Gay Patriot Header Image

“Un-American, untruthful and a lie”?

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 9:54 pm - February 21, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,General,Liberals,National Politics

My apologies for neglecting to contribute here for awhile…

I’m a little confused by comments from Brian Melendez, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party, that ads supporting efforts in Iraq are somehow “un-American, untruthful and a lie“. How exactly does he arrive at this? The fact that the veterans and families of slain veterans who did these ads do not cop to the radical Left agenda? His logic seems to escape me given the numerous ads opposing the war from such groups as, Not In Our Name, Win Back Respect, and a host of other antiwar groups, let alone Michael Moore’s infamous hit-piece Fahrenheit 9/11. Need I even mention that darling of the Left, Cindy Sheehan? Perhaps Mr. Melendez is referring to the fact that Progress for America receives donations from many conservatives and has ties to the Republican Party. Odd reasoning if this is so, given how much in bed the Democrat Party is with not only the groups listed above but others such as Iraqi Veterans Against the War. No, the only one being “untruthful” at least is Mr. Melendez and his party. The Minnesota DFL Party website makes this absurd claim:

The ad then states that the enemy in Iraq are the same terrorists responsible for 9/11, and images of Saddam Hussein are shown along with the Twin Towers. This tactic is misleading at best, as the 9/11 Commission Report states that there is no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attack.

In a word, that’s a “lie”. Neither ad places blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein or his defunct regime in Iraq. Instead both rightly claim that Coalition forces in Iraq are fighting the same al Qaeda which attacked us on 9/11 and was responsible for numerous other atrocities. There is no dispute about this, in fact Leftists have used this fact to claim that Bush is somehow responsible for a rise in terrorism by invading Iraq. Whatever one wishes to believe on that score, Mr. Melendez is deluding himself and others if he really believes that al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq now and has been at least since Saddam was removed from power.

I’ve seen both of these ads from PFA and find nothing objectionable about them. They are not political attack ads, unlike many from the Left, but argue in support for the war. Regardless of what anyone’s views on the war are this is hardly “unAmerican”. Besides being politically stupid for the Dems to take such a position, one has to wonder where all the whining about challenging people’s patriotism went on the Left? Lemme guess, Karl Rove put them up to this. Perhaps the man truly is an evil genius after all…

Hat tip: Power Line

Bush Goes All “Harriet Miers” In UAE Port Decision

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:08 pm - February 21, 2006.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America,War On Terror

Someone at The White House has lost his or her mind. Or Karl Rove is being investigated again and doesn’t have time to do gutchecks on stupid Administration decisions. Remember, we got Harriet Miers last year during the period where Rove was under intense scrutiny in “Plamegate.”

Whatever the reasons, those of you who think we never criticize President Bush on anything (and you are wrong) are going to love this from me today: Bush is nuts for threatening a veto of the United Arab Emirates port deal and defending this stupid decision. Nuts, nuts, nuts! These were Bush’s comments aboard Air Force One. (Hat tip – Michelle Malkin)

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We’ll treat you fairly.'”

Well, since we also should have been holding Middle Eastern-looking airline passengers to a different standard since 9/11, why not the company controlling our major ports? If we profiled at the airports, maybe 97-year olds and babies wouldn’t be getting frisked and our odds of catching would-be terrorists or those here illegally would be much higher. The ironic thing out of all of this is…. those whining the loudest about the UAE port deal are those also shouting the loudest to NOT do profiling at our airports. I say, DO BOTH!

I don’t care about the convoluted economic explanations as to why the deal might actually be good. And I know that it has nothing to do with actual security of the ports, but management of them. Doesn’t matter. Even Fred Barnes last night on FNC’s Special Report was doing mental gymnastics to try to rationalize this deal.

Not me. This is not only stupid, it is obviously stupid and makes me wonder who the hell is in charge right now at Homeland Security and, frankly, The White House as a whole.

All I need to know is this: we cannot have a Middle Eastern-run company running our ports when we are at war with much of the Middle East (either in a “hot” or “cold” way). We cannot have those who burn down neighborhoods over a cartoon suddenly overseeing one of our most vulnerable places of entry in our post-9/11 world. As someone said on the radio this morning in Charlotte, “that’s like having Bill Clinton provide security at a sorority party.”

President Bush…. what is going on?

Now that I’ve taken a stand against the President on this issue (among others), I suppose this makes me a liberal, Andrew?

*UPDATE @ 7PM: If CAIR, John McCain and Jimmy Carter are all for the port deal, there’s another good reason to be afraid… be very afraid!*

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

From Verdun to Fallujah

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:44 am - February 21, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror,World History

Today marks the 90th anniversary of the start of the Battle of Verdun, one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. That World War I (WW I) battle began with a German offensive aimed at crippling the French and ended with the French pushing the Germans back and regaining lost territory. When the battle was over, each side had suffered approximately 400,000 casualties, roughly half of that total being fatalities. (Some estimates put the total number of causalities closer to one million.)

More soldiers were killed at Verdun than the total number of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq. Even as the slaughter of Verdun helps us gain perspective on American losses in the current war, we recognize that one death is one death too many. And it’s impossible to measure the pain that each family who lost a loved one has suffered.

Despite the valor of many on those bloody fields ninety years ago, the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives at Verdun died in vain. The victors at Verdun — and of World War I — imposed harsh terms on the vanquished and so helped set the stage for the rise of Hitler, whose aggression they failed to challenge until it was too late. Less than a quarter century after Verdun, the next generation of Germans and French soldiers would face off in another bloody war and millions of Europeans would perish.

It is too soon to tell whether those Americans who died in Iraq have died in vain. If our project there succeeds, we will have helped promote our own security by defeating a tyrant who threatened the region and who sought the means to attack us. At the same time, we are helping democracy and freedom flourish in the nation that dictator once ruled with an iron fist.

Unlike the victors at Verdun, our leaders have, even before the war started, had an idea of the victory we wanted to achieve. Instead of humiliating Iraq as the Allies humbled Germany after WW I, we seek to rebuild our erstwhile adversary. On September 12, 2002, President Bush told the United Nations:

The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond.

Contrast that vision with the sinister maneuvering which caused World War I. The Austro-Hungarian general staff used the June 1914 assassination (by a Serbian nationalist) of their Archduke Francis Ferdinand to attack Serbia. Soon allies of the two nations joined in the fray and by the end of the year an entire continent was engulfed in war.