link to articles and blogs that I find interesting and informative.
Until then, back to work!
Mojo
This is my new blog. I will use it as a venue to express my own opinions about life, politics, and anything else I want. That's what blogs are for.
I'm an American who has been living in the heart of Europe for over 9 years, and I hope I can give some insight from the point of view of a proud American living abroad.
It seems to me these days that the only Americans that Europeans like are the self-loathing kind. I'm not that way and it causes some difficulty as one can imagine.
I'll start posting soon and I hope to update daily and link to articles and blogs that I find interesting and informative.
Until then, back to work!
Mojo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
