Political Cartoonist Michael Ramirez has had a field day with Mahmoud AhMADinejad these last few days, first with the Iranian PUNK President wanting to go to the Twin Towers memorial site, next with his SPEECH harangue at Columbia University and lastly with his INTEMPERATE asinine rant at the United Nations. So, for those of you not familiar with this outstanding cartoonist, I present the three above noted Editorial Cartoons true life portraits of Mahmoud.

First, the real reason he wanted to visit the Twin Tower Site:

Posted at 12:58 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.

In last nights New Hampshire edition of the Democrat Party Pander-A-Thon Debate, Dennis J. Kookycinich Kucinich stated:

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..."

Whooooooooooosh, the year, 2009. The first 100 days of the new president... day 43:

Posted at 08:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 11 kb.

There is no such thing as a "liberal media;" so say the leftist pundits. After all, the media is owned by corporations which are by definition "conservative" and thus they wouldn't jeopardize their income by being liberal. And if you believe that twaddle, I've got a quit-claim deed to the Brooklyn Bridge I'd be happy to sell to you for the paltry sum of only $99.99. Think of it, having your very own bridge.

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.

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

Posted at 11:49 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 4 kb.

Christine writing at Vigilant Freedom had an interesting email:

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 [metin_k61@hotmail.com]”. The email address metin_k61@hotmail.com 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

Posted at 12:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

So, the Left supports the troops but opposes the war? Funny, this video gives me the impression that they oppose both. The tip off was burning a soldier in effigy. Watch it and decide for yourself if they support our armed forces, but be forewarned...the video contains offensive language. Well, what did you expect? After all, they are from the Left.

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...

Posted at 04:00 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.

We've heard so much second guessing from Democrats and liberals about Iraq. Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors for years and was warned of possible action if he didn't comply. He didn't, the U.N. was bribed, and President Bush acted. Well, thanks to Iran, we can give liberals a new playing field and let them tell us how now to handle this new situation from the start--not from hindsight.

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?)

Posted at 10:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

Last Friday, Cinnamon Stillwell, a good friend and fellow blogger alerted me to an almost unbelievable "sales" response to one of our troops stationed in Iraq. The troop, one Sgt. Jason Hess serving with the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq. Sgt. Hess was inquiring about better mats for his troops to sleep on. Here is his email to Discount Floor Mats of West Allis, Wisconson:

To Whom it may concern:
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.

SGT Hess

Posted at 01:55 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.

No weapons of mass destruction? Bush lied? Read selections from the following article.

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?

Posted at 03:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 601 words, total size 4 kb.

In a recent comment, G.M. mentioned a post by Assistant Village Idiot, a regular and appreciated commenter on this site. (AVI doesn't mention the name of the village where he is the assistant, but let's hope that it's not the same village that Hillary Clinton wants to raise our kids.) But, to the point, AVI's post was "Change One Thing in WWII to improve the outcome." It makes for interesting thought and allows us to ask a lot of "what if's".

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.

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.

Next....

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?

Posted at 01:10 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

1 We've involved ourselves in a war where a decisive victory is not possible and as such it will never come to an end. We've reached a state of perpetual warfare and had just better learn to like it. George Orwell is probably turning over in his grave right now.

The only way to really 'win' the war would be to nuke most of the Middle East and for reasons I've mentioned in other threads, that's just not very practical. Even if we could get by without Arab oil, we'd kind of lose face with most of the rest of the civilized world. I doubt that's a price that even the present leadership would be willing to pay.

Our rumps are quite well stuck in this crack but thankfully our casualties have been quite low in comparison to previous wars. Really, we can keep this up indefinitely if we have to and that's a good thing as it looks like that's exactly what we're going to have to do.

Hrm... Maybe we should just send John Kerry over there in a boat. He could ride up and down the Tigris and Euphrates and shoot teenage boys in the back as they run away from him and maybe this time he wouldn't throw his medals away.

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Saturday, December 16 2006 05:59 PM (LqapJ)

2 Are you able to define for me, what a "win" is, and how will we know when we have "won"?

Posted by: James S Melbert at Sunday, December 17 2006 05:19 AM (w8YJV)

3 Perhaps I can define it as the opposite of a "defeat," which we will realize if the Democrats are successful in their "cut 'n run" ideas.

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, December 17 2006 05:21 AM (v5VVJ)

4 c'mon E.nonee, that's a really low blow about Kerry shooting teen-age boys in the back. And if (OOPS, no if's) when we continue an indefinitely long war, are we going to raise Taxes so it can be paid for? (dangling participle intended). I don't think the poster of this post is willing to spend his money on indefinite things. Re: GW! Global warming is certainly more certain than "winning" in Iraq.

Posted by: James S Melbert at Sunday, December 17 2006 05:26 AM (w8YJV)

5 Woody, your answer to my question was fatuous. Does that mean you can't define a "win"?

Posted by: James S Melbert at Sunday, December 17 2006 05:30 AM (w8YJV)

6 Just another thought, and please don't tell me that I hate the US

Posted by: James S Melbert at Sunday, December 17 2006 05:35 AM (w8YJV)

7 James, to compare Iraq deaths to those in one terrorist attack, you were very limited on your selection. Are your forgetting the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, the Pentagon and airline deaths, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanaon, multiple kidnappings and beheadings, the organized efforts to kill all non-Islamics, the risk of nuclear and chemical attacks by terrorists, people who hate so much that they will sacrifice their children and themselves to kill others, and the torture and countless thousands of deaths at the hand of Hussein--in addition to the major WTC bombing? Your criteria was too limited and ignores all past and future threats.

What is a "win?" Well, on on hand, it is absolutely nothing that the Left would agree upon, because to define a "win" and for them to accept it runs the risk that it would be achieved and they would have to lie to avoid being proven wrong.

I hope to achieve a stable government in Iraq that can take care of itself and its citizens and eliminate threats from terrorists, while maintaining U.S. influence and a forward military base in the region to protect innocent people and our economic interests.

The problem is, the Left doesn't define "wins" but only focuses on "defeats." Ironically, a defeat to the U.S. is a win to the Left, which begs the question as to what twisted logic and values that side has. But, there are other people like John Kerry, whose views are moving targets--being for the war before being against it.

On Moose's comment about Kerry, Kerry can do more damage with his visits than with his limited use of weapons, just as he did in the Paris Peace Talks.

Kerry defends upcoming trip to Syria
Bush administration officials have said they warned Kerry that his trip to Syria -- and those of two other Democratic senators -- harms US interests and sends the wrong signal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. The administration accuses Syria of fomenting violence in the Middle East.

Giving up and appeasement doesn't make the problem go away. The Left wants to "avoid" rather than "confront," but we gave it twelve years of nothing accomplished except for continued defiance by Hussein and U.N. fraud through the oil for food plan.

If we give up now, then the battle will shift to the future, but with how many more terrorists attacks and at what price until the Left admits that we need "the daddies" of the world to fix the things that they ignored or messed up?

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, December 17 2006 09:31 AM (v5VVJ)

8 I simply don't get this idea that we can't win and We Smart People knew that all along. There are a dozen places in the world where more people are dying. Most of Iraq is safer than Chicago. If we weren't spending an enormous amount of money on it - because that's the way we fight wars, in order to reduce casualties - Iraq would properly be regarded as a small war with not much happening.

The consequences may be dire one way or the other, and it that sense it is perhaps "large." But it doesn't have to become Switzerland. If Iraq becomes Brazil or Cambodia, that will be fine.

JSM - Revenge for bodies was never the point. And I can't imagine how the body count at the WTC is especially relevant otherwise. And despite your sneer quotes about winning - very revealing, more than you guess - I think it's pretty straightforward. When Iraq can govern itself with reasonable stability, and is not subject to destabilization from its neighbors, that's a win.

I don't think you hate the US. But I think you hate parts of it. I think you like the parts of the US that have the values of your tribe within it. That's morally defensible, but it's not the same thing as patriotism.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Sunday, December 17 2006 09:42 AM (1w197)

9 the "battle" is not against terroists, its for control of their oil and domination of the world as much as possible.
thats why we need to leave

Posted by: r hogin at Sunday, December 17 2006 11:02 AM (P2IG1)

10 I disagree that the war is not against terrorism. It is also for freedom for the Iraqis and stability in the mideast.

To the extent that oil is involved, apparently r hogin says that we need to leave because the U.S. wants to control the oil and dominate the world. Oil will be controlled and countries will try to dominate others, so why is it that we shouldn't be the one to do that versus France or Russia or China or Iran or North Korea? Why shouldn't the U.S. watch out for its interests, as every nation does?

Such talk sounds like anti-U.S., anti-capitalist talk carried over from communism during the cold war. Sorry, but I'm for America before I'm for foreign nations who don't work with us. Who else is going to fight for freedom and democracy and fight for a stable mideast to protect the distribution of world energy resources? Who else has the power and will?

Posted by: Woody at Sunday, December 17 2006 12:34 PM (v5VVJ)

11 c'mon E.nonee, that's a really low blow about Kerry shooting teen-age boys in the back

That was "troll-bait" James. Woody knows me well enough at this point to ignore stuff like that.

Anyway, the path to "victory" is to "stay the course" and that's exactly what we're going to do. As long as we never give up, you can't say we've lost unless you are some kind of librul-commie-pinko-terrorist-sympathizer-who-wants-the-world-to-be-run-by-the-UN. So there!

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Sunday, December 17 2006 01:50 PM (LqapJ)

12 moose, that's a great example of misrepresenting your opponents POV via exaggeration so that you can ridicule it rather than having to argue against it.

Play that statement in reverse, about the path to "peace," and fascist-warmonger-capitalist etc. and see how intelligent it sounds.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Sunday, December 17 2006 02:56 PM (1w197)

13 Would this be an exaggeration of my opponents POV?

Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

I think that pretty much sums up the mentality of the "stay the course" crowd.

Posted by: e. nonee moose at Monday, December 18 2006 02:19 AM (dlFaD)

14 Lessee. First we had Pax Romana. Then Pax Britannia, now we are going for Pax Americana?

"Revenge for bodies was never the point. And I can't imagine how the body count at the WTC is especially relevant otherwise. "
If that wasn't the reason, I don't have any recollection of our being asked to come in and destroy their country. I know that there were two or three pet Iraqi"s in Washington that give "cover" to this whole fiasco.
Now if you responders are so "hell-bent" on spending the next ten or so years in Iraq, or until the oil runs out, whichever comes first. I suggest that you get behind a reshuffle of the tax brackets, and codes, so that the beneficiaries of this war will pay for it. The Bush scheme of paying for the war with Iraqi oil exports doesn't seem to be working.
It also appears that you want to feel safe. Well safety is the result of eternally vigilence. Eternal aggressiveness will not bring you the security you seem to think it will. It will bring you more and more and more resentment and hatred. Oh yes!
PAX AMERICANA
.

Posted by: James S Melbert at Monday, December 18 2006 06:17 AM (w8YJV)

15 James, do twleve years of U.N. resolutions against Hussein and the food-for-oil scandal ring a bell?

Posted by: Woody at Monday, December 18 2006 06:34 AM (v5VVJ)

16 Woody, once again, that reply was fatuous. Of course I know about the references you cite. Buy where di it say that if Sadam weren't a good boy, we were coming to destroy your country? When in that twelve year period, did we have an incursion from Iraq? I also note that you don't still refer to the terriorist attact as an excuse Sadam was a terrible person, but wasn't that a Iraqi problem? Now, if you say "aren't we our brothers keeper" I'll absolutely throw up. You, of all persons.
We know now, that Saddam was up to his ears in alligators, trying to bluff Iran out of their aggression. If our Intelligence had been worth a damn, which it wasn't, we would have known that. Instead we got the non-intelligence belief that Iraq was going to attact the US. Talk about the mouse and the elephant? Wow, that's not even close.
So, let me just say, that if your heart is bleeding over the plight of the Iraqi. I can tell you about some other places where people REALLY need help.

Posted by: James S Melbert at Monday, December 18 2006 08:08 AM (w8YJV)

17 AVI:
"I simply don't get this idea that we can't win and We Smart People knew that all along."
Your extreme modesty astounds me. But help me here, Is there any General of our Army that agrees we are winning this incursion? Is there a General that believes we can "win" this mess? Now according to your other "brain", John McCain, we are going to put another twenty thousand troops in harms way. Since you live in New England somewhere, that is the total population of several of your towns. Doesn't that give you a small moment of pause?
Smart people know when to fold 'em.

Posted by: James S Melbert at Monday, December 18 2006 08:17 AM (w8YJV)

18 James, the problem wasn't that our intelligence failed as much as it was Hussein refusing to comply with the provisions of the first Gulf War agreement. If there was no reason to play cat and mouse with nuclear and chemical weapons, then he shouldn't have done it. The fact that he did would give plenty of credence to the belief that he did possess those weapons and intended to use them.

Our attack of Iraq was justified and allowed by the U.N. sanctions, for which other countries wouldn't act since they were being bought off. We may not like the way the war is going, but we had plenty of justification to bring Hussein to justice.

Posted by: Woody at Monday, December 18 2006 12:42 PM (v5VVJ)

19 Smart People should also have known to not bother after Dunkirk, or perhaps after the Kassarine Pass or perhaps after the debacle at or perhaps after the Bulge... or maybe earlier when the Axis had these countries conquered: AUSTRIA THE NETHERLANDS ALBANIA MOROCCO CZECHOSLOVAKIA FRANCE GREECE ALGERIA POLAND HUNGARY LITHUANIA TUNISIA DENMARK ROMANIA LATVIA LIBYA NORWAY BULGARIA ESTONIA
BELGIUM YUGOSLAVIA FINLAND, I mean gee Jimmy, after all that carnage, what made you think you and the other members of the Greatest Generation (and you really were you know) could possibly wrest something positive from the war machine that took all of that area?

Posted by: GM Roper at Monday, December 18 2006 03:14 PM (S60yG)

20 "Is there a general who believes we can win this mess?" Yes. Most. Please - you give evidence of my point when you say such things.

As to the being "invited to destroy their country." I don't see what that has to do with anything. That was never anything like a reason given. If the revenge motive strikes you as the main one, then no wonder you are suspicious of your political opponents' motives. You don't understand them, so you conclude they must have some evil scheme up their sleeve instead. Wise fool.

An interconnected group of Islamic terrorists, acting with state assistance, presented a continuing and growing danger. A multi-pronged strategy, including economic, diplomatic, military, and covert actions was put into place. Part of that was the decision that a Ba'athist Iraq was one of several pillars of that danger, growing and continuing.

This was explained often. Did you not understand it? I can see where someone might disagree with all or part of the assessment and plan. To pretend it was not said, or that some fancied other motive was the real one, bespeaks a deeper confusion. Or perhaps you did know this but chose to say otherwise for rhetorical effect.

I hear clearly you believe other strategies would have worked. The evidence is against your belief, but I know it is attractive. Wouldn't we all prefer that just negotiating and pressuring Saddam would have worked just as well. But preference is not reality. Saddam was not contained, and was increasingly slipping the noose. Perhaps invading Iran would have been better, or covert ops against a dozen other places more effective. But "staying the course" of the previous 12 years had already proven ineffective.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at Tuesday, December 19 2006 12:50 PM (1w197)

21 How many way is there to say it?
SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES!!
AL Quaida was not supported by Iraq. There were NO weapons if mass destruction. He was percieved to be a threat for God knows what end.
And finally, sgades of Viet Nam. Lets send in more troops. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Can't the "smart people" understand? Obviously not. Those that don't know history arwe doomed to repeat it/ That was never so true as today!!

Posted by: James S Melbert at Friday, December 22 2006 05:49 AM (w8YJV)

22 James, then why did the U.N. waste twleve years on Iraq?

Posted by: Woody at Friday, December 22 2006 07:00 AM (v5VVJ)

23 You have brought up a very first-class details , thankyou for that the post.

Posted by: air force people search at Saturday, January 12 2013 05:28 PM (xufY4)

24 Will be persist while equally relative thinks he has a slight favourable position above the some other. chine destock chine destock

Posted by: chine destock at Friday, February 01 2013 05:52 AM (W3W9G)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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.

Posted at 12:48 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Thanks for the link. I really don't have much to add.

However, when Jonathan Demme does his documentary on Jimmy Carter speaking on how to achieve peace in the Middle East and his philosophy of human compassion for all people, these photographs should serve as a prime testimony to Mr. Carter's wisdom regarding the Middle East exhibited during his Presidency.

However, judging from his other statements quoted in the article, I double Mr. Demme plans to include any of these photographs.

Posted by: civil truth at Wednesday, December 06 2006 07:51 AM (qp2n7)

2 a very interesting story indeed, that says quite a lot more than it literally says

Posted by: quickrob at Wednesday, December 06 2006 02:43 PM (CBYu7)

3 Thank you GM. Great fuel for a "fire" I'm building over here. I'll let you know when it's charcoal!

Posted by: chrys at Wednesday, December 06 2006 08:47 PM (4e/Au)

4 I am totally agree with your opinion.this blog post is very encouraging to people who want to know these topics.

Posted by: Berneice Holiday at Monday, December 10 2012 12:17 AM (HAzsi)

5 Would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.

Posted by: Yuko Scoggins at Monday, December 24 2012 12:20 AM (GaTDK)

6 Nice read, happy to come accross your nice blog. I enjoyed reading few of your posts during the last few minutes, and I think I'm going to stay there for some time . With a Arnold Schwarzeneger voice : I'll be back!

Posted by: Wheel Hub Assembly at Tuesday, February 05 2013 04:46 AM (KK9dl)

7 It's a shame you don't have a donate button! I'd most certainly donate to this excellent blog! I suppose for now i'll settle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Talk soon!

Posted by: best deals in india at Tuesday, February 05 2013 10:33 PM (/IDcG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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.

Technorati tags: Islam, terrorism, religion, islamo fascism, Politics

Filed under: War on Terror, Middle East Politics and Terror, and Militaria.

Posted at 03:51 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 2316 words, total size 16 kb.

What should be done about weapons of mass destruction in Iran? Members of the U.N. and the Democrats repeatedly attacked President Bush for his somehow believing that poison gas bombs, chemical weapons, and a nuclear program of Hussein in Iraq didn't count as WMDs, that Husseins' uncooperation did not matter, and that no action against Hussein was justified. What does count as WMDs and what could cause enough concern in Iran to justify action there?

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...

Posted at 10:40 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1181 words, total size 8 kb.

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?

Posted at 04:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

It reminds me of those games at arcades with the big claws to pick up prizes. However, the Left is going to claim that this game doesn't meet "international standards" for fun. Blame Bush.

via b3ta (caution-language)
thru J-Walk (caution-hates Bush)

Posted at 02:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

Even I was a little flabbergasted at liberal reactions to Saddam Hussein's death sentence for crimes against humanity. I guess I expected some silence from them, as this news might help the Republican election effort. Rather, liberals and left-wing radicals condemned the death sentence against this murdering dictator. It raises the questions as to whose side they favor and what are their values. more...

Posted at 05:30 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 4 kb.