September 27, 2007
Mahmoud & Michael X3Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has had a field day with Mahmoud AhMADinejad these last few days, first with the Iranian
First, the real reason he wanted to visit the Twin Tower Site:
June 04, 2007
But what I intend to do is to be a president who helps to reshape the world for peace -- to work with all the leaders of the world in getting rid of all nuclear weapons..."Hop into our little time machine and lets see how that worked out.
Whooooooooooosh, the year, 2009. The first 100 days of the new president... day 43:
May 22, 2007
But, I digress! The ABC blog "The Blotter" has a report by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito concerning the existence of a "Presidential Finding" that authorizes the CIA to begin a campaign of "covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government."
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.So, since this is a "covert" action, lets spread it over the airwaves and the internet, I mean after all, it is the peoples right to know isn't it? Geeze guys, can you be more Anti-American than you already are?
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.
This isn't a matter of beating another news organization to the punch, this is a matter of divulging to Iran, a country guilty of arming the so called insurgents in Iraq, helping them plant and manufacture bombs designed to kill civilians and US military alike. This is the country that committed an armed act of war against the US when it occupied our embassy in the waining days of the Carter administration. This is the country that any truly rational person recognizes as a very real threat to peace with their willy-nilly rush to manufacture nuclear bombs. And you bastards have the gall to "out" the plan?
Too often the left leaning media (and some of their allies in the Democrat party and in the CIA) have accused the right of questioning their patriotism. Well, they have proven themselves unpatriotic. And I would still be making this charge if it were a Democrat in the White House as well. Of course, if there were a Democrat in the White House, I doubt that the left leaning media would have stooped to this level of chicanery.
The media has let their aptly named Bush Derangement Syndrome overrule all common sense, and for what? To discredit a President? To warn Iran? To get a scoop? Bastards!
Another point of view from Jules Crittenden:
I’d be curious to know whether the people blabbing are disapproving or purposefully trying to send a message. Given that the message seems to be “We won’t attack,” I’m not sure how useful it is to put this out. That just tells the Iranians going into next week’s Iraq talks that they don’t need to worry about military consequences.
A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn
May 14, 2007
We have suggested to several bloggers that any threats should be made public as soon as possible, in order to expose the danger.Therefore, here is the email I received in entirety (asterisks added for family viewers…)
i m going to f*** your mumy
how u dare to attack on islam and muslims..
write your adderess..ungratefull bitches you…
there are hundred thousand Nihad Awad..
you r swearin us ..provaketing us…and you want to go to hell..ok we will do it ..no worry..
The sender’s email address is given as “metin kondel [email@example.com]”. The email address firstname.lastname@example.org shows up here, with Metin Kondel as a commenter: http://www.memleket.com.tr/index.php?islem=detay&id=9320
And also here, again a comment with the email address: http://ofluhoca.blogcu.com/1976137/
Interesting indeed. Do you suspect that this is a jihadist, a follower of Muhammad, or a delusional, sick jerk with more than a touch of misogyny? Perhaps all three!
H/T to Always On Watch
March 26, 2007
Pretty offensive, isn't it? Of course, the protestors are pretty stupid, too.
It's ironic that they used a petroleum product to fuel the fire. Where do they think that we get most of our oil based products?
Besides being crude (not as in oil) and anti-U.S., what is it about the Left that they engage in endless chants and use trite slogans? In case you're curious as to where they get their chants (and, who isn't?!), check out these samples: more...
January 22, 2007
Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.
The West accuses Iran of seeking to build atom bombs under the cover of a professed civilian nuclear energy program, while Tehran insists it aims solely to generate electricity.
IAEA inspectors carry out regular checks of Iran's atomic sites to try to verify it is not diverting materials into bomb production in violation of the NPT.
The U.N. sanctions imposed on December 23 ban transfers of sensitive materials and know-how to Iran's nuclear and missile programs over its refusal to stop enriching uranium, a process that can yield fuel for power stations or material for bombs.
Man, that sounds familiar. Okay, liberals and Democrats, how would you handle this familiar problem this time? Maybe twelve years of sanctions? That ought to do it. By that time Iran will have nuclear weapons and will be shaking in their boots. Don't wait to second quess. Share your plans now.
(What do you want to bet that they'll live up to expectations and ignore any meaningful actions against Iran until it's too late?)
January 21, 2007
To Whom it may concern:more...
Do you ship to APO addresses? I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq and we are trying to order some mats but we are looking for who ships to APO first.
January 10, 2007
Tape bares Saddam's chilling admissions of war crimes
By JOHN F. BURNS, New York Times, Published on: 01/10/07
In audio recordings made years ago and played this week in his absence, Saddam was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill "thousands" and saying he alone among Iraq's leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.
In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Saddam repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that made Iraq a nation seized with fear during his 24 years in power.
One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Saddam's personal involvement in covering up Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending U.S. troops to overthrow him. Talking to the Iraqi general heading Iraq's dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq's feed stocks for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.
But it was Saddam's chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilian populations that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Saddam that a plan was under development for having transport aircraft carry containers packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each rolled out of the back of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.
(Television footage taken in the aftermath of the Halabjah attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Saddam,) showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian corpses. "I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now," Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Saddam.
U.S. Justice Department lawyers who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003 had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.
I give credit to the administration for keeping details of the evidence about Iraq's WMDs secret to obtain a conviction rather than giving it up simply to silence Democratic and foreign critics.
Is everyone satisfied, now, that Hussein had and used weapons of mass destruction, or do you have to experience them yourself to be convinced? How long would you have allowed these mass murders to continue if you were President? So much for "Bush Lied." At what point would more weapons be manufactured and provided to terrorists for use against us? Did we have to know any more to be worried about our security and about justice and to act, while the U.N. stalled as its officials were profiting from Hussein's payoffs?
Are there any admissions of being wrong on this issue and apologies forthcoming or just more blind patisan denials?
Finally, where do we go from here? Pull out and abandon the Iraqi people again to terrorists and tyrants or stay until we win the battle?
December 16, 2006
Now, a lot of people are asking "what if's" about the war in Iraq, and we have recently seen the results of the Iraq Study Group, which told us what it believes that we should be doing in that area of the world. The connection with AVI's post is that we may be asking a lot of "what if's" about Iraq in the future, just as we have with WWII, depending upon whether or not we accept the recommendations of this committee--and, many of those questions and answers could be similar.
Newt Gingrich, my former congressman, is a former history professor, and he has created interesting assessments in two articles of the group's recommendations and ties them into the response to World War II to deal with Hitler. After you read AVI's post, go to Newt's and see if we have learned anything from history.
by Newt Gingrinch 12/11/2006
The release of the report confirms a Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by "doing a deal." In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. Today, we need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.
by Newt Gingrinch 12/11/2006
Two weeks ago I outlined in the Winning the Future newsletter Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. I asked whether the report would make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the Fanatic wing of Islam, or whether it was simply going to be one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world.
Here are the 11 key tests from two weeks ago and a brief assessment for how the ISG’s published report stacks up: (go to article)
Of course, this discusses future courses, which should be our focus. If you want to do "Monday morning quarterbacking" on Iraq, you can find plenty of that on the left-wing blogs, if you can stand them.
So, based upon where we are and what we have learned from history, what should be our future policies and actions in the mideast? I don't want a lot of "what if's" years from now. I want us to win this war and to do it right. How can we best do that? Who will be right?
December 05, 2006
Many of you will remember this photograph, it won a Pulitzer and has, since published in '79 been anonymous. Now we know and the story is fascinating. Read the whole thing, then come back and comment. When you go to the article, be sure and see the whole slide show.
November 25, 2006
Islamo-fascism. A word frought with meaning to both the left and the right. Some may prefer the term jihadist, others islamist. But, in reality, regardless of what it is called, it is the same darkness of the heart. To some these are terms used only by an "islamo-phobe" by others, an apt description of the pseudo-political/quasi-religious expression of a group of people that have decided that their way to salvation is jihad and martyrdom. Would that it were not so, but it is, like it or not, and it describes "A Certain Darkness of the Heart."
Remember November 4th, 1979? That was the day an act of war was perpetrated on the United States in the form of the Islamic Republic of Iran's invasion of, and occupation of the United States Embassy. Unfortunately for the United States and the 52 hostages held for the majority of the 444 days of captivity (the original number of hostages was 66 but 14 were released over a period of time for a variety of reasons) this act of war was not met by any action by the then President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. Carter had allowed the Former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi who had stepped down in January of 1979 and the so called Islamic Republic, fronted by the "students" felt that America was "corrupting" their republic. The Iranians, of course, had no intention of interveining in the occupation of the embassy, though it should be obvious that the release of the hostages was later engineered by the Iranian governmnet because of their fear of what might happen when Ronald Reagan replaced
Casper Milquetoast Jimmy Carter. Reagan had not focused much blaming Carter, but he did promise to rebuild the military and once again take America forward. The absolute landslide (almost 51% of the popular vote and almost 91% of the electoral vote) indeed must have given the Iranian's pause. Their "Islamic" republic faced with massive military retaliation from the United States as opposed to the withering leadership of Carter learned not to challenge the US like that again. But that didn't stop them for long, by 1983, using their proxy Hezbollah they once again attacked the Great Satan, this time not with students, but with bombs.
I recall the bombing of the Marine Barracks in 1983 and a fierce anger that welled up inside at a group of people that were willing to kill to make a pseudo-political point. President Reagan, rightly or wrongly, had sent the United States Marines into Lebanon to help quell the violence and hopefully bring about a solid peace. The French had also sent troops in with the same intent.
It is a truism in behavior modification that behaviors you want repeated you reward, and behaviors you want extinguished you either punish, cease rewarding and allow them to fall by the wayside. This has been proven time and time again in human behavior and the islamo-fascists have been amply rewarded time and again by the non-reaction, or worse, the placid acceptance of terrorism as a fact of life in this modern, psychotic reality we call the present. And yet, our leaders (and those of the western world) have not learned that truism. From Carter, to Reagan, to Bush 41 to Clinton to Bush 43, all have fallen short of the need to smack down this latest incarnation of the vile fascist ideology. True, all but Carter has lobbed more than a few bombs. Reagan punished Kadaffi with a few attacks, Bush 41 pushed back Saddam from Kuwait with mostly the approval of the world, Clinton lobbed a few missles and bombing runs, but in large, they all have not focused on the danger presented by the islamo-fascist. Indeed, neither has most of the world and the cancer has grown apace.
In current political thinking, the war in Iraq is not seen as a war against the islamo-fascist by most, it is seen rather, by many, as a flawed expidition based on inadequate at best, or faked intelligence at worst. Yet, the idea was sound, take out Saddam, a drive a wedge between two state sponsers of terrorism. Both Iran and Syria are part and parcel of the growing mindset of islamo-fascism present in the world today, and indeed, other middle east states join in this enterprise on the stealthy side. Some more so like Saudi Arabia who exports a Wahabbist extreemism to some less so like Pakistan whose intelligence apparat openly sides with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
9/11 focused us on the need to destroy Al Qaeda in it's hatred of the US and the western world. Let no one doubt that Bin Laden and his fellow travelors want to do that indeed. From the train bombings in Madrid to the bus bombings in London, to the attempted attacks in Germany, to the nighclub bombs in Bali, and the "car burning" orgies of Paris, and the attempt to take down a dozen airliners plotted in England, there is a war going on, a war that is concieved in the mindset of the islamo-fascists and carried out across the globe.
We, in the west have political leaders who call Islam the "Religion of Peace" and perhaps it is. There is certainly evidence in the Koran to support that declairation. There is also evidence in the old testament of the Bible to state that there is much in the Judeo-Christian that is warlike and blood-thirsty. Yet, there are differences too. Much of the Koran is filled with extortations to force the non-muslim into either dihimmitude or death. You won't find that in the New Testament. You will see Muslim street demonstrations calling for the death of the so called "Great Satan" or Israel and the Jews, or even England, but you won't find huge crowds of Christians or Jews calling for the death/destruction of say Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran, though, given the actions of those three countries that may come in the future, in fact, demonstrations against Syria and to a lesser extent Iran are now ongoing in Lebanon following the implication of at least Syria in multiple political assasinations, but that is for a latter post. You seldom (never?) see Christians rioting in the streets because Christ was the subject of a cartoon. A cartoon for Pete's Sake. And the Muslim Rioters? Why they held up signs saying "Death" and "Behead" to those who depict Mohammad in a cartoon. Not to say anything about shooting a nun in the back because the Pope quoted an Emperor speaking hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
Part of the current political divide in this country over the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, between those who support the "pull out" crowd or at least support something similar and those who support the effort in Iraq and continuing the war on terrorism is the degree to which the individual, clique, political party or tribe see the threat of islamofascism.
In organizational psychology courses and management courses political tactics within an organization are often discussed. There are a number of such tactics and Andrew DuBrin has written extensively on their use and their benefits as well as their drawbacks. The internal conflict between Democrats and Republicans, or, if you will, between left of center and right of center often revolves around taking the opposite side of the argument, regardless of the rightness of any given argument. Thus, if the right calls for stern measures against islamo-fascists the left takes either an appeasement approach or the vaunted (but oh-so-difficult) cut and run approach. The political tactic often used in this conundrum is "embrace or demolish." In other words, do it my way or I'll cut you to pieces; if you do not see it my way, see my vision, I will make your life miserable. The Democrats famously used this as "The Politics of Personal Destruction" implying that the Republicans were the one's using this tactic, when in fact, it was
entirely mostly the Democrats who used said politics. This is not to say that the Republican's didn't do their share. So we get such stellar terms as Rethuglicans, Dimocrats, etc. I've even used some of these terms myself, and meant them too. But no one has called me anything if not partisan and I make no claim to be otherwise. Anothe tactic is called "manipulate classified information." The Democrats accuse Bush 43 of doing just that when he gave reasons for going into Iraq, the Democrats believed it too, until they saw that they could make political hay out of saying "Bush Lied."
But this is not about the left or the right, except in-so-far as it applies to what to do about the islamo-fascists.
U.S. interests have been attacked again and again by the islamo-fascists. 1993 the first bombing of the World trade center, killing 6, wounding more than 1000. 1996 bombing of the U.S. military housing complex in Dhahran,Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding hundreds of people. 1998, bombing of two US Embassy's (again, and act of war according to international law) in both Keyna and Tanzania killing 264 people and wounding thousands. 2000 an attack against a US warship the USS Cole killing 17 and wounding 39. 2001, flying two airplanes full of passengers into the World Trade center, the Pentagon and one plane in which the passengers fought back but the plane crashed into a field killing all onboard. And still the mayhem goes on in Iraq where Muslim kills Muslim in sectarian violence and Al Qaeda and their ilk and supporters in Syria and Iran egg the whole process on.
It should be a truism that if someone says that they want to kill you, you should believe them and take appropriate action. To date, many of us on the left and the right take Al Qaeda and the other islamo-fascists at their word, but disagree on what to do.
We have seen what doing nothing will do and we have seen it since the waining days of the Carter Administration. You cannot talk to these people for they think talking is just another way of whiling away the time until they can cut your head off. You cannot reason with these people for they are bereft of reason. Here recently, we had 6 Imams or Islamic Scholars loudly praying, acting "suspicious" and otherwise deliberately causing a ruckus. They excused this by saying that we, of the west, should have knowledge and understanding of Islam. They on the other hand, have no need to understand the very understandable fears of 6 Islamic men, acting strangely in a plane and reacting the way in which the passengers did. It boggles the mind.
And yet the need to do something should be paramount to all in the west, regarless of whether they consider themselves left or right, but that does not seem to be the case. For if we do not, we acques to this darkness of the heart, and we will drink bitter tea for a long time to come before the west finally rises up and smacks down the new fascism running rampant in the world. The Pope has been threatened in his upcoming trip to Turkey, Iran threatens to annihilate Israel. Gazans rain rockets on Israel for getting out of Gaza. CAIR defends the indefensible and the world stands by, watches, and shrugs its collective shoulders.
Perhaps Dr. Sanity said it best regarding the 6 Imams issue, but with applicability to my whole theme:
And, even more than all that, I am thoroughly disgusted with all western leaders who continually seek to appease what cannot be appeased; who in their cowardly fashion spout multicultural and politically correct nonsense as they sell-out Western values and freedoms; who want to endlessly "dialogue" with barbarians; who want to protect the rights of those who want to kill us; and denounce anyone who has the courage to stand up to the monsters of Islam. I am filled with inarticulate anger at the western media who, rather than fulfilling its historic mission to tell truth to power, now uses its enormous power to silence the truth.The darkness of the heart continues to grow, and we have no will to sap its strength or its rate of growth.
November 14, 2006
Next are a progression of articles about Iran's nuclear program, ending with serious information reported today. (In them, emphasis is added.) If Bush isn't capable of handling Iran's WMDs, as the Democrats claimed about his handling of Iraq's, what will the Democrats do about Iran's nuclear program? Will they act in time? This could be more suspenseful than using your secret decoder pin for Orphan Annie's secret messages. Stay tuned, but don't have high expectations. more...
November 10, 2006
George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.
June? Why should it take them so long? Oh, and let's tell the terrorists our withdrawal timetable so that they know how long to hold out.
It's not taking long for the Democrat's true colors to start showing. They're just as bad as the old ones. Why didn't someone warn us?
November 06, 2006
November 05, 2006
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.