I guess either you are with America, or you are with the terrorists. ‘Nuff said.

Regards,
Peter H.

Brave Al-Sadr ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Al-Sadr turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Brav…

#9
Look, if the GOP wants to run on something opposed by at least 60% of the population,

You’d think if that were true and the libs are so righteous, they’d take responsibility, slap their dicks (which I don’t believe they have) on the table and cut the funding.

#10
I see that gay conservative is a proud member of the die hard 30%.

60% and 30% is 90% total. You’re missing 10% somewhere. I was edumacated in MS. public schools, but even I wouldn’t do that.

#15
America has already lost credibility in the world view, as evidenced by the recent moral lecturing we got from a thug like Putin,

You call that “moral”?

posturing that wasn’t greeted with derision and contempt like it should have been.

Imagine that.

America’s status has dropped so low that world leaders actually allow near-dictators like Putin and demagogues like Chavez to rail against us–and people listen.

Actually, if you look at the video, there weren’t that many people listening to Chavez and people were walking out the whole time.

So I see that you’re more concerned with doing what’s popular instead of what’s right?

#23
- are all tired of this senseless, awful war. Period.

So tell the libs to sack up, cut the funding and let the real bloodbath begin. Just think of all the unemployed Iraqis who could get jobs digging mass graves.

Let’s see in a few weeks how the glorious surge has gone. Because it seems like yet another mirage that gets us all hopeful for a few minutes,

Huh. It was a great idea until Bush decided to go that route. Just like invading Iraq was a great idea right up until Bush decided to do it. Funny how that works. Seems like the libs are always for something before their against it.

#27
That’s a lie.

You’re sorta right. I forgot about Lieberman. Otherwise, there’s at least 7 years of cold reality and the words and deeds of the liberal left to back up my claims. To use your only retort, “prove it”.

#35
Of course, I would like it if terrorism is completely eliminated, and that should be the final goal.

How does handing Iraq over to them achieve that goal?

#57
I wonder where all the Human Shields are today

Particularly the a$$clown who sold off all of his posessions to go.

I’d also like to add:

You know, watching the latest Zawahri video (and all the others), I’d say a good place for information on UBL’s whereabouts (assuming he’s alive) is to check the DNC’s mailing list and/or blast-fax list. Did anybody ever report where Howie got that loan to float the ’06 campaign?

Now stand up and tell the world that you would rather let innocent Iraqi civilians, the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, nephews, nieces, cousins of others, be tortured, mutilated, and killed by the thousands than US soldiers be disfigured.

Ask the families in the pictures of Iraq if they would rather their loved one be dead than disfigured.

And ask the US families how many Iraqis they would rather have die than for their loved one to be disfigured.

There’s a reason that leftists like you, jimmy, were covering up Saddam Hussein’s abuses in the name of dealing peace; as much as we Americans want peace, we’re not willing to allow dictators to do as they will to get it.

http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=marine

And more of the same.

Wonder what Joe Kennedy will say about this?

Regards,
Peter H.

“It is necessary to hit oil interests in all regions which serve the United States not just in the Middle East. The goal is to cut its supplies or reduce them through any means,” it said.
The group was behind the February 2006 failed suicide attack on the world’s largest oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia.

Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke while in the White House during World War I, and his speech was permanently damaged (his wife Edith gave daily press briefings).

King George VI of England had a persistant stutter, which made meetings with PM Churchill quite difficult – especially when both made addresses to the British Empire. Yet both of them persevered during World War II.

Eisenhower was not a “great communicator” either – but he brought the Korean War to a cease-fire.

Israeli PM Levi Eshkol was considered the “least likely to succeed” in the Knesset due to his un-telegenic appearance and monotone delivery. In fact, the nation preferred Defense Minister Moshe Dayan as the best successor to former PM David Ben-Gurion. Yet Eshkol successfully defended Israel against the combined Arab nations of Egypt, Syria and Jordan during the Six-Day War in 1967.

I’m sure there are other examples out there that I missed. But you get the general drift.

Regards,
Peter H.

What I meant to say is that he doesn’t speak nearly often enough. Every now and then he makes little spurts of communication. Like a few weeks of press conferences and apperances but then reverts back to silence, meanwhile every day the press is doing its best to spin this so that it seems nothing good is happening or that the enemy doesn’t really seem to exist and we’re there for no reason.

Politicial correctness and lack of will, primarily. Media bias plays a role, certainly. Hizbollah launched thousands of rockets against Israeli civilians last year, and yet the major news media were much more eager to paint Israelis as the aggressors, even if it meant pushing out altered fauxtographs.

There is a real question of why the western left is so eager to capitulate to Islamo-Fascism. Some have even suggested that there is a sort of Stockholm syndrome at work.

The real oddity is that the Left has enthusiastically joined the new fascists. Feminists on the Left have joined Islamofascists in blaming the United States — for being the fire brigade that is trying to put out the fire. The Left even defends women being pressured to wear the burqa, the ancient sign of women’s submission and sexual slavery in the most retrogressive kind of tribal Islam. Shari’a law prescribes exactly how women are to be physically slapped for failing to obey fathers and husbands. Feminists are silent.

To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left’s attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands.

Sounds good to me.

The arguments I’ve given today have been given by President Bush over and over, in speeches from 2001 to as recently as a month ago.

I think the media really does their best to “filter” the message, give banal misinterpretations of his speeches – or of Anna Nicole Smith – rather than his actual speech content, etc.

It’s been shown that MSM reporters supported Kerry in 2004 by 12:1. I think there is a cadre of aging Vietnam-era hippies out there, now leading the media, the upper CIA bureaucracy and the Democratic Party. For personal cultural reasons, they are silently committed to ignoring, distorting or denying everything Bush says. Because “he” said it. And as well, any information that might make Bush look sensible if it were known – such as the fact that Iraq really is the central front in the war with al Qaeda.

I agree with Vince’s criticisms also. Reagan faced some of the same vituperativeness, and had more natural charm and optimism and media savvy that let him work around it. Bush has not been great, on the communication side. But maybe not as much as people think. He has been saying a lot of these things, a long time.

Terrorism could be defeated relatively quickly if terror-leaders were punished instead of rewarded.

It sounds simple enough, and it may work. But why isn’t this being done now?

It is. They’re trying. Murtha, the Democrats and many others are not helping.

I’ll reiterate what I’ve said previously. I think the US military has to realign strategic thinking with the idea that the maximum amount of time US forces can be employed before political and media opposition erode public support is two years. If Bush had gone into Iraq in 2003 knowing the bulk of forces would have to be withdrawn in 2005, the war would have been fought very differently.

The War against Islamo-fascism, in a sense, has been going on for several hundred years, ever since the Holy Land was over-run and the Islamo-fascists of old tried to over-run Europe before being turned back. Terrorism isn’t even so much of a new tactic as it is an old tactic with modern weapons, including nuclear.

What would be good for either party or both to do together is for those who are serious about winning to get together, consult with military strategists, and draw out a long-term strategy not for cutting and running, not for carrying on with the current policy, but something strong and innovative whose end-goal is a world in which terrorism is not a factor. I think Bush’s initial policy of democratizing the mideast had some of that flavor, since pluralistic Democratic regimes would be a strong bulwark against Islamo-fascism, but I don’t think he imagined that there would be so many people, in the middle east and in America, so opposed to Arab democracy.

It sounds simple enough, and it may work. But why isn’t this being done now?

Bush could’ve been a modern day Cicero and it wouldn’t have mattered. Contra the right-wing position that the American people are irrational boobs that are easily manipulated by glowing reports and shiny objects, they’re actually pretty rational. Way back in ’03 they said they wouldn’t support the war if it got to this point, and now they don’t support it.

I watched Bush’s press conference today, since the ice storm is keeping me home. He finally touched on one of the argument’s presented here, I think. He mentioned that some nations will not do the right thing because of money. He may have been alluding to France and Russia’s financial involvement with Saddam. This is an example of what he should have been saying continuously and uncryptically as an explanation of why he haven’t received more international support.

I think that reducing terrorism – specifically, Islamo-fascist jihadism – to a genuine “nuisance level” where the jihadists are powerless to do much, would be a huge step forward. If we could do it for real, not as some fantasy, or some act of burying our heads in the sand like ostriches.

So again, it’s a question of how we can get there. And abandoning the fight – abandoning Iraq and/or Israel to the jihadists – would, as V points out, be rewarding the jihadists with a gigantic, historical success. Such a success would, I think, virtually guarantee nuclear bombs going off in LA, New York and Washington within ten years.