One of the most liberal news organizations in the nation has now turned on the Democrat Party’s plan for surrender to al-Qaeda in the Battle of Iraq — “Do We Really Need a General Pelosi?” OUCH!
After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he’ll veto it, as well he should.
It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.
By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It’s absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.
Congress should not hinder Bush’s ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president’s ability to maneuver at this critical juncture.
And most rational Americans agree at this point. We have reached a whole new level — and it is a far cry from the Vietnam Era which Liberals continue to wallow in. The Democrats have not only surrendered to al-Qaeda, they have surrendered their party’s principles to the Angry Left.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
First NBC, now the LA Times. What gives? Must be Karl Rove’s mind-numbing death ray at work. I bet the gaggle of “The View” will have a cow over this…
Regards,
Peter H.
It’s the perception that, as the LATimes writes, that certain politicians are “interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs,” that brings the accusations of treason or being unpatriotic. I’d disagree that the non-binding resolutions, and speeches and idiot comments by officials (Murtha, Gore, etc.,) don’t count, but I agree that passing a law to take over control is worse.
It’s the perception that people really do want us to lose so that they can gain domestic political power.
And for those who insist that this is not what is going on, that the “loyal opposition” is not trying to make us lose so they can win, look at what will happen, politically, to any on the “left” who speak as though we ought to do what is necessary to win.
There is a reason why the “loyal opposition” (yes, “scare quotes” are on purpose) doesn’t follow charges of “mismanagement” or statements that a military solution won’t work (a truism that becomes a lie if left at that) with a push for the implementation of non-military programs in parallel, (because it would turn out we’re doing those sorts of things *too*.) Oh, probably it’s not because they are disloyal so very much, but because they are self-interested and short-sighted.
“And most rational Americans agree at this point.”
I love the baseless assertions thrown around here. Especially in the face of contravening evidence, like the poll results yesterday clearly indicating that most americans don’t think the Dems will go far enough to stop the war.
I also love that after years of hearing “but the democrats don’t have a plan of their own” and months of hearing “but the democrats don’t have the spine to do what they said they would do”…. NOW, the democrats finally have a plan, and they seem to be gutsy enough to try to pull it off, and all we hear about is how “irresponsible” the plan is.
You know what is irresponsible? Starting a war to destabilize a SECULAR regime as part of larger a war against islamic fundamentalists…and diverting resources from Afghanistan to do it.
When we lefties pointed that out before the war, we were labelled “irresponsible” and roundly ignored.
When all you “patriots” can actually get something right, maybe we’ll start listening…but for now, I’ve had enough of this self-righteous “dems are so irresponsible” bullshit.
The post is correct in principle, but does anybody really think that Congress’ prosecution of the Iraq war would have been handled any worse than the Bush administration to date has handled it?
A fun, yet irrelevant comment musing, James.
The US Constitution does not allow Congress to manage the war.
If America wanted a new Commander in Chief during the War on Terror, they had the chance in 2004. And for the first time since 1988, Americans voted for a President with a majority vote.
One more thing:
The anger you “patriots” feel towards those citizens who you believe are stabbing the country in the back… the anger towards those citizens who, you believe, are really responsible for our non-victory in Iraq…. that anger is precisely the same emotion (from the same root cause) that motivated Hitler.
Am I calling you Hitler? no. I’m saying you have the same emotions of anger and resentment in your hearts.
You should really consider what the implications of harboring those emotions will be for yourself. You should really consider whether that’s very healthy for your soul.
I suspect contemplation and introspection would do you well…perhaps you might even figure out that the people who were in charge when everything went wrong are actually responsible. That GWB lost the war, and your refusal to admit it hurts our country more than anything the Dems are doing now.
ME — I’d suggest a mirror as your first stop on your trek in finding anti-American anger.
#7 – ME needs to remember that an ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Regards,
Peter H.
Whats clear to me is that you anti-american folks have absolutely no clue to the extent that of the resolve , detemrination, and correctness (to them) of Muslim threat to the entire West.
You people are playing nothing but partisan political games when you dont understand the physical security of this country absolutely depends upon not giving the Jihadis any sense of victory whatsoever. They are on a religion mission to destory us, and you people are assisting.
If I was the President, I would start locking up Congressmen who making trouble. That’s how serious this is.
Egad.
First of all the idea that we’ve lost in Iraq. Bull pucky. War is hard and the problem that we face is complex and is going to take more than a military victory because there must be a reform of a culture, not just the bombing of a building. The fact that war is hard and that the enemy actually fights back does not equate to a loss and the fact that some people think it *does* just means that they are complete idiots.
There have been voices saying we lost from before we even started. The cost and even the duration of this war doesn’t begin to compare to other wars (there are single *battles* in other wars where more of our soldiers died than have died yet in this one). We’re supposed to think that it actually means something when someone claims we’ve lost?
Still, let’s suppose this is a “loss”… what possibly idiocy would maintain that we can’t win? We’re the most powerful country in the world and if we *want to* we can win. If we *want to* we have the ability to do whatever is necessary to win. If someone isn’t calling for that, then it’s not uncalled for at all to point out that they simply perfer that we lose.
And Congress would not have done equally well because Congress is a committee. This comes under the category of, DUH!
It’s nearly impossible to reason with either the administration or its supporters when they’re fighting some imaginary war with Al Queda in Iraq, believe that the Constitution does not DEMAND that the Congress check the administration ESPECIALLY in times of war, and thinks that if we babysit a civil war that has been waged since the 7th Century we’ll “win.” Whatever solution Congress comes up with will be better than the abject failure of this President’s bloody mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that’s damning it with faint praise. And while we’re on the misplaced WWII analogies — present Iraq is what you get when you react to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor by throwing all your might against Mongolia.
“the physical security of this country absolutely depends upon not giving the Jihadis any sense of victory whatsoever. They are on a religion mission to destory us, and you people are assisting.”
You hyperventilating righties need to understand something:
Global terrorism will not destroy America. They can bomb, and awfully take innocent lives but they can not “destroy” us.
What can destroy America? Lets look at Latin America – China is crafting deal after deal to shore up their natural resources. Russia and China are selling them weapons – Since they control the spare parts of these weapons, they control these countries and the US now has almost no influence.
The same is happening in Africa and developing Asia and the other countries in the Middle East.
Our economy is held hostage by China and its only a matter of time until they attack Taiwan – And we will be able to do nothing.
This does not even mention the debt owned by the Japanese and Saudis
Our debt is rising and our commitments are doubling. And we have no plan to either pay for that or cut that.
Its these realities that will destroy this country and our way of life.
Yet you insaniacs with your talk of clash of cultures, us vs them bull crap are only playing into the hands of the terrorists.
They want war, they want destruction because that is their game. And you righties are bending over, offering your bare ass and saying, let’s play!
Who is destroying us? It’s the simple minded right wingers who are trying to play the enemy’s game and not look at the big picture.
Jeez.
keogh: You dont understand anything about the Koran, the Hadith or the Sirah. Nor do you know atht the Method of Mohemmed is.
Nor do you know what is in Islamic Eschatology.
Nor do you know waht the Muslims themselves say and think about what they’re doing.
Guess what fool… this has nothing to do with our governemtn and everything to do with our religion or lack of.
For the first time in probably a very long we have an enemy who isn’t just at war with our govt but every single one of us and if you cause us to leave Iraq and giving them the impression they drove us out, you will be compounding thier sense of religious justification.
That’s the bottom line.
It doesnt matter how many mistakes Bush made, or if he lied, or if there were WMDs or not.
This movement is from 6th Century and has been revived with the resources the Arab received from oil. Before oil , the Arabs were spent as a force. THen they were given money for the stuff they stand on top of and instead of forming normal society, they did just wahat thier religion told them to.
You bertter understand this and give up your totally inane political nonsense.
Oh and give us a break by searching for every other problem in the world as if that invalidates the major problem with Muslims.
What’s funny is , is that if we actually went about trying to solve those other problems then you’d be crying about how we’re ignoring Islamic Jihad.
You people aren’t very original. and your protests are very transpanant to me. You aren’t prepared to give this country credit for anything , no matter what.
And that’s I think you are a fcking joke
Bravo, Vince. Very well put.
Regards,
Peter H.
Our economy is held hostage by China and its only a matter of time until they attack Taiwan – And we will be able to do nothing.
Actually, we can bring China to its knees very easily with one word — “embargo”.
You see, keogh, over the years, China has in essence loaned us an enormous amount of money to buy their exports.
If we stop buying their exports, they’re stuck with a bunch of IOUs; we have the stuff.
Sure, they could try to put the IOUs out on the world market and crash our Treasury bonds and such globally, but the lower they go, the more our debt is reduced — which means we are paying less and less on our debt and the interest to maintain it, and which frees up an enormous amount of domestic credit and cash.
In the meantime, minus our demand, their supply will pile up — which drives the price of their goods down and reduces the amount of money they are able to bring into their economy.
In short, think of China as a store that is dependent upon consumers who buy on credit. If they ever call their bill, we’ll stop buying — and if we stop buying for any reason, they’ll go bankrupt. They’ve traded tangible goods for intangible currency instruments — and they’ll never get the goods back; if they crater the currency instruments, they’ll have nothing.
Good lord. The libs aren’t right about anything. They were for the war until it got hard. Leftists always want to fight “over the next hill” never here.They were against standing up to the USSR until it collapsed, then they rejoiced and said how they helped Reagan bring it down. They were for a nuclear freeze at 1980 levels and Reagan said no we can eliminate the MAD threat. Who was right? Leftists said welfare reform would leave children starving in the streets…now instead we have to deal with childhood obesity. Welfare rolls are down 30% from 20 years ago. Liberals were against lowering tax rates…now we have an economy the envy of even the western euros. They are always wrong. And you can’t leave serious decisions in their hands. For like after Carter and Clinton, it always takes Republicans to clean up the messes.
Oh look what the friendly Muslims are doing in Australia… and gee,, what is their own justification for what it is they are recommending.. When Muslims reach a certain critical mass they go from being inoculious to becoming troublemakers and then underminers of society…
HARDLINE Muslim clerics are encouraging their followers to cheat the tax system because they consider paying income tax contrary to Islamic law.
Muslim leaders have warned that fundamentalist imams who put sharia law ahead of Australian law are also condoning welfare fraud and the cash economy as tax-evasion methods.
Sydney-based Islamic leader Fadi Rahman told The Australian that the extremist clerics who were preaching messages against paying income taxes were also staunchly opposed to Western ideologies, including the Australian way of life.
He said he had heard hardline clerics at Friday sermons in Sydney highlight the importance of cheating the tax system.
“I mean, just like how you’ve got clerics (with) extreme views who are telling the Muslims in the Western world to declare war against the very country that they live in and the very country that is paying for their day-to-day life, you’ll find that these are the clerics who are telling them to dodge the tax system,” said Mr Rahman, a youth leader and the president of the Independent Centre for Research Australia.
“Tax, itself, is not allowed in Islam. So they (clerics) encourage them that if there’s any way that you can dodge paying the tax, then you should do it.”
Back to the original topic at hand:
Speaking to the LA Times’ headline, we do NOT need a “General Pelosi.” (Sounds like a refrigerator brand.)
How can she manage the “loyal opposition” on the war? She can’t even handle protestors on her own doorstep!
Let’s face it – Golda Meir she ain’t.
Regards,
Peter H.
Cheney is speaking out… good.
Anti-war lawmakers in Congress are “undermining” U.S. troops in Iraq by trying to limit President Bush’s spending requests for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that’s been called ‘slow bleeding,’ they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them,” Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it’s time to provide the money,”
“We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure,” Cheney said.
“When members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines and other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out,” he said.
Cheney said the House’s nonbinding vote against troop increases in Iraq last month was an example of “twisted logic” and “not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.”
Cheney added, “Very soon, both houses will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill to provide emergency funding to the troops, and I sincerely hope that this time, the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq.”
Speaking before a packed crowd at the Washington Convention Center, Cheney said it was one of several disturbing “myths” that one could support the troops and at the same time not give them what their commanders say they need to win.
Other myths are that Iraq is not central to the war on terrorism and that withdrawing from Iraq would somehow help the war on terrorism, the vice president said.
Cheney warned that terrorists would continue to attack the United States and its friends if they saw them retreating in the face of continued deadly insurgent attacks.
I saw that too, Vince. Good for him for pointing out the obvious.
Regards,
Peter H.
Folks, please. Bushco ruined the war by trying to do it on the cheap. He is using the National Guard so he does not have to employ a draft – which the public will not support. Bushco has Fox News’ support, and nothing else – except for maybe some of you blogging here today. If you support Bushco, you are a loser and unamerican. With your help, he has managed to keep the Irag lie going. At this point, I am sure you all have so much emotion and reverence for Bushco that no amount of reality will pry you from it – but I am always hopeful. I am hopeful you will look into the eyes of your children and promise them you will pay more attention to their future, rather than blindly supporting ‘dear leader’. Dear leader will send your children to battle in far away lands for corporate interests. Your children will realize your error and stubborness. May God have mercy on your souls – I don’t.
Gene –USSR collapsed because of corruption, structural weakness, Gorby’s freer interpretation of communism, as well as his personal relationship with Regan. Not because Regan tried to outspend and out nuke them. -that just put us into debt. Thankfully Clinton made sure that kids wouldn’t be left in the streets and I am pretty sure Bush is going to leave behind one hell of a mess for the dems to mop up.
NDT- What kind of economic school of thought do you adhere to?
By “intangible currency instruments” – you mean dollars given for goods in return. To claim they are intangible is a little strange
“embargo” China – Imagine empty stores – no employees, no tax revenues, no commerce., rampant bankruptcy! Empty warehouses no employees nothing to buy nothing to sell. Yikes!
“we have the stuff” – that would be true if that “stuff” appreciates in value. Sadly most mercantile goods depreciate…
Vince – You are right, some Muslims suck, but they are not going to Take Over or Destroy America. – OK? Step away from the cliff you are anxious to jump off.
Further #19 –How insane has the right become that their rally cry is now “Ask no questions, give me your money”
Have a nice night
What is a Bushco?
Regards,
Peter H.
Tom: Bill Clinton is the one who gave George Bush a military that was half the size of the one that was given to him.
Do you think that the decimation of the miiltary in the 1990s has anything to do with the limited resources now?
To listen to you nutjobs go on about “readiness” what does it say that when the time has come to use the military in Iraq , it’s not ready.
What do you say about that?
Peter: I should give you my “Debate with a Leftist” BINGO cards.. The game is always usually over very quickly.
Tell that to the Persians.. Tell that to Greek civlization on Antonella.
Tell that to Constantinople. To the Copts. To the Jewish tribes in Arabia. To the Byzthanines
Do you know why they didn’t take over Europe?
BECAUSE THEY WERE FOUGHT IN WAR FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
You take it for granted magic forces have held them back. You are ignorant of history.
#22 That’s what the National Guard is *for*. That’s why they train with guns and have war related missions (POW units are all National Guard, AFAIK).
Oh gawd, I didn’t read past that… maybe I shouldn’t have.
I figure that anti-war sorts have mostly rational reasons even if they are wrong. But someone can’t support the war and see Islamists as a legitimate threat without being completely blind worshipers of “Bushco” who will send our children to war in far off places even though not even my oldest will be old enough to go long after Bush is out of office?
Every so often I get this urge, it’s really rather overwhelming, to get some bumper stickers printed that say “Bush ‘O8”.
The reactions would be priceless.
Synova: Don’t you love how completely irrelevent their objections are to the actual reality.
As if the age of one or two soldiers in the American military has anything to do with the belief and support of Jihad.
As if snarky names are somehow power in themselves.
Leftists are the kindergarteners of politics.
That times article is based on a false premise, espically in its mention of WWII and the American Civil War. Unlike Iraq, our own civil was was being fought on our soil and affected every citizen of the country. In WWII, there actually was overwhelming public support to fight the Axis forces. Bush & company’s leadership in this matter has been nothign short of disastrous. The article mentions “adjustments to his team”. This would have been somewhat believable if these changes came out becuase of recognizing failed policy – not simply because the leadership of congress changed. pretty much any time bush had made a change, it’s only because he’s forced to do so and that guy doesn’t hide his resentment too well.
WW2 had overwhelming public support?
In which alternate reality?
#22 That’s what the National Guard is *for*
Comment by Synova
What a foolish thing to say. Of course they are not trained to fight an endless war – that’s what the army, navy, marine, air force are for. National Guard units – although very capable – are not trained to do what Bushco is asking them to do. How can you even begin to rationalize bushco’s decisions with regard to sending the wrong people to his vanity war? Your belief is reason to think you have been led down the path by dear leader. You need to start asking questions and demanding answers – rather than cheerlead for this band of criminals.
Vince, you’re foolish. I know your brain is stuck on stupid, but Clinton has not been president for a LONG TIME. A LONG TIME Vince. 6 years of bushco – with a compliant congress – has brought us to this place. Not Clinton, not Carter, Not Reagan, Not Grover Cleveland, Not Benjamin Harrison – nobody but Bush. Your hands are dyed with the blood of many Americans; due to your reverence for the insulting little man presently living in the WH. I feel sorry for you. I really do.
Kevin: Do you have the capacity to think? Why aren’t you examining the consequences of what you’re proposing?
You certainly aren’t offering any suggestions as to what should have been done.
How does making the same Bush-bashing statements over and over go to the mission of the war, the consequencs of it.. etc. Why are you so obtuse to the fact that the significance of teh war goes far beyond your personal loathing of Bush?
Tom: what is Bushco?
I noticed , like kevin, Tom thinks that if he can slam Bush enough than that makes the Jihad disappear. The Leftist thinks that if take down the people who stand up to evil that the evil will go away.. Well it doesn’t. The evil wins. And you helped it happen.
By Evan Sayet:
In my series of lectures entitled “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think’”, I summarize the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party’s philosophy by saying that “in order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”
The Modern Liberal is convinced that rational and moral thought is so contaminated by one’s predispositions and prejudices that the only way to eliminate the evils of discrimination from society is to eliminate all thought. It’s why the “think” in the title of my talks is in quotation marks. The reality is that Modern Liberals not only do not think, they consider thought to be an act of evil.
…
It is not a surprise, in fact it could be no other way, then, that in San Francisco — the most Liberal city in America — thousands of people marched down the street recently in favor of Hezbollah, the vicious terrorist organization seeking not only the destruction of the democracy of Israel, but an oppressive Caliphate the world over.
Nor is it surprising to see these same folks championing Tookie Williams, the founder of America’s most vicious and murderous terror gang. Nor is it surprising that in France — the de facto capitol of today’s Democrat party — Jews are murdered on streets named after cop killers and terrorists.
…
It’s why the Democrats adore the United Nations, where there is utter indiscriminateness of thought, with no special rewards for good and free and democratic nations like, say, Australia, nor any special punishments for the most murderous of terror states like The Sudan. Here, too, indiscriminateness of thought does not bring about indiscriminateness of policy, but rather an incessant attack upon one of the great states of the world, Israel.
Tom: what is Bushco?
Comment by Vince P
I have read your posts before, sir. You are a bright individual – admittedly, from another point of view. You, I, and the planet knows what the reference of ‘Bushco’ suggests. Please don’t give an impression that you are unaware of the meaning. I also noticed this gem:
How does making the same Bush-bashing statements over and over go to the mission of the war, the consequencs of it.. etc. Why are you so obtuse to the fact that the significance of teh war goes far beyond your personal loathing of Bush?
Comment by Vince P
I’m curious because you never laid the blame for the condition of this debacle at the feet of the man who created it. It is amazing that you would question the motives of another blogger about his/her opinion of Bush, but never admit that the awful conditions you post about are the direct result of the decisions and behavior of one man – Mr Bush. BTW: I don’t think most ‘lefties’ (or whatever you call them) hate bush AS A PERSON. We dislike his decisions, behaviros, cronyism, incompetence, secrecy, signing statements, spying, etc…These behaviors are what we dislike about the president – not simply the President/ can you understand that concept? It really is that easy. We don’t like his decisions, and the way his decisions have created a more dangerous world for all of us. It’s his DECISIONS – not the man.
Tom and Kevin embody what Evan is saying. All they can see is the bad in people who stand up to evil. Why? because the peolpe who stand up to evil (according to Tom and Kevin) are thereby putting themselves up as being perfect. And because no one isperfect, the Leftists must drag down someone like Bush.
Meanwhile, you have millions of adherents to islam who believe its their job to turn the entire planet to Allah, and Tom adn Kevin COULD NOT CARE LESS about them.
Kevin and Tom have profound psychological problems and are no in position to judge any good person.
See Tom’s response?
He hates Bush so much that the facts of the Iraqi situation pre the invasion do not matter to him.
He doesnt care the population was under heavy suffering from the UN sanctions. He doesnt care that the state was totalatarian and people were being thrown into plastic shredders , or depraved in rape rooms.
He hasn’t bothered to find out what the Iraqis think today. Because had he, he would know that they all prefer Iraq the way it is now compared to how it was then. That’s how bad it was then.
All they see are failures on Bush’s part, because Bush did something exceptional. And well, that’s not allowed.
Kevin and Tom have profound psychological problems and are no in position to judge any good person.
Comment by Vince P
You are wrong, sir. In a DEMOCRACY I have the absolute right (and obligation) to have an opinion and judgement about the employees serving at my pleasure. You want a dictatorship where you have no thoughts, feelings, opinions, choices, etc. Democracies are a little different. You may want to dust off the Constitution and re-read it. It is a facinating document, written by some very smart people – you may have heard of some. They also wanted you to be somewhat distrustful of government – for very good reasons. Shoot, even you have the right to judge.
#33 What a stupid thing to say.
The National Guard is made up of specialized units that are not always duplicated among active duty military. A good example are POW missions. The active duty military has no need to maintain these in peacetime and will not develop them in wartime just because a conflict lasts longer than a tour or two. So what a silly thing to say and how illuminating of your ignorance about the military and it’s missions.
Reserve units as well tend toward specialized missions that are not duplicated. I once investigated joining a unit that’s sole mission was medical transport. Are they a stop-gap until the active duty military gets units up to snuff to take over when the week-end warrior clock runs out and they all go home? Heck no. They rotate with other medical evac units who have similar war-time only missions. Because, beleive it or not, it’s during war that the military needs medical evacuation on a large scale. It’s not needed during peace-time and the peace-time military does not maintain adequate specialized units.
Don’t be so silly, Tom.
All they see are failures on Bush’s part, because Bush did something exceptional. And well, that’s not allowed.
Comment by Vince P
Sir, let’s not give too much credit here. Invading a soverign nation – without the UN’s approval to invade – is not exceptional. Before bushco, we called people who invaded other countries by other names – and the term used was not ‘exceptional’.
Tom: I didnt mean to say you didn’t have the legal right to say what you want. I said you dont have the right to judge those who are better than you. In other words, your opinion is unjustified and because the people who seek to diminish are better than you, by definition, you dont have the credentials to make that sort of judgement.
That’s what I meant by you dont have the right. Excuse for me speaking imprecisely.
I hope you’re very distrustful of Congress especially as it seeks to upsurt the authorities the Constitution gives to teh Executive. Any party that would violate the constitution in such a way during war is very dangerous.
The United States does not have a Parliament. The President does not answser to Congress.
Don’t be so silly, Tom.
Comment by Synova
We both know that there are always circumstances which require a specialty or some sort of specialist to carry out those missions – so yes – through the years all kinds of exceptions were made to adjust to changing tactics or conditions. It is fantasy to say that it is the main duty of an enlistee in the Natrional Guard to fight in the ways they have been used. We are not talking here about POW missions, sir. Please. We are talking about carrying out the functions of a combat unit in a theatre of war. that is vastly different that what you suggested.
The President does not answser to Congress.
He answers to the American people, sir. Also to suggest I am better than anybody is – well – you words, not mine. I am modest,and here sharing thoughts (sometimes nasty ones) with you because maybe I can learn something I did not know. Mybe another point of view is needed by me. Maybe another point of view is needed by yourself. Again, respectfully, I suggest you read the constitution as it is very clear concerning the separation of powers. As I mentioned, it is a facinating document.
#45 No, it’s not different. And in essence your assertion that this is not the proper job of the National Guard rests on your approval of the mission overall. National Guard units are doing the jobs that they have trained to do whatever those jobs are. Some of our most notable heroes, such as Sgt. Hester were from Guard Units (hers was a military police unit). While the National Guard does an awful lot of disaster relief functions domestically they train for missions that they do not carry out in peacetime (active duty military police have bases to guard and drunk soldiers to arrest) and the only purpose for their training is to be avaliable during a war.
That you think that this particular war is bad is entirely irrelevant to that.
And yeah, being in a guard unit and deployed sucks every bit as much as being in an active duty unit and being deployed sucks, but it’s the agreement that was made.
We could, instead, keep all the military we could possibly ever need in active duty at all times but that would be far more costly than keeping reserves trained and available with regular weekend duty.
We could, instead, keep all the military we could possibly ever need in active duty at all times but that would be far more costly than keeping reserves trained and available with regular weekend duty.
Comment by Synova
I agree with this statement. We absolutely need a well trained armed forces, ready to act on the CIC command. No problem with that. I also agree that the National Guard is necessary to achieve these goals (and be victorious) But again, with the days of reality in mind, we are at war. If this war (or whatever popular title it has been given) is the ‘war of our time’ , then why no draft? It was sort of clear some time ago that more troops were needed. More armor was needed. If we are fighting for ‘our right to exist’, then why are we not doing everything we can? My point before was Mr Bush did this war on the cheap. I supported his thinking back then, but the general American population was not asked to sacrifice as a way to contribute to this WWIII (as some have called it) I agree WWII had support. Do you remember savings bonds, war bonds, victory gardens,gas rationing, etc… Do you remember those times? I do. I was there. It was a major sacrifice for ALL Americans – not just the braves soldiers and their families. Anyway, all I am saying is that we should have either gone in with full guns (so to speak), or simply not at all. To do the war, without an overwhelming force, IMHO, was not a good idea. That idea does not make me CIC. It does make me smarter than anyone. it is my OPINION.
Tom: Bush was reelected in 04. The American people did speak. The Republicans lost in 06 becaue they stopped acting like Republicans and the base stayed home. The Democrats had to shift to the Right for thier candidates to be likable. Those facts alone do not jive with the fiction taht the 06 election was on the war.
Then you said this
I had said this
Um , what am I missing from the Consitution that I have to re-read it? I dont know what you’re referring to.
The people in the military today have signed up after 9/11 and after the start of the Iraq war in 03. They joined because they want to fight.
You want them to waste their time doing nothing.
If I was in the military , I would tell you to STFU,.
What name did you call Clinton? I missed it.
Um , what am I missing from the Consitution that I have to re-read it? I dont know what you’re referring to.
Comment by Vince P
Two things:
1. 04 Bush won. Today at about 27%. We really need to drag you into the present day. Clinton is not president anymore. The election Mr Bush won in 04 was (again) mired in balloting irregularities and other stuff. But fair is fair, he won. Now except for the kool- aid drinkers, peolple have seen the real man. they don’t like what the real man has become. Present day polling has Mr Bush as being not so hot, no?
2. Again you are writing YOUR WORDS about the soldiers enlisting after 9/11 and 2003. I am gratefull they have chosen to serve. I am proud of them (I live 20 minutes south of Camp Pendelton & 500 yrds away from MAS Miramar). So don’t you even start suggesting I had anything but pride and admiration the the soldiers. No such thing from me, sir. It came from YOU! YOU wrote it, not ME! DO NOT PUT WORDS IN OTHERS PEOPLES MOUTHS. Thoughtful posters will see through your classroom debate tactics.
1 – The Constitution doesn’t alter the powers based on opinion polls. And as much as the Constitution says anything about popular opinion, it was that popular opinion should be diminished as basis for policy as much as possible. So citing a poll is a very poor justification for whatever your point is.
2 – You want the US to leave Iraq in failure. In other words, you want to render everything the US Military has done moot.. in fact you want to make what they have done to be a basis for even more attacks against the US done by undeterable religious fanatics.
I wish there were words worse than traitor because I’m getting sick of the word.
For you people who want us to retreat from Iraq. you should consider the words of this reporter who has just returned from there and take them to heart
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/14/video-upis-pentagon-reporter-says-media-is-ignoring-consequences-of-withdrawal/
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/10/video-upi-reporter-gets-emotional-over-iraq/
More stories of the tide turning in Iraq… lets see how the Democrats accelerate our defeat:
Jihadist Meltdown
BY NIBRAS KAZIMI
March 12, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/50244
There is always a moment during a raging battle when one side realizes that the field has been won, and the other side collapses in retreat and confusion. The curious thing about the Iraqi insurgency is that this moment has arrived, yet both the victors, in this case the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the losers, Al Qaeda and the other jihadist groups, are reluctant to acknowledge it.
But make no mistake, the battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a jihadist meltdown.
Six months ago, many of the strategists behind the Sunni insurgency, faced with a more effective counterinsurgency effort, began to wonder just how long they could keep their momentum given their diminishing resources and talent. These strategists realized that their “resistance” would just peter out over time, as classical insurgencies tend to do. Some argued that, given one last push, the Americans would be sufficiently distressed to grab at cease-fire negotiations that would end with a hasty American withdrawal, leaving the insurgents to work things out with a much-weakened Iraqi government on more favorable terms.
Others, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the organization founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, saw that there was no future for their vision of establishing a Taliban-like state should these negotiations with the Americans get underway, which would only serve to strengthen the hand of the rival insurgent factions that counsel this course.
This sense that they were running out of time compelled Al Qaeda to take a bold initiative of declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq four months back, appointing the hitherto unknown Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as its head. This was no propaganda stunt for Al Qaeda. This was the real thing: the nucleus state for the caliphate, with al-Baghdadi as the candidate caliph.
But this was a fatal strategic mistake for Al Qaeda, a mistake that threatens to pull down all the other jihadist insurgent groups along with it. Al Qaeda tried to leap over reality, but it was a leap into the abyss of uncertainty. Trying to pick a caliph is fraught with historical and judicial complications since there is no historical precedent — not even from the time of the Prophet Muhammad — that would serve for an uncontroversial transfer of power. It is one of the most delicate ideological matters among jihadists, a matter so sensitive that most of them have decided to leave it aside for the time being lest it result in splintering off dissenters.
[lot more snipped.. go to the page and read it]
http://talisman-gate.blogspot.com/2007/03/jihadist-meltdown.html
Vince,
Your comments are verging upon extreme paranoia.
Get a grip
Seriously man, you need to get away from your computer, and realize that the world is still turning, and you are hyperventilating.
Its not traitorous to demand new tactics, especially if what we are doing is not working, to suggest otherwise if a logical fallacy.
Its not traitorous to say that while focusing on Iraq, we have lost the big picture in the WOT. Just because you may disagree does not make the other side anti-patriotic.
This has nothing to do with the, Seleucid Greeks, Umayyad and other caliphs or even the Maccabees (who taught the Arabs how to beat a western imperial power) It’s a modern struggle and cannot be won through force.
That is what makes this so hard.
Turn off the Hannity Show, go outside, breathe.
#48 “…why no draft?”
Because of the nature of modern warfare and the demands of training. During this war *without* a draft, we’ve been increasing the size of our military approximately at the same rate that Clinton reduced it during his presidency. This means that our training requirements, once reduced, have also needed to be expanded, simply to handle volume as well as to accomodate new training requirements as we learn. Knowledgible instructors are needed. It’s not the case that draftees can be taught to march in formation and shoot an M-16 and head off to war with any expectation of being effective.
Even more than those practical concerns… who wants to fight next to and rely on someone who was torn from his mother’s apron strings, not *just* against her will but against his will? It’s much better to have a fighting force, well trained, who have chosen to be where they are, but not so large, than a large force of half-trained resentful soldiers, don’t you think?
“…but the general American population was not asked to sacrifice,”
Very true. Does it matter? Would being asked to sacrifice somehow make the conflict more noble or right? I know that people who bring this up are trying to get at something important but I think it’s probably something else. What about sacrifice, or being made to sacrifice or being drafted or some similiar standard from past conflicts, does anything other than make people miserable?
That this isn’t *so far* a conflict of such proportions that every man woman and child must be enlisted to the war effort doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. It *may* mean that we’ve been smart enough not to let it get that far before taking action.
keogh , the person who said
is going to say I’m paranoid. that’s too funny.
keogh is advocating altering our entire economy because of something called Global Warming, which isn’t even prooved (nor are its remedies) and he says I’m paranoid because I read the strategy papers of the jihadis.
hahha. keep em coming
#48 “Anyway, all I am saying is that we should have either gone in with full guns (so to speak), or simply not at all. To do the war, without an overwhelming force, IMHO, was not a good idea.”
I’ve often said that our armed forces should be used with intent or not at all. To go to war or don’t. If our military is used it should be used decisively. (This is what I don’t trust about Democrats usually, stuff like sending the military to Mogadishu and then turning tail because some soldiers got killed. If it wasn’t worth using the military as intended, if it wasn’t worth anyone *dying* then the military should never have been there.)
The question of overwhelming force in Iraq isn’t so easy because we can’t see what would have happened. Certainly our initial march to Baghdad was overwhelming, almost freakily so. After that point decisions had to be made on speculation and maybe they were wrong or maybe they weren’t so wrong but we can’t know because we can’t make the other choice and see if it turns out better. It may have been a mistake not to take control more firmly with an overwhelming occupying force, but if we had, the things they were trying to avoid by keeping our footprint small (not cheap, but *small*) might have happened as well. We can’t know. But it’s reasonable to believe that an overwhelming occupying force would be seen, undisputably, as occupiers. It would have been impossible to convince anyone at all that we wanted Iraq for the Iraqi people first and foremost. Among other things.
If it was the best choice, we can’t know anymore than we can know that our other choices wouldn’t have been even worse. At the very least it was a logical and reasonable approach.
synova: I agre with your points. Iraq is a tough nut. I almost wavered from supporting it last year (which I blame Bush’s abysmal home front leadership for).. but I been reminded about the stakes. Leaving is not an option.
And yes, our military had lots of top guys saying we should have a huge and conventional occupying force. It had a lot of top guys saying we should do what we did. The idea that Generals will all somehow agree on the best way to carry on a campaign is silly. They *always* fight over major changes in how warfare is carried on and are human enough to be convinced that they are right and others are wrong.
I bet the gaggle of “The View” will have a cow over this…
They already have a cow named Rosie.
You know what is irresponsible? Starting a war to destabilize a SECULAR regime as part of larger a war against islamic fundamentalists
Tell me, how SECULAR is it to have Allahu Akbar printed on your country’s flags? Would you call Bush SECULAR if he added In God We Trust to the US flag?
How about opening Mosques with the “country’s” money? How SECULAR is that? If Bush used our tax money to build churches, would you say he was SECULAR?
…and diverting resources from Afghanistan to do it.
POP QUIZ:
1. How many soldiers were in Afghanistan when the war in Iraq began?
2. How many soldiers are there now?
Thank you. You may sit in the corner now.
*giggle*
#59 – Vince, just a quick minute before I run out –
Global Warming IS proven, to the following extent:
– Every 1000 years or so (give or take a couple centuries), the Sun’s energy output hits a little peak. (“Little”, but big to us.)
– We had Warm Periods from 400BC-100AD, 900-1300, and – true to form – one today.
– Average global temperatures have risen about a degree in the last 100 years.
Don’t let fools like keogh imagine they have a monopoly on such basics.
What’s most definitely NOT proven – and in fact, not even credible – is the remaining steps in the keogh/Manbearpig agenda:
– That our current GW is somehow exceptional or unusual.
– That our current GW is somehow deserving of hysteria.
– That our current GW has all that much to do with carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas making up maybe 0.04% of our atmosphere, and dwarfed (on this planet) in its “Greenhouse power” by other atmospheric gases.
– That our current GW somehow isn’t following natural Sun cycles.
– That our current GW will somehow spin crazily out of control, if we don’t immediately flagellate ourselves by enacting a destructive Kyoto protocol that FAILS to reduce CO2 significantly, even when enacted.
– That Al Gore is somehow NOT a loony, lonely, and deeply self-centered (i.e., attention-seeking) guy.
#63 – VERY funny! Kudos!
And slightly O/T – Chuckie Schumer was on “The View” the day after being excoriated by Imus for his (shall we say) lack of intestinal fortitude when it came to de-funding the war. How I wish the MSM would treat liberals the way Imus treated Schumer!
That being said, he was immediately booked on “The View” for obvious reasons. He wanted to be among others who had no balls as well.
Hoorah.
Regards,
Peter H.
#58 & 59 & 65 – is the CEO of Exxon part of that conspiracy you insaniacs see behind every corner?
And yes Vince the fear, hysteria, shrillness and paranoia you show in every post is saddening to see.
You are the end result of the Right Wing Fear Machine as your paranoid panic seems to envelope everything you think, do, and feel.
Too bad.
The Iraq War is already lost.
Congratulations. The most potent military in the history of mankind got their lunches fed to them by a ragtag bunch of teenagers.
Impressive.
If you want to root the American military on to victory, maybe you should have them attack the Girl Scouts.
If you think Al Quaeda is actually an existential threat to western civilization…you are deluded.
How you can believe
1. That we are so big and powerful that OF COURSE we can still win in Iraq
AND
2. Al Quaeda represents an existential threat to the US
at the same time?
How can you fret about Al Quaeda taking over HERE in th US, while at the same time believing that we CAN beat them over THERE (where they are stronger)? It just doesn’t make sense.
What does make sense?
1. We can’t beat them there, because they 1 aren’t in control there, 2 will never be in control there and 3 aren’t even major players there. We can’t “win” in Iraq because there are 25 million of them and 150,000 of us. see Inurgency and gurilla warfare 101.
2. They can’t beat us here, because there are 300 million of us, and considerably fewer of them.
So yes, you “patriots” have everything ass backwards. Nothing new.
Ass for the asshats who said things like:
“ME needs to remember that an ugly American is one who does not support his country.”
I’d like to know where I said I didn’t support my country? I pay taxes like everybody else (more than most, in fact), I pledge allegiance to the flag, and I expect our leaders to be sane and not drive the country off a cliff.
What’s non-supportive about that? Oh, that I don’t support what GWB is doing to this country….right.
Next time a drunk gets in your car and strarts driving it around, crashing into shit and killing people, I’m going to be sure to comlain that you aren’t being “supportive”.
ME your analysis is shallow and completely devoid of historical persepective. Nor have you indicated your view of the enemy POV or morale. Just that “we’re big”. No we’re not that big.. we have half the country actively seeking our defeat, and tying up the government that is already broken. Your side presents a face of weakness to very determined killers, who in fact were counting on you idiots to do what you are currently doing. Way to go.
Seems that people are catching onto the irrationality of the Left.. “What’s Left” is a book by UK writer Nick Cohen, a Leftist who like Hitchens, is betrayed by the Left movement who have given up reason and everything they used to stand and who now stand with dictators and Islamic Jihadis.
Quote:
http://www.nickcohen.net/
What’s Left is being launched in Australia this week and there’s an interview with me by James Button of the Sydney Morning Herald here and a review by James Campbell of the Melbourne Age here.
I’ve got a piece in the Wall Street Journal here.
Meanwhile Paul Anderson of Tribune writes that he’s astonished by the failure of Leftish critics to get the book. He writes:
‘What started [Nick Cohen] off was the refusal of a large section of the democratic left to dissociate itself publicly from (mainly Leninist) apologists for the intolerable and the inexcusable in the wake of 9/11 – lest we forget, indiscriminate mass murder in New York and Washington DC. He then found much the same phenomenon in the anti-war movement of 2002-03, in the left’s response to 7/7 and in the left’s continuing obsession – on the whole – with banging on about whether invading Iraq was right, oblivious to the actual situation in Iraq. And, boy, do his leftist critics prove him right.
1. Not one left critical review of Cohen has admitted that he’s got a point when it comes to the disgraceful excuses for Islamist terror put out in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 by the New Statesman, the Guardian and others.
2. Not one has accepted that it was at best moronic for anti-war democratic leftists to acquiesce in the Socialist Workers Party, George Galloway and a reactionary Islamist pressure group – all of them de facto revolutionary defeatists when it came to the war, and thus not anti-war but protagonists of Saddam – appointing themselves as the leadership of the anti-war movement in 2002-03.
3. And not one has even engaged seriously with Cohen’s argument that, regardless of what you thought about the rights and wrongs of the war, what should matter for the left now, with Saddam overthrown and Iraq on the verge of civil war, is how to prevent a sectarian bloodbath there – not continuing a self-indulgent debate about the rights and wrongs of the decision to invade.
Vince P,
I was speaking to the lizard brains our there… you’re right… my post was lacking in real analysis because I was speaking to the lizard brains on their own terms. (they can’t get their enemies straight, for example, lumping alqaeda in with sunni and shiia locals, etc…)
Frankly, you have to dumb things down for people who have cartoonishly simple views of the world and who do not understand, nor care to understand, all those pesky reality-based details that get in the way of a good scare-story.
I’ve struggled with this… how to expose someone’s insanity in a way that they, being insane to begin with, would be able to comprehend…. it’s not easy.
But I was really just rehashing all of their over-simplistic “conclusions” to show how incongruent they are.
For a real serious discussion, we’d have to agree on reality, and that isn’t going to happen here.
I can’t keep track of all the silly cliches you guys use.. I have no who the lizards are.. nor do I want to know.
One thing is certain… the issue of Islam is horribly complex and due its very alien nature , it does take an incredible amount of attention as well as objectively to see it for what it truely is. Which of course means anyone trying to pursuade a Lefty about it has an impossible task, since Leftists are not objective and are not looking to find the truth and the solution to real problems.
For example, How many versions of cooersive collectivism is the Left going to try , at the cost of millions of war dead, and devastated countries before it gives up? Though I think the Left in Europe is near its end. They really screwed the European countries, they’re all on the verge of insolvancy, population collapse, and Muslim take over.
Oh look.. these stories are coming daily now….
Now the Muslims in Minneapolis who work in retail are refusing to deal with pork products a customer might want to buy. This is in addition to the Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis who will not drive you if you have liquor. or if yo’re blind and have a seeing eye dog.
We have to end all Muslim immingration to this country. What more proof is needed that these are not compatible with our society?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24784&only&rss
Minneapolis is the scene of yet another intrusion of extremist shari’a law into US society, as Muslim cashiers at Target stores are refusing to handle pork.
Of course, any bacon or pepperoni pizzas for sale at Target would be shrink-wrapped in plastic, then boxed in some kind of cardboard package, so no cashier could ever physically touch the dreaded pork.
But then, this really isn’t about the pork.
#74 – Vince, I hope to God you are kidding. Because if something like this is happening in the United States of America, where we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we took a wrong turn somewhere.
And I get sick every time I see a woman with a burkha, even though she has the same right to wear it as a Jewish man has a right to wear a yarmulke if he so chooses. But is it REALLY about the religious aspect? Or are you trying to make a statement?
You are in THE FREAKIN USA. Start assimilating, for God’s sake!
My grandparents gave up their babushkas and top hats when they emigrated here from Eastern Europe in the 1900s. My paternal grandfather fought on the US side against the Kaiser in WWI because the US Army offered him free citizenship if he did so.
There is a reason why we are called a melting pot, not a double-boiler.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter: Do you really want to lose it? View this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJweJ02Ar0c
Footage of a Muslim proselytization event at a public library. The footage shows how two Muslim chaplains practice the Islamically sanctioned deception techniques of taqiyya and kitman on the audience
It’s absolutely chilling the way these Muslims think they can take over one of our public libraries with thier oppressive tactics.
Peter the difference between a Jewish person wearing his headcap and the Muslim covering his women in tents is that Islam is a political ideology which expouses the universality of it. and Judiasm is not like that.
Wow.. check out this Web page of a newspaper in Mineapolis and see the comments.
http://www.buzz.mn/?q=node/898
More today:
Two US based Islamic websites have called on Muslims to kill the driver of a Georgia registered vehicle displaying an offensive bumper sticker.
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/03/storm-track-intimidation-thuggery-jihad.html
Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report writes that since the Gwinnett County (Georgia) authorities don’t seem to be taking this seriously, it might be a good idea to get the word out. Maybe we’ll all (readers and bloggers) get the ball moving and get an investigation moving. The following is a repost of what was received by email from The Jawa Report:
Two U.S. based Islamic websties have called on Muslims to kill the driver of a Georgia registered vehicle displaying an offensive bumper sticker. On February 28 the “Black Lion” blog, a website run by two American Muslims who support violent jihad, posted the license plate number of a Gwinnett County, Georgia motorist displaying a bumper sticker which read, “Kill em all, let Allah sort em out.” A thinly veiled threat encouraging Muslims to find the driver and kill him was also posted.
Another Muslim offended, another death threat issued.
When the posts were reported to the Gwinnett County Chief of Police’s office, the keystone cops were right on the case. The person who took her call responded with “What do you want me to do about it?”
For starters, how about finding the person targeted for death and letting them know that their life may be in danger?!?! Then, how about contacting the FBI, just down the road in Atlanta, so they can open an investigation!?!?
In the meantime, “The Black Lion” blog removed the death threat from their website.
However, another U.S. based militant Islamist website picked up the post and republished it. In a post celebrating the shooting down of an American helicopter in Iraq, a “Join the Caravan” author identified as “Mujahida3001” republishes the earlier threat made by “The Black Lion”.
Here’s the post.
Another blogger who gets few hits per day has e-mailed me and told me of a truck he saw with a decal on it saying “Kill em all, let Allah sort em out.” He was kind enough to give me the license tag number, too. Georgia tag [tag number is shown in actual post] Gwinnett County
Just thought I’d share that with you.
This is baraa [enmity]. If he wants to repeat the quote of one of the crusader generals during the first crusades in Jerusalem, then no, I do not care about his safety. I care about his lack of it. He shouldn’t feel any security at all.
So, Muslims, do whatever you can get away with.
Take care and keep it militant.
Oh, and the website the “Black Lion” blog is hosted by, you guessed it, that lovely pro-democracy, fair and balanced company Goggle noted for its pro-Islamist support and anti-jihadist censorship.
In the past, Google’s blogspot division has refused to take down websites encouraging the killing of Americans, the murder of civilians, and violent jihad on the grounds
of “free speech”.
Unless you post to Google’s you tube, then and slurs about Muslims, Jihadists or Islam are promptly deleted.
Vince, thanks for the heads-up.
And for those of you libtrolls out there who think that al-Qaeda or jihad won’t come to us here in America, THINK AGAIN.
I don’t want to hear whining about “hate speech” or blaming the driver for the bumper sticker. There is a First Amendment, or so these liberals tell us. But I guess they apply it selectively.
Just to be sure, I’m keeping my .45 locked and loaded. Right next to the jar of pork rinds in case someone thinks they’re going straight to al-Yanna and the 40 virgins.
As Dixie Carter said in “Designing Women” one episode: “You may think you’ll get me, but by God one of us will be walking away with a limp.”
Regards,
Peter H.
And Vince, these guys on the Islamic web site must not be too swift. Everyone knows that if you drive a truck with a gun rack in Georgia (or here in Texas), you are not to be messed with.
Otherwise, that bumper sticker might become a self-fulfilling prophecy for those jihadists who are going to try and become martyrs.
I’m hungry. BLT, anyone? 😛
Regards,
Peter H.
But then, this really isn’t about the pork.
You know, I think we should draw a bit of a line here.
Flipping out over a Muslim cashier having to call someone else to handle a pork product looks too much to me like the militant abortionists who want every pharmacist to hand every ten-year-old who asks for it the Plan B pill. They should be able to refuse on religious grounds; so should the cashier.
But when it comes to threats of physical harm, that dog don’t hunt.
ND30, I appreciate your sentiment but when has a pharmacist ever been put in that position? And if so, wouldn’t the MSM have had a collective hissy-fit over some “overzealous right-wing Christian” pharmacist who is trying to dictate morality to a ten-year-old?
Both Target and the cashier are at fault here. Target should have expressly told all applicants that they will be asked to scan items which may offend them. And the applicants themselves should have volunteered whether or not such a task would offend them.
I mean please – how many Baptists run a liquor store? (That is not a joke, BTW.) And how many counties in north Texas are still dry 100 years after the temperance movement?
Like I said earlier, call this the Religion of Perpetual Indignation.
Regards,
Peter H.
“How many versions of cooersive collectivism is the Left going to try , at the cost of millions of war dead, and devastated countries before it gives up?”
WTF?
Dude, the left’s goal is not cooersive collectivism. That’s a communist/socialist goal, and it isn’t being persued by the democrats, that’s for sure. Even something like HillaryCare offered a clear alternative for people who didn’t want to buy in…noone is cooerced into anything…even if we have our way.
There are very few elected communists/socialists in the democratic party…. it’s just not a mainstream position, among the left in the US.
When I read that, I instantly thought of a codgery old man (like at the end of a Scooby doo episode) cursing those darn leftists for things they have nothing to do with, but that the old man can’t let go of.
Then there’s this load of crap:
“The footage shows how two Muslim chaplains practice the Islamically sanctioned deception techniques of taqiyya and kitman on the audience”
No, the footage doesn’t show that at all. The footage shows a nutjob being rude and confrontative to some Muslim chaplains, then labelling their actions incorreclty on screen. If you think that video makes the Muslims look bad (instead of the guy making the video), you are seriously messed up. His misdirected anger is palpable, and it should really embarassing for the right to have such an asshat on their side…but alas, the screeching, shrill little green freaks do nothing but raise sound and fury at the outrage (THE OUTRAGE!) of Islam. This video makes Michael Moore look like a serious documentarian.
No matter what that video says, that was not taqiyya and kitman. You must not really know what taqiyya and kitman are….
They never denied their faith. They never were under threat of persecution.
Peter H,
“but when has a pharmacist ever been put in that position?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html
#85 – Oh, so you use a two-year-old WaPo puff piece to make what is assumed to be your point? Please.
You’ve just proven MY point – read my comment again. The WaPo and its willing allies in the DNC were trying to stir it up and trying anything short of regional/class warfare to make it stick.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter H.,
WTF? puff piece? who exactly was being puffed up in that piece? And my point is that it DOES happen. That was my only point, and it is corroborated by a major paper.
“The WaPo and its willing allies in the DNC were trying to stir it up and trying anything short of regional/class warfare to make it stick.”
WTF? Go on random off-topic rants much? You asked when a pharmacist has refused to serve a customer based on religious beliefs, and I provided an article that stated that it happens regularly. This has nothing to do with class warfare, the DNC, or even WaPo…either pharmacists were refusing to serve people based on religious beliefs, or they weren’t. That’s all.
Do you not believe the article? What does it matter if the article was written 2 years ago? Are the article’s assertions less true with time?
Your completely illogical and irrelevant reponse is odd though… do you feel victimized? angry? self-righteous?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1391310
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=111071
Are those articles suspect too? It must be a big conspiracy between the DNC, NBC, ABC and the WaPo… obviously that’s what’s going on here.
It seems like that, but what is really going on in is intimidation and arrogance. The goal is eventually have the host country adopt the norms of Sharia.. This is done incrementally.. So what we’re seeing starting to bubble is the very begiinings of it.
Giving Muslim an accodomadtion is not “tolerance” it’s aquiance.. and with each concession , their agitiatin gets worse.. they demand even more, they respect you even less.
Please don’t believe me… reserch this.. you’ll see it’s a classic pattern that happens everywhere that they go.
ME: Are you an apologist for Islam ?
Anyone who wants to read about the daily disintergration of Europe should check out this blog
http://www.brusselsjournal.com
Today they quoted an article from the WSJ
Islamosocialism
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Tue, 2007-03-13 21:42
A quote from Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2007
For Muslim voters in Europe, the attractions of the Socialists are several. Socialists have traditionally taken a more accommodating approach to immigrants and asylum-seekers than their conservative rivals. They have championed the welfare state and the benefits it offers poor newcomers. They have promoted a multiculturalist ethos, which in practice has meant respecting Muslim traditions even when they conflict with Western values. In foreign policy, Socialists have often been anti-American and, by extension, hostile to Israel. That hostility has only increased as Muslim candidates have joined the Socialists’ electoral slates and as the Muslim vote has become ever more crucial to the Socialists’ electoral margin.
More mysterious, however, at least as a matter of ideology, has been the dalliance of the progressive left with the (Islamic) political right. Self-styled progressives, after all, have spent the past four decades championing the very freedoms that Islam most opposes: sexual and reproductive freedoms, gay rights, freedom from religion, pornography and various forms of artistic transgression, pacifism and so on. For those who hold this form of politics dear, any long-term alliance with Islamic politics ultimately becomes an ideological, if not a political, suicide pact. One cannot, after all, champion the cause of universal liberation in alliance with a movement that at its core stands for submission.
This is not, of course, the first time such a thing has happened in the history of the progressive movement, or in European history. On the contrary, it is the recurring theme. In the early 20th century, the apostles of Fabianism – George Bernard Shaw among them – looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration; in the 1960s the model was Mao; in the late 1970s, the great French philosopher Michel Foucault went to Iran to write a paean to Khomeini’s revolution. In nearly every case, the progressives were, by later admission, deceived, but not before they had performed their service as “useful idiots” to a totalitarian cause.
But the stakes today are different. At question for Europeans is not the prevailing view of a distant country. The question is the shaping of their own. Europe’s liberal democrats were able, sometimes with outside help, to preserve their values in the face of an outside threat. Whether they can resist the temptations of Islamosocialism remains to be seen.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/03/another-suprise-not.html
According to the Sunday Telegraph the EU alone sent £59.5 million to the Hamas-led (if that is the right expression) Palestinian government in aid, despite the fact that Hamas has not fulfilled any of the conditions, supposedly imposed on it by the international authority.
On top of that, an unknown and “a far greater sum directly to hospitals, power generation projects and to families in need”. No proper auditing or accounting of these sums have been done but then there is nothing new in that. There has never been any proper auditing or accounting of moneys given to the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinians in general.
An estimated £362.5 million has flowed into Palestinian government coffers from abroad since the election that brought Hamas to power and ushered in a period of internal conflict that came close to all-out civil war.
That, of course, excludes the amounts going through NGOs to “hospitals, power generation projects, families in need” and whatever else Jimmy Carter may have thought of as a suitable recipient of funds.
Where is all this money? Alas, as before, there is no accounting for it.
Salam Fayyad, a former World Bank Official, former IMF representative in the Palestine and former Finance Minister under the late unlamented Chairman Yasser Arafat, says that nobody knows what happened to the money.
Mr Fayyad, a member of the Legislative Council, from the Third Way Party (they have two members, the other one being Hanan Ashrawi) is about to become the Finance Minister again. He had been touted as a possible Prime Minister but one of his conditions for accepting the post was that Hamas should recognize Israel’s right to exist. Unlike the international community, he seems to have kept his word and not accepted the job without his main condition being fulfilled.
According to the Telegraph
Now, Palestinian Authority spending is out of control, salaries are being paid to workers who never turn up, and nobody can track where the money is going, according to Mr Fayyad.
There was no way to be certain that aid was being used as intended, he admitted. “Please write this: no one can give donors that assurance. Why? Because the system is in a state of total disrepair.”
What the Telegraph journalist does not ask is why precisely Mr Fayyad should be so surprised. He was, after all, Finance Minister five years ago, when the situation was not much better. Millions of pounds, dollars and euros that had been sent in aid to the Palestinian Authority disappeared, some to surface as payment to such delightful organizations as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade and to families of unsuccessful suicide/homicide bombers, some not to surface at all.
Mr Fayyad, having apparently set up some sort of a budgeting system five years ago, having seen it disintegrate and having realized the magnitude of the problem now has various plans:
He said his first objective would be to make the finance ministry the sole conduit for incoming aid, and to reinstate proper audits. That meant no more financial back channels or border smuggling, he said. “It’s not my intention to manage the Palestinian budget system through the brown bag.” The Palestinian Authority’s unchecked proliferation of government jobs – growing by 11 per cent a year – is another threat to its existence, the World Bank said. Mr Fayyad acknowledged that the problem of thousands of absentee employees was “serious”, but said it would take up to five years to bring wages into line with income.
Some of us might point out that unbridled aid is not “income”. Would this experienced financial manager be able to come up with a budget that was slightly different? After all, we have our own budget (several of them) already and one sees no reason why there should be a Palestinian one as well that dissipates our tax money.
Dear Vince,
I estimate that you posted over well over thirty times on this specific post.
Thirty Times!!!
Get a Grip
keogh: Yes,.. you should read it and learn. Unlike you, I search for the truth of what is going on in the world. I’m not content with what moveon.bore tells me.
Now the Muslims are assaulting our freedom of the press:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/03/cair_throws_out.html
At today’s CAIR press conference announcing the lawsuit against US Airway ( my favorite terror free airline) CAIR threw out the Christian broadcasting network and a reporter from the Washington Times, reported John Gibson on The Big Story (FOX)
Emes. Define tolerance for me again. Oh yeah, and the press conference was about religious intolerance.
REMEMBER FOLKS, WHEN YOU FLY, FLY US AIRWAYS, America’s Terror Free airline!
STRANGERS ON MY FLIGHT
UPDATE: CAIR does not speak for all American Muslims. Here’s AIFD Press release;
NOT ALL MUSLIMS SUPPORT CAIR PLAN TO SUE
US
AIRWAYS on BEHALF of SIX IMAMS
Muslim organization believes that lawsuit filed by CAIR on behalf of local
Phoenix
imams is wrong for American Muslims and wrong for
America
.
NOT ALL MUSLIMS SUPPORT CAIR PLAN TO SUE
US
AIRWAYS on BEHALF of SIX IMAMS
[PHOENIX, AZ: March 13, 2007]: Wide media attention is being given today to the lawsuit filed by CAIR on behalf of six imams against U.S. Airways for their claims of discrimination against race and religion. Most of the imams are from local mosques here in
Phoenix
and were removed from a U.S. Airways flight on November 21, 2006 en route to
Phoenix
from
Minneapolis
.
AIFD would like the American public to be aware of our following positions representing an alternative voice from the American Muslim community.
We will not accept the victimization agenda of organizations like CAIR. Lawsuits like the one announced today exploit the climate of political correctness and at the end of the day are harmful to the Muslim minority in
America
.
Make no mistake, this type of agenda and policy direction of organizations like CAIR only represents its own membership and its own donors. A relatively small percentage of the 5-6 million American Muslims are enrolled as members of CAIR. Recent considerable donations to CAIR upwards of a combined $100 million from foreign nations like
Dubai
and Saudi Arabia make these types of costly, distractive actions against domestic airlines such as US Airways very concerning in its manifestation of foreign interference.
One of the frontlines in the war on terror is at the airports and at the gates. While the imams were clearly removed for their behavior after entering the plane, it should be made clear that many less rigid but equally pious Muslims believe (including 3 out of 6 of the imams for that matter) that the prayer they performed could have been performed upon landing in Phoenix due to travel dispensations in Islam or privately on time while seated on the flight. Muslims believe that God is forgiving and does not expect religion to be “too difficult”.
While the six imams’ handlers, CAIR, and their lawyers may have some kind of obscure basis for their lawsuit, it is our belief that the fallout and publicity from such litigation is wrong for American Muslims, wrong for American security, and wrong for American freedoms. The greatest guarantor of our rights as American Muslims is the tenor of our relationship with the greater majority of American society. This type of litigiousness is divisive and achieves nothing but resentment and actually causes far more harm than good to the overall image of the Muslim community in the eyes of non-Muslim
America
.
It is our hope as Americans and as Muslims that U.S. Airways stand firm in its defense of its actions to have the gentleman removed for concerns regarding their behavior after entering the plane. This is not about race or religion. It is about the privilege to fly securely.
The constant exploitation of
America
’s culture of political correctness especially in this setting of what is the most dangerous environment of air travel is out of touch with
America
’s priorities. Such misguided priorities by Muslim activist organizations like CAIR will make the legitimate defense of our civil rights far more difficult when more serious complaints of racism and discrimination are involved.
America
is quickly becoming numb to their constant refrains and the polls demonstrate the profound ineffectiveness of their tiring campaigns.
The organized Muslim community should instead be working on developing a strategic plan to counter militant Islamism within the Muslim community. That would do a lot more to change public opinion than suing the airlines who are trying to keep Americans who travel safe.
M-E, I suggest you go to Newsbusters.org and see exactly what is being spoon-fed to you by the mainstream media. Then come back here and tell me they don’t have an agenda.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.