“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” - koran 9:5

I noticed a link to Jewish World Review of rice being interviewed by Cal Thomas. They got it as an exclusive before it becomes part of his regular column. When I read it I nearly sprayed my monitor with the water I was drinking. And here is the quote from it that caused my reaction:
QUESTION: Do you think this or do you know this?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think I know it.
QUESTION: You think you know it?
SECRETARY RICE: I think I know it.
(italics in original). After seeing that nonsense, I was reading Vanishing American and left that as a comment there. Looks like Lawrence Auster was given the 'heads up' on this as well. And he being a much better writer than I, fleshed it out. I've been thinking about all the hyperventilating that occured before March 20, 2oo3 in regards to Iraq. So I googled the phrase ''smoking gun mushroom cloud'', here is what I got (dated 9/8/2002):
White House sources also tell CNN that Saddam has in recent months met several times with Iraq's top nuclear scientists and encouraged them to continue their work.

Sources say Iraqi defectors who used to work for Iraq's nuclear weapons "industry" tell administration officials Iraq's top priority is acquiring nuclear arms.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Say what you will about CNN, but I did remember the phrase "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." I knew this came from a member of the administration (when I googled it I thought it was either cheney or rumsfield). Turns out it came from rice.
Considering the quotes above; ''I think I know it'' I think she told bush what he wanted to hear in order to curry favor with him, and it obviously paid off...
There used to be a bumper-sticker that said ''Don't vote, it only encourages them'' that pretty much sums up my attitude in ''Indescion '06''. I've seen this become a choice between right-liberals (the R's such as the Secretary of State, and The President) and left-liberals (the D's).
So I'm ''voting with my feet'' this time against liberalism. And every time I hear ''the lesser of two evils'' argument I am more convinced than ever to not go vote. To me that sounds like ''Which would you rather have? Aresnic (R's) or Cyanide (D's)? (slow poison or fast poison)''. My response is ''Vote for any kind of poison? NO THANKS!!!''
I've heard the argument to vote for the R anyway for Congress to help prevent the president from putting amnasty (my term for it) into place. I discount that due to fact that I belive we have a President that fancys himself a dictator and could well implement amnasty by executive fiat.
I see the point, but for me my Congressman will easily win re-election with or without my help (it's a ''locked'' district, Dr. Weldon has only a ''Pat Paulsen''* running against him). And I can't get enthusiastic about the Govenor or US Senate races. With FL Govenor, party affiliation means nothing to me, we've had a lousy R Govenor and good D ones (and vice-versa). This time around it seems like a coin flip between two poor choices. And I don't vote by coin flip. The US Senate race is a joke between Bill Nelson (who will win without even trying) and Kathrine Harris. Who's had such an inept campaign she proved why she shouldn't beat him. I've taken note that her campagin staff has had more 'turnover' than your average McDonald's. Not to mention her adopting The Fair Tax as a platfrom issue in a way that smacks of despration.
Vote for Nelson? No thank you. Vote for Harris? (the ''Pat Paulsen''* in that race) No thank you.

*When I reffer to a canidate as ''a Pat Paulsen'' it means I don't think this a serious run for office. The name comes from the late Pat Paulsen who completly as a joke filed for and actually ran for President of The United States for the first time in 1968. He discoverd that it actually doesn't cost that much to file to have your name placed on the ballot for President. And it provided him with comedy material. So he continued to do it, with his last run being in 1996. His own take on running for President:
The comedian was approached by the Smothers Brothers with the idea of running for President in 1968. His reply, he was later to recount, was: "Why not? I can't dance — besides, the job has a good pension plan and I'll get a lot of money when I retire."

Paulsen's campaign that year, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catch phrase "Picky, picky, picky".
Belive it or not I respected his runs for President. But I never voted for him either.
UPDATE: Here is another good reason why I openly choose not to vote: From Rick Moran:
It is an axiom of politics that the candidate who finds himself trailing going into the home stretch of a campaign must “go negative” in order to make up the deficit before election day.

The thinking behind this strategy is not to get voters to change their minds necessarily but rather so disgust the supporters of your opponent that they stay home on election day.

Congratulations, George Allen. You’ve hit the jackpot.

Issuing a press release that quotes a character from one of Webb’s saucy war novels doing unspeakable things to his own son (sorry – find the damn link somewhere else. I don’t link to porn.), Allen may very well have sealed his victory by “outing” Webb’s fictional day dreams but he has lost his soul in the process.
I agree, it's merely 'a cheap shot' (as The Malkin Family Blog also notes). It's a liberal ''win at all costs'' mentality that is dishonest and brings nothing to the debate on the issues we all must face. If I lived in VA I could not bring myself to vote for US Senator. Just like the US Senate race here in FL I cannot in good concience vote for either canidate. ''Hold my nose and vote R?'' No, I can't bring myself to do that anymore.
The R's have proven the adage ''absolute power corrupts absolutely''. And I just can't be convinced anymore to support that. It's the R's that are keeping me away from the polls. They can't give me a reason to vote FOR them so I choose not to...
I'm not in favor of it, belive it or not!!! What I'm in favor of is a legal framework not unlike a business partnership where there is such things as right of survivorship and medical power of attourney in legal affairs.
If two people enter into an agreement to co-own a business or real estate, they are joint owners of that business (or property). What they are NOT is ''married''!!!
If a brother and sister are co-owners of a business would that make them ''married''? It is quite legal (nor immoral) for me and my sister to purchase a business (or home) together as a legal partnership. Would that ''marry'' us? (I HOPE NOT!!! My sister's luck in that regard is the same as Rush Limbaugh, marry, divorce, rinse and repeat). Even if she wasn't my sister I wouldn't want to marry her!!! (But I do love her dearly nontheless)
People confuse THE LEGAL aspects of ''marriage'' with the moral/religious aspects. And niether side of the so-called ''marriage debate'' want to sort them out.
I DO. Are we talking about ''marriage'' as a social/moral/religious structure for the purpose of starting a new family or as a contractual partnership between two consenting adults?
I would like to see the issue of so-called ''gay marriage'' decided on THOSE terms.
Not the cheap ''gays are immoral'' bumper-sticker mentality that I've read and heard way too often.
I see gays the same way I see muslims. Gays have thier place, (San Fran, Key West FL) and muslims have thier place (the Middle East) and we non-gay/non-muslims have our place (America).
What outrages me is the attempts by gays and muslims to redefine our lives to suit them.
If gays living amidst us want ''to live and let live'' among us straights, I can actually accept that. If muslims living amidst us want to ''live and let live'' with us non-muslims I can accept that as well.
UPDATE: A left-liberal (sometimes sane, sometimes not) addressess this with ''call it whatever you like, just DON'T call it marriage'' and makes a reasoned argument WHY.
Also, Steven Den Beste (Remember ''USS Clueless''? Yes, him) weighs in to explain that there is a right way (through legislation) and a wrong way (judicial fiat) to address this issue.
As I (and others) have noted, there should be a legal framework (call it ''domestic partnerships'' if you like) for this.
BUT, I do not support so-called ''gay adoption'', not because I'm ''anti-gay'' but because I'm ''pro-kid''. I can think of several famous examples why:
1. Ellen Degeneres; Don't need to retell that story do I? Think of what would have happened if she and Ann Heshe had a small child in that mix. THAT would have created one seriously screwed-up child for sure. Quite likely one messed up for life.
2. Rosie O'dumdum. ''Michelle Malkin'' (her name, but not nessesarily her words, her husband often ghostwrites as her, and she hasn't been altogether honest about it) called her ''Psycho Mom'' on ''her'' blog:
You know, you and Tom Cruise would have been perfect together. He makes his asinine comments toward Brook Shields and postpartum depression and you ask that the health of your baby take a backseat to your jealous insecurities. Absolutely disgusting. Need to feed your ego more? [Think] of your baby and your partner. Step outside yourself. I’m sure your partner was incredibly uncomfortable letting he[r] milk dry up while. Just selfish. You should have thought of not nursing the baby before it was born if anything. That way two people wouldn’t have had to adjust to fit your needs.


I think it is unbelievably sad that you would force your partner to stop breastfeeding. Nevermind the benefits for your child, the fact that you would take the benefits away from your partner boggles my mind.
I think your insecurity as a parent cause you to do a great disservice to Kelli. You stated that this is America and you can chose to breastfeed if you want, I guess that just doesn’t apply to Kelli, you forced the decision for her.
Between that and o'donnell's very public spiral into outright psychosis my opinion is those children will wind up whackjobs as well. Might even grow up to be downright ''homophobic'' adults. Wouldn't even suprise me if that's what winds up happening.
3. Paula Poundstone (the left's version of mark foley). While I agree that ''not all gays abuse kids'', some indeed do.
My own opinion is due to the controversy (and with gay men, health issues) surrounding homosexuality this is a much less than ideal enviroment to raise children. Even if ''Heather has two mommies'', ''Heather'' also has to deal with the rest of the world. It's not hard to imagine ''No, Sally, you can't play with little Heather, I don't want you around that''. ''Sally''; ''But Mom why?''. ''Mom''; ''Because I don't want you around that''. And if ''Sally'' has muslim parents ''Sally'' and her parents could well be dangerous around ''little Heather''.
Muslims have a very well documented habit of putting their beliefs into very leathal action. I can see it now; ''Sally'' innocently invites ''Heather'' over to have dinner with her family, then ''Heather'' never leaves ''Sally's'' house alive. Not for anything ''Heather'' did or didn't do, but because ''she has two mommies''. And ''Heather's two mommies'' would likely not be aware that muslims can be dangerous, (or worse, pretend that muslims ''are just like everyone else'' like the president and secretary of state do)...
Someone sent a link to a page about how ''enviromentally aware'' various celebs ACTUALLY ARE.
I can make fun of this two ways:
1. By telling those celebs WHY they're full of...
2. AND by 'beating them at their own game'!!!
The last time I flew it was ''coach'' on Delta. Don't like flying to begin with, now that we are at war with islam I like it even less. How do I get around? A Toyota Prius? Oh heavens no!!!

An ''Excercise Bike'' that is also useful as a form of transportation.
Want one just like it? It's much easier for you to grab your credit card and buy one of your own than it would be to steal mine. I'm not a Lance Armstrong wannabe, I want a bike for day-to-day useage that I can enjoy riding. Yes, I'm quite sure it was ''Made in China''. I don't like it either, but a ''Made in USA'' bike does not exist anymore. It's called DEALING WITH REALITY...
I'm ''sitting this one out''. Because ''I will choose Free Will'':

Someone said ''I'll drive you to the polls''. I thank you for the offer, but that's not my point!!!
It is a 5 minute walk to St. Cloud City Hall for me. That is where I routinely pay my electric bill every month. For me, it is actually easier to pay the bill in person than it is to mail it out!!!
There is no possible way to make it easier for me to go vote. No, I'm NOT kidding when I say I will NOT vote. I can't vote for the R's or the D's. So I refuse to waste my time doing so.
UPDATE: That is NOT may favorite Rush song. This is:

What can I say? YouTube makes this easy...
If in your blogroll you have a link to USS Clueless you might want to consider removing it!
THAT blog was shut down two years ago. Or do as I did and link to the blog that replaced it by it's proper name: Chizumatic.
Because if you click on a link to USS Clueless you will be redirected to Chizumatic.
It's a blog mainly about anime. And a very good one too. But it's NOT USS Clueless.
Steven Den Beste is not going to bring USS Clueless back. It's gone for good. Deal with it...
As you can plainly see ''The Blogger Bar'' is not at the top of this blog. It CAN be hidden (not actually removed). Here is how to do it:
Can you legally do it? Good question. Wether or not you can hide ''The Blogger Bar'' is debateable.
There is no clear answer to that question. If Google says ''The Blogger Bar'' MUST APPEAR (i.e. if it does'nt, your blog is history) I'll remove the code that turns it off. Untill then ''The Blogger Bar'' is shut off on my blog.
Do you have a spine or not? I do...
This may suprise you but I HATE ''anti-war'' folks like cindy sheehan. The reason she and her ilk disgust me is they are such anti-american moonbats that they cloud reasonable doubt about our actions in Iraq.
Listen to talk radio (sean hannity and rusty humpries are really good examples) any caller that doesn't blindly root for ''stay the course'' suddenly becomes ''another cindy sheehan'' that just wants to surrender to the muslims.
That's why I reffered to ''retire05'' as ''a junk food conservitive'' in a previous post. This ''if we don't 'stay the course' we lose'' meme.
I've become convinced that if we DO ''stay the course'' we lose. In a comment to ''Where I actually stand on Iraq...'' Rick Darby said:
It makes me sick to wake up every morning and read of more U.S. military men and women shot or blown up ... for nothing except a failed ideology George W. Bush can't let go of.
I couldn't agree more. This dream of ''bringing freedom to the iraqi people'' is just that, a dream. It has become like the old joke:
''Dr., When I do this (something that will cause pain) it hurts. What do you advise? Dr.: THEN STOP DOING THAT!''.
Clinging to the dream of some future Iraq that is free, peaceful, muslim (but secular) is the same thing. That is the apparent definition of the word ''victory'' by the president in his weekly radio address. To me that is merely a rephrasing of ''C'mon folks, get to the polls and vote R! Or America loses''.
This is also ''junk food conservitism''. The fear that ''If the D's win they'll impeach bush over Iraq!!!''. To me that shows that they know deep in their hearts that the dream of ''bringing freedom'' to Iraq is just that, nothing more than a dream.
I realize it is tough to face the reality that thousands of America's best and brightest have died (and thousands more maimed) in the persuit of one man's dream but that is exactly what has happend. If you think I enjoy saying this my answer is ''NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO!!!''. When I think of the damage this president (and his cheerleaders) have done to our Armed Forces I have to run to the bathroom to throw up!!!
Typical ''junk food conservitive'' says: ''Ok, hotshot, what's your solution?''. My answers are here and here.
The reason it sounds like I've dealt with my fair share of ''junk food conservitives'' is because I have. It's even part of this blog's history. When this blog was created I was a moderator of a yahoogroup called ''American Freedoms'', hence the URL. This blog was intended as an offshoot of it. I am a regular reader of Jihad Watch and have been for about three years now. That exposed me to the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. At first I though ''Hugh, are you nuts?'' as I continued to read, I realized Hugh was not ''nuts''. Just the opposite, quite sane. That's when I realized the ''stay the course'' policy was ''nuts''. He convinced me WE CAN'T ''bring the Iraqi people freedom'' no matter how hard we try to. Even before that I was questioning the idea that how we can ''bring freedom'' to muslims when they are equally detrimined to TAKE our freedom from US. The ''cartoon riots'' was where it dawned on me ''How can we ''bring freedom'' to a culture that is absolutely opposed to it?''. I also noted that ''free and fair elections'' brought HAMAS (in the US it is known as CAIR) to power to govern the so-called ''palistinians''.
At the yahoogroup known as American Freedoms I began to say that ''democracy'' is A REALLY BAD IDEA for muslims because they use it to vote the most devout muslims into power.
This was still when what I call ''purple finger fever'' (remember the State of The Union Address where mark foley and over 200 R's were proudly displaying index fingers dyed purple ''to show their solidarity with ''the iraqi people''?) was the rage. By pointing out ''democracy'' for muslims is a bad idea, I was stripped of my status as Moderator of American Freedoms.
Then came ''The Big One'': I started to say if we can't ''bring freedom'' to muslims why the hell are ''our troops'' still trying to? And why the hell are we curled up like a tortise in it's shell in response to muslim demands that we would consider unacceptable? Yes, that got me kicked out completely. I dared to think, I dared to question orthodoxy. And that was not permitted there.
We keep thinking we can somehow come to a ''live and let live'' comprimise with muslims. Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald made me realize that ANY ''comprimise'' with muslims IS DEFEAT for us. One thing that was rather overlooked was when we were helping ''the iraqi people'' create a new Constitution we had to negotiate a rewrite of ''islam is THE source of law for Iraq'' to ''islam is A source of law for Iraq''. That is where we LOST in Iraq.
Even Charles Johnson (founder of and the creator of the name ''Pajamas Media'') could see ''the handwriting on the wall''. At that time I thought ''OK, we can 'give an inch' in order to create a new Iraq''. I was led to belive that this would help bring about a ''westernized'' Iraq (''victory'' as the president defines it). It turned out that was the ''comprimise'' with islam that sealed our defeat in Iraq. And was celebrated as ''a victory'' by the White House and talk radio (''purple finger fever'').
I cannot vote for D's. But I can't vote for R's either, they have utterly let me down. I'll sit this one out. And don't give me this ''If you don't vote you have no right to complain'' nonsense.
No politician gives me ''the right to complain'': Google does.
Now how's that's for a scary thought, my fellow BLOGGERS? If your blog's URL is http://xxxxxxxxxxx.blogspot.com the existance of your blog is completely dependant on the whims of Google. They can kill your blog for any reason or no reason at all. You did read the Blogger TOS did you not?
UPDATE: National Review's Jonah Goldberg has seen the light as well. I do disagree with him on the idea that ''the iraqi people'' should have an election on whether we stay in ''sunnistan'' and ''shiastan'' or not.
Since when do ''the iraqi people'' have any right to decide OUR Military policy? What WE do with ''Our Troops'' is none of their damn business.
UPDATE II: The Washington Times' Diana West has a healthy grasp on reality as well:
As an Air Force pilot noted in an e-mail to me, he doesn't recall hearing the president define "victory" for Iraq or Afghanistan. Me neither. Terms like "security" and "stabilization" just aren't substitutes. Guided by the false god of democracy, blind to the zealotry of Islamic culture, we have locked onto a course with no rational endpoint.
I agree, what the hell is ''victory'' in Iraq (or Afghanistan)? I can only speculate on how that word is defined. If we can't even properly define ''victory'' it becomes impossible to actually achive it!
That would be like handing the ball to the running back and yelling ''Go for the end zone!!!'' with no idea whatsoever WHERE that end zone actually is!!! Our president is telling the runner ''just keep circling the bases, we'll figure out if you actually scored a run later''.
Glad this nimrod no longer has any ownership stake in the Texas Rangers...
And because it's beautiful:

What can I say? YouTube is awesome. It makes ''Videoblogging'' a snap (providing you even know what HTML is and how to make use of it)...
I saw it in a much different way. Uplifting? I think not. In fact, tragic.
The author of that apparently thought if we do not blindly follow the right-liberal ''stay the course'' we will have to live in an ultra-secure America.
Am I wrong? Just buy a bottle of water at any convenience store on the way to the airport.
Try to take that UNOPENED bottle of water with you on the plane.
Yet HAMAS (here it is called CAIR) complains if someone even looks at them with healthy suspicion.
And our supposed ''conservitive republican'' White House, House and Senate ''looks the other way'' when it comes to muslim colonists in America.
The ONLY way to 'give' freedom to muslims IS FOR US TO LOSE OUR freedom!!!
Of course you think I'm lying. That does not suprise me.
When a muslim smuggles a bomb on board a plane 'in a body cavity' you will accept body cavity searches ''to protect us from terrorism''.
MY URL actually means something: http://americanfreedoms.blogspot.com/.
Every time CAIR whines ''hate crime'' I say muslims must be returned to dar-al-islam.
Where they belong...
I really have no idea what the point of the writer is trying to get at: Speakout: A jubilant homecoming from Iraq.
This writer has fallen into ''if-then'' thinking. Apparently IF we do not ''stay the course'' THEN we must get into hyper-security mode in America:
The same lieutenant steps to the podium and announces: "Folks, I have an update. They are now on the base and in-processing. Turning in their M-16, etc. They should be here in 30 minutes. When we close the doors on the far side that means that the buses are in back and they are assembling in the parking lot. I recommend you round up the loose children and grab your seats. They are almost here."

Well, here we are. Down to 30 revolutions of the second hand. I stand up and stretch to dissipate the anxiety that permeates my every bone.

Suddenly the doors close. There is a succession of metallic latches snapping into place. One. Then two. Then three. Finally, the fourth door is closed. There is a hush punctuated by the crying of tired babes. Five hundred people breathe in and hold. All eyes focus on the doors. The warm gym air crackles with emotion
In a chat room I said ''When a muslim boards a plane with a bomb smuggled ''in a body cavity'' what will that mean to US?''. The answer is plain; WE have to be strip and be body cavity searched ''so we don't offend muslims''. And the muslims ARE FREE to avoid those strip and body cavity searches ''so as not to offend them''.
When our government gives special rights to muslims that is PROOF we are losing ''the war on terror''. Our government has failed US.
I care not what left-liberals say. It's what right-liberals DO that concernes me...
I have advocated the complete withdrawl of US and British forces from the ''sunnistan'' and ''shiastan'' regions of Iraq and turning our back on ''the iraqi people'' and the artifical iraqi government we attempted to create.
I have heard every complaint that anything other than ''stay the course'' suddenly brands that person as being ''cindy sheehan, jhon murtha a bin laden lover, a traitor, ect. ect.'' and that saddens me. For it shows how pathetic the level of debate on Iraq has become. It is a screaming match between the right-liberals of the White House, most of talk radio, and many opinion columnists vs. left-liberals such as sheehan et. al.
The term I use for those such as myself (and more and more others) is ''The Reality-Based Right'' that rejects the nonsense that comes out of both right-liberals and left-liberals. BOTH forms of liberals ''have a dream''. To left-liberals that dream is spelled out quite well in the John Lennon song ''Imagine''. Right-liberals are defined as those who see America as not a nation and a distinct culture but as an IDEA that the rest of the world looks up to and automatically aspires to be like.
This right-liberal mindset is demonstrated by the White House's ''the more the merrier'' attitude toward immigration and to it's ill-defined notion of ''victory'' in Iraq.
If the standard for bringing our fellow Americans out of Iraq is ''victory'' than a clear definition of the word is absolutely nessessary. Instead we get a amorphous blob of a definition that seems to be comprised of a stable, harmonious, muslim (but secular) Iraq that is friendly to Americans and America. And little idea of how DO or even how TO achieve such a goal.
In ''sunnistan'' and ''shiastan'' what is the reality is those parts of Iraq have devolved into anarchy. Anarchy is only resolved by totalitarian control. Either from without (where a force of arms enters and rules by martial law) or from within (the ''Lord of the flies'' situation where the most cold and brutal consolidates power with utter ruthlessness).
My honest assesment is we (the US and Britain) are LONG past the point where we can resolve the anarchy that most of Iraq has become from without. We have neither the resources not manpower nor (unfortunatly) the sheer will to FORCE martial law upon ''sunnistan'' and ''shiastan''.
My proposal is simple; Bring at least 100,000 of our troops home now!!! The remaining 30,000+ need to be redeployed to bases along the ''kurdistan''-Turkish border and the ''kurdistan''-''shia-sunnistan'' border and along the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border.
Our direct involvement in ''shiastan'' and ''sunnistan'' needs to end now.
Will that ''plunge 2/3rds of Iraq into a bloodbath?''. PLAINLY that is what is already happening there NOW. With ''Our Troops'' caught in the crossfire. And barely able to protect themselves. Let alone any capability to make any difference there.
If you want to whine ''cut and run'' go for it. Whenever I hear that phrase I now merely roll my eyes and say to myself ''they are desprately trying to cling to a right-liberal dream''.
Part of that dream was ''we can bring ''the iraqi people'' freedom''. NO, WE CAN'T. Someone bitterly attacked me with ''Thank God the colonists did not feel the way you do. We would be sending our taxes to London.''.
That person makes an error in American History: That liberty was BROUGHT to America by an outside entity. NO ONE did that, the desire for liberty was organic to The Colonies. There was no group of Colonists living abroad lobbying a foriegn government to intercede on their behalf. That IS one of the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place.
I realize that it will be harsh to see the dreams of right-liberals come crashing down around them. But it needs to happen. Just like left-liberals they need to see what really is and and not what they want to pretend reality to be.
The right-liberals have not COMPLETELY lost Iraq. ''Kurdistan'' is the morsel of ''victory'' they can rightly claim. The rest of Iraq is indeed a lost cause. Whether ''Our Troops'' are in ''shiastan'' or ''sunnistan'' OR NOT will no longer change what is going on in 2/3rds of what they dreamed that Iraq would become.
If you've read this far you will have noticed a phrase that I have NOT used until now: ''Civil War''. That would describe two distinct factions in a single country that are fighting for independence from one another (such as OUR Civil War). What we have in 2/3rds of Iraq IS ANARCHY. NO ONE CONTROLS IT. NOT the artificial ''government of Iraq'', not ''al-quida in Iraq'' not ''moqutada al-sadr'', and not even US. NO ONE.
That's what the right-liberals are afraid of.
In My Honest Opinion there are ONLY four NATIONAL leaders that want US to maintain ''the status quo'' in Iraq:
1. Hugo Chavez.
2. Kim Jong-Il.
3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
4. And our own President, George W. Bush.
For the first three it is perfectly understandandable, they WANT us to keep using up ''Our Troops'' and resources in Iraq. The more we expend in Iraq, the less we have available to use against them. Notice that the first three ARE NOT clamoring for US to leave 2/3rds of Iraq!
The ONLY reason I can see that over 100,000 of ''Our Troops'' are still in ''shiastan and sunnistan'' is for purely US domestic political reasons! And also to try in vain to ''keep the dream alive''.
THAT is why I DEMAND 100,000 of ''Our Troops'' to be home to sit with their families for Thanksgiving.
UPDATE: For those who think I am making up the charge the US was cajoled into ''liberating'' Iraq by a lobbying group I have a reading assignment for you: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4615823/
clinton and the democrats used the efforts of this lobbying group in Operation Desert Fox the 1998 'wag the dog' policy that republicans like to point to as an example of democrat duplicity on Iraq. The lobbying group known as The Iraqi National Congress found a much more sympathic audience in the bush administration and the results as they say, are history...
In the past I've referred to sean hannity as ''a junk food conservitive''.
I define the term as someone who's conservitism is mostly (if not completely) ''for show''. All the surface American patriotism of typical 4th of July festivities but little or no actual meaning.
Such as mindless cheerleading for the R president, mindless cheerleading for ''the troops'' (even when they are obviously being misused for ''humanitarian'' purposes) and merely paying flaccid lip service to the immigration crisis, the spending crisis and the reality of islam.
And is liable to go ''shock jock'' at any time. That's why ''the janet jackson super bowl incident'' generated such furor. If you watch 'The Sopranos' or 'South Park' you know what to expect and you are NOT expecting explicit adult content during ANY football halftime show.
Another example of ''junk food conservitism'' is a flippant attitude towards islam. These people desprately want to belive it's ''a religion of peace'' and desprately want ''to bring them into 'the big tent' of conservitism''.
Robert Spencer also now sees THE REAL sean hannity:
Clueless Hannity misses an opportunity

Shoebat told him. He wouldn't believe it. Anani told him. He couldn't believe it.

Politically correct pseudo-conservative Sean Hannity had former jihadist Zachariah Anani on Hannity and Colmes the other night to talk about the shameful events at Columbia University, and Hannity passed up another in a long series of opportunities to use his bully pulpit actually to educate Americans about the threat we face and what we can do about it.

More to come...
Our foriegn policy is being completely driven by dreams. We have yet to wake up from the dream that somehow we can create a ''westernized'' Iraq. In spite of the reality there.

Even Powerline cannot belive the dreamland that our foriegn policy has become:
Bill Kristol credits the president for his support of Israel, but the doctrinal decomposition that he decries can be observed on that score as well. In a remarkable speech before an American-Palestinian group, Secretary Rice likened the Palestinian struggle to the American struggle for independence and to the American civil rights movement. The speech has been largely overlooked. Not surprisingly, however, the Jerusalem Post noted the speech and Caroline Glick devoted a good column to it. Secretary Rice said:
I know that sometimes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel must seem like a very distant dream. But I know too, as a student of international history, that there are so many things that once seemed impossible that, after they happened, simply seemed inevitable. I've read over the last summer the biographies of America's Founding Fathers. By all rights, America, the United States of America, should never have come into being. We should never have survived our civil war. I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the Secretary of State of the United States of America.
Secretary Rice describes herself as a student of history, though she herself seems to be dreaming here. She is dreaming, perhaps, of Yasser Arafat's January 2002 remarks in which Arafat likened himself to George Washington. When she wakes up, I wonder if she'll identify a few active Palestinian political figures who dream of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel rather than dream of a Palestinian state in its place. Dreamers of the latter dream seem to constitute a conspicuous majority of the followers of Hamas and Arafat's Fatah Party. In any event, perhaps Secretary Rice can contemplate how the latter dream is also one of those that may seem impossible before it happens and inevitable afterward.

The term I use is ''The Reality-Based Right''. Powerline is no where near there yet, but at least they are starting to get a clue. Fantasyland belongs in Disney World not in the White House.
At Rick Moran's blog I have been commenting. A typical ''junk food conservitive'' decided to slam me:
retire05 Said:
10:14 pm

You gotta love it. We can’t win so just pick up our marbles and bring our troops home. Never mind that General Giap, North Vietnamese Army, said very plainly that the Americans could not be defeated on the battle field but we could be defeated in the streets of our own cities. And so we were.

Never mind that once we pull out of Iraq, the terrorist faction will take over. But maybe they will stop trying to kill us there and just make a harder effort to kill us here. Maybe? And maybe the terrorists won’t take possession of the Iraqi oil fields to finance their terrorism against the United States and Israel. Maybe? And maybe they will decide to quit killing their own who practice a different sect of Islam and all the civilian deaths by suicide bombings and IEDs will end. Maybe? And maybe the Kurds will be killed in mass numbers again? Maybe? But so what? We have lost almost three thousand troops and for some any number lost in Iraq would be too great.
Never mind that the Islamofascists have been planning the killing of infidels for 1500 years. Never mind that they really don’t care if we are Republican, Democrat or Independent. Never mind that they want all of us converted to Islam or dead. Never mind that Osama Bin Laden himself said that winning the war in Iraq was important to them. Never mind that the killing of infidels is part of their religion and that jihad is the requirement of every Muslim. Never mind that we saw Muslims marching in our own streets during the Israel/Lebanon conflict carrying signs with the Star and Crescent flying over the White House.
How quickly we forget the desires of those who want to conquer us. How quickly we forgot how we felt that Hitler would never be a threat to us. How quickly we forgot how many Cambodians died because we did not have the will to win the war in Vietnam.
The terrorists possess one thing we do not. Patience. They patiently wait to fly planes into our buildings killing 3,000 Americans. They patiently wait for us to lose our will and pull out, giving them a victory in Iraq. But of course, if we just leave them alone, maybe they will leave us alone. Maybe? Never mind that they are telling us, loud and clear, what their intentions are. Conversion or death. They could not be more explicit.
But then maybe some of us realize that while the Islamofascists have had 1500 years to figure out how to kill us infidels, we have only had 5 years to figure out how to fight them. And maybe some of us realize that if we don’t fight them, where ever we find them, and win, the way of life we have always known will eventually be controlled by the Religion of Perpetual Outrage, Islam. Take a look around you. A Muslim man in Australia kills his wife because his daughter announced she was going to become a Christian and he blamed his wife, according to Islamic law. Taxi drivers are refusing to take fares that (might) have alcohol in their suitcases. What is next? Refusal to take a fare because a woman is not wearing a burka? Muslims in England raising hell because the Olympics in 2012 coinside with Ramadan.
So the next time you have to go through a search in an airport, remember why you have to go through that search. Remember, that it is because 3,000 Americans were killed because they don’t care where they kill us. They just want us dead. And remember, if we give up Iraq to the terrorists, and that is what will happen if we leave, their next target will be the United States, again.
So quit your gritching. Make up your mind that we have to win this war. Quit undermining our troops who are putting their lives on the line every day to keep you from having to worry about fighting Islamfascism in our own streets. We are fighting an enemy that values death more than life, Islam more than any nation and follow a prophet that gave them clear directions to conquer the world for Islam.
So for those of you who feel that this war in Iraq has ceased to be important, just go ahead and convert to Islam now. Not that it will do you much good in the end. Because one sect or another will decide you, as an American, cannot understand the real Islam and will want to see you dead anyway.
Thank God the colonists did not feel the way you do. We would be sending our taxes to London.
I admit I could not leave that alone. I responed thusly:
Your Image Here Said:
3:45 am

‘’Never mind that the killing of infidels is part of their religion and that jihad is the requirement of every Muslim. Never mind that we saw Muslims marching in our own streets during the Israel/Lebanon conflict carrying signs with the Star and Crescent flying over the White House.’‘. From a comment above.
I’m quite aware of that. ‘’Thank God the colonists did not feel the way you do. We would be sending our taxes to London.’‘. From the same comment.
How do you propose to deal with the muslim colonists in OUR country? You acknowlege that is what they are. We CANNOT ‘’bring freedom’’ to muslims. That is not what they want. What they want is the ‘’freedom’’ to rule over non-muslims with an iron fist. Look throughout europe, that’s exactly what they are doing.
Remember the so-called ‘’cartoon riots’‘? Remember that almost no newspaper or TV network would display those cartoons? Or in the case of CNN showed them ‘blurred out’? True, many blogs (including my own) displayed them but most newspapers WERE AFRAID TO.
Why? Because they were afraid of violence by muslim colonists IN OUR COUNTRY.
Would we have allowed the construction of Japanese Shinto shrines in the US in 1942? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Muslims REJECT freedom, they make that quite plain every day. So how can we ‘’bring freedom’’ to a muslim country? Why are we wasting American (and British) lives and resources trying to ‘’westernize’’ them while allowing muslims to colonize US?
That was ALSO the point of British Army Chief of Staff General Sir Richard Dannatt. After July 7th 2005 no sane Brit can legitimately conclude that British involvement in Iraq has done anything to make them safer. And our involvement in Iraq has done nothing to make US safer. Not with muslim colonists in our midst.
Our military has done it’s job (reducing Iraq to ruins). Staying there in a futile attempt to ‘’nation-build’’ a new Iraq is not their job.
We don’t have the manpower or resources to ‘’commit’’ to stabilize Iraq. Nor should we even try. Israel finally got it right, isolate the muslims and stand back and let them tear each other apart. See what is happening in Gaza now.
Go to Jihad Watch and read the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. Use the propensity of violence that muslims clearly demonstrate as Jujitsu against them.
You are aware of what Jujitsu is are you not?
Use our enemies force as a tool to help defeat it.
It’s why I advocate leaving Iraq. Just get our people out of the way and allow ‘’the iraqi people’’ to rip each other to shreds. Which is EXACTLY what they are doing anyway with or without our help.
The purpose of The Military is NOT to be ‘’an international meals-on-wheels’’ the purpose of The Military is ‘’to kill people and break things’‘.
Shock and Awe AND LEAVE. NOT Shock and Awe AND STAY.
I stand behind that comment (the links were added to the repost here). There is nothing we can accomplish in Iraq. NOTHING. Iraq is a muslim country and WE CANNOT ''bring freedom'' to muslims. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT. The koran says so in no uncertain terms. I've read the koran, I know what it says. IT makes it clear that ANY attempt ''to bring freedom'' to muslims is impossible. And yes, I do indeed advocate leaving Iraq to it's own misery.
When ''our troops'' are placed in a position where if they actually fight our enemies they are facing the brig there is no good reason for them to be there.
What will happen if ''our troops'' leave Iraq? Chaos, devastation and misery there.
What will happen if ''our troops'' stay in Iraq? Chaos, devastation and misery there.
So what is the purpose of ''our troops'' in Iraq? Get our fellow Americans out of there. Bring them home for Thanksgiving.
UPDATE: The conversation continues:
retire05 Said:
10:34 am

Yourimagehere, I agree with you when it comes to allowing the enemy to run free among us. Why is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) allowed to still operate? One of their leaders, a CAIR representative from Dallas, was just recently sentenced to a 7 year prison term for aiding and abetting. Yet, we have TWO Democrats running for congress that is accepting campaign money from these slugs.
I am not stupid and am fully aware of Jihad Watch as well as the writings of Daniel Pipes. I just finished Islam Unveiled by Robert Spencer. I realize that the Islamic faith is still in the 6th century. So your solution is to leave them to themselves? How would you propose to do that when a following of a violent religion stuck in 6th century war mode has 21st century technology?
Perhaps we cannot bring “freedom” to an Islamic nation but we can damn sure bring capitalism. And capitalism is a great motivator as is greed. People who have never had anything besides living in fear will have a change of heart about a lot of things, including their oppressive religion, when they see their bank accounts increase. Japan was once a very religious nation. Would you say that now? Would you say that religion plays the same important part in their society now as it did in 1941?
You say it is not our place to “nation build”. I ask you, what did we do in Germany and Japan? Did we not nation build? Why do we still have troops in Germany? The threat of the Cold War has ended, yet we still maintain troops in Germany. Japan is now an ally, but we still have troops in Japan. North Korea has a force in the hundreds of thousands, but we still maintain a force of 29,000 there.
And why are we afraid of Muslim retaliation over some stupid cartoon? Because we know that the Muslims, who subscribe to the Religion of Perpetual Rage, will retaliate. Are you suggesting that we just submit to their demands and leave them alone and that will make everything all honky dorie? I don’t think so. And if you think Israel got it right, then you must think that having Katusa rockets lobbed at you on a daily basis is “getting it right”.
We are in this fight alone. Europe is rapidly becoming an Islamic continent. More riots (not well covered by the MSM) in Paris, Catholic priests having their heads lopped off, etc. Maybe you are willing to sit back and see if, when we pull out of Iraq, they will just limit their killing spree to each other, but I am not.
And when the terrorists have control over Iraq’s vast oil wealth and can buy newer, fancier, deadlier weapons from North Korea or Iran, will you feel safer then knowing our troops are home to catch a rocket like a fast ball pitched over home plate? Or will you be living with a higher fear level just waiting for the next subway bombing, a bridge to be taken down, or a nuclear weapon released in Houston?
When we realize that these terrorists value death more than life, when we realize that Islam is not a religion of peace but a religion of war, when we realize that turning against their own can bring death to a Muslim, when we realize that leaving Iraq will not stop their desire to kill us, then maybe we can start fighting this war to win.
Muslims believe that there is glory in dying in jihad but no glory dying in their own beds. They use our laws against us in our own nation. It is time we start reporting that they (the terrorists) found no glory in Allah because they were killed in their own beds.
No, the war in Iraq is not making us safer. It is rallying the Islamic jihadists to their cause. So what? Do you think that all those jihadists were just sitting around with no ideas of ever fighting us before we went into Iraq? Or were they just waiting for the battle cry? Do you really believe that all those goat herders, cart merchants and wheat farmers were just peaceful people who never thought of fighting for Islam until we came along?
So far our own government (and I blame the left mostly) have made us like the Indians who had bows and arrows fighting against the Calvary who had rifles. The Indians were smarter than us, though. They realized that holding on to their “moral” high ground of fighting with the dignity of traditional Indian ways were only making them dead. So they got rifles and fought back. Only by then, it was too late. They did not win, but they at least gave it a hellofa shot and went down fighting.
Personally, I would rather go down fighting like my Indian ancestors than to throw my hands up like the French and give my nation away without so much of a struggle.
You see, I learned from the Indian wars and Vietnam. You cannot win against an enemy if you are not willing to engage them in battle on THEIR terms and throw away the book. The British held on to their Napoleonic ways of warfare, the colonists adopted the Indian method of warfare, changing in their views. Who won?
Your Image Here Said:
12:46 pm
First I agree with you on CAIR (actual name HAMAS).
Our troops are facing the brig if they actully fight against muslims in Iraq. Which is precisely why the is no longer any good reason for them to stay there.
Nor is there any connection between capitalism and freedom. Look at China.
We have a Military that is designed for short-term highly effective strikes. (‘’Shock and Awe’‘). That is not effective for long-term use.
The comparison between ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ and post-WWII Germany and Japan is also mistaken.
We decimated Japan then ruled it with an iron fist.
We did not decimate Iraq nor ruled it with an iron fist. We were too busy ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’‘.
You seem to state our leaving Iraq as surrender.
It isn’t. Nor is that my point. Our fantasy of ‘’westernizing’’ Iraq is the problem. The proper way to deal with these threats is the use of Shock and Awe AND LEAVE whenever nessessary. What kind of government Iraq has is not our concern. We can’t make muslims free not there nor here. Get our fellow Americans out of the way and allow ‘’the iraqi people’’ to rip each other to shreds.
Let them waste their manpower and resources tearing each other apart. Instead of US wasting OUR manpower and resources in a futile effort to create ‘’freedom’’ there. Muslims are unsuited for freedom ANYWHERE. Isolate them. Again, note Gaza the muslims there are phyically prevented from entry to Israel. And are turning their rage against one another.
It’s a win-win for Israel, the muslims rip each other to shreds there and the IDF doesn’t have to expend manpower and resources doing it themselves.
Iraq is a bloodbath, get our fellow Americans out the way and allow it to continue. That’s Hugh Fitzgerald’s point. Robert Spencer fully agrees with it and has stated so. It’s also my point.
B.Poster Said:
1:44 pm
To date the US has not gotten it right regarding the Israeli/Arab war. Pushing for the “road map to peace” was a terrible mistake. This only rewards terrorism. If we are going to fight against Islamic terrorists, you will need to fight them every where. It makes no snese for the US and its allies to fight them in Afghanistan and Iraq but reward it in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel should be encouraged not engage in any more unilateral withdrawls. They should be encouraged to reoccupy the areas they abandoned and they should be encouraged to expand their territory from there for as long as terrorism continues against them. An expanded Israel will serve as a stronger buffer between the Western world and the Islamic terrorists who want to kill them.

Unfortunately the geo-political realities mean that such a policy cannot be pursued at this time, therefore, they have settled for a policy that the current geo-political realities will allow. They have opted to settle for a strategy that has a chance to work that they can implement. Hopefully the current strategy of trying isolate the “Palestinians” will work. It is not the optimal one but it is the best one that can be implemented at this time.

With regards to Iraq I believe we could achieve a stable Western style democracy, if we were willing to commit the necessary resources to secure the country. Then we could work to isolate the Islamic extremists parties that we mistakenly allowed to enter the political process. For better or worse, we will never know if we could have achieved a Western style Democratic Iraq. The proper amount of resources were never commited to the project fromt he start and they are not going to be now. As the top Birtish soldier recently said, our goals will have to be scaled back. As we are unwilling and perhaps unable to commit the necessary resources to Iraq to give us the optimal chance of achieving a stable Western style democratic Iraq, we will be withdrawing soon.

The strategy we will employ will be simillar to the one suggested by “Your Image Here”, however, I predict some modifications to this. It is probably unrealistic to expect a full withdrawl. We will want to be flexible enough to respond, if terrorists should attempt to set up bases in the Iraqi areas we abandon. The mission will change to one that primarily uses special ops who will be based in Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait. These forces will likely be backed up by air support. Also, an ally in Iraq, even if it is a non democratic one would be most helpful. To this end, we may try to identify a proxy that we can support against the militias but American troops will not be involved in the day to day battle against the “insurgency.” I don’t think they will be home by thanksgiving, however, I expect most of them to be home by Ju;y 2007. By July 2007 I look for only 10,000 or fewer American troops to be in the Iraqi region.

The strategy suggested by “Your Image Here” or the variation that I think will be implemented has a very good chance to work, IF it is properly implemented. The implementation of any strategy cannot be over stressed. If the correct policies are poorly implemented, this is every bit as bad as having bad policies that are executed flawlessly. I hope the policy changes that we will se will work because they are the ones we will get.

I think the optimal strategy for Iraq and the broader GWOT would be to combine both offense and defense. We should go on the offense against terrorists where ever they are, in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and “Palestine” and we should work to reform the middle east. A moratorium should be placed on immigration from Arab countries and the mosques should be closely monitored. Our borders should be secured and we should improve the enforcement of our immigration policies. It is my understanding that some of the 911 hijackers were here on expired visas. Had we simply aggressively enforced our immigration policies the 911 attacks probably could have been prevented. The optimal strategy cannot be implemented right now. The challenge of policy makers is to formulate policies that can work and that the domestic political situation, as well as the political situtions of our allies, will allow to be implemented. In other words, the optimal solution cannot always be implemented. In these cases, it would be better to do something else rather than try to implement a solution that cannot be implemented.

Finally, I wish the Iraqis all the best. I hope and pray they can achieve a Western style representative democracy.. For better or worse, unless the Aemrican and allied domestic political situations change, the Iraqis will have to do this without our help. We will be withdrawing in masse very soon. This will happen no matter who wins the elections this November.
Your Image Here Said:
3:50 pm

Thank you B.Poster. I also agree on your modifiction:
‘’The strategy we will employ will be simillar to the one suggested by “Your Image Here”, however, I predict some modifications to this. It is probably unrealistic to expect a full withdrawl. We will want to be flexible enough to respond, if terrorists should attempt to set up bases in the Iraqi areas we abandon. The mission will change to one that primarily uses special ops who will be based in Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait. These forces will likely be backed up by air support.’‘.
You are correct in your position that full withdrawl is unrealistic. We will have to maintain much smaller forces in Kurdistan both for rapid-response needs (Shock and Awe AND LEAVE) and to serve as a buffer between (what will become likely) fully-independent Kurdistan and Turkey. The rest of Iraq will sort itself out on it’s own terms. Without our interferance or our fellow Americans in it’s crossfire. What will happen in ‘’shiastan’’ and ‘’sunnistan’’ after the removal of US forces from those areas? What is already occuring there, a bloodbath. It’s why I refer to it as ‘’Lord of the flies’’ made reality. I’m quite sure the artifical ‘’government of Iraq’’ we celebrated with ‘’purple finger fever’’ will quickly ceast to exist.
As in ‘’Lord of the flies’’ the most brutal ‘’order bringer’’ will rise to the top. That is how anarchy ALWAYS resolves itself. After it does the ‘’rebuilding of Iraq’’ will procced. With ‘’the iraqi people’’ doing it and not US.
From Hugh Fitzgerald:
‘’After a week or a month of celebration when the regime fell, the Iraqis reverted soon to type. They complained, they whined, they watched and watched as the Americans tried to get them to organize, tried to get them to cooperate with each other and not merely hold out their hands, pushing each other aside in order to claim more, more, more of the endless American funds and goodies, and never satisfied with what those American soldiers, risking their lives even to go from Point A to Point B, did for them. “But where’s the air-conditioning?” said a teacher to a stunned American soldier who had just proudly showed her the building he and his men had totally rebuilt and refurbished, and thought she would be pleased.’‘.
Think about that statement above. That’s what ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’’ has led to.
For over three years and thousands of fellow Americans dead ‘’winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people’’ has been an abject failure.
Train a unified Iraqi security apparatus to replace our forces? Also mostly unsuccessful. Why should ‘’the iraqi people’’ do ‘’the heavy lifting’’ to stablize their homeland when our forces are there to do it for them? Without our fellow Americans there ‘’the iraqi people’’ will have no choice but to figure out what way of life they want for themselves. WITHOUT ‘’our help’‘.
The debate at Right Wing Nuthouse is based on the meme ''Can order be brought to Iraq?''.
When Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered. Watch the video clip.
Can't be any more plain. This grand plan ''to bring freedom'' to dar-al-islam needs to come to an end. I openly advocate this. Our Troops need to be home for Thanksgiving. Nothing else is acceptable.
Leave Iraq in ruins. Shock and Awe AND LEAVE. No more LIBERAL ''nation-building'' projects.
What should we do instead? I have a reading assignment for you:
Why do I call the president A LIBERAL? Quite simple:
1. HE SPENDS LIKE ONE. Can you deny that is true?
2. ''Nation-building''. A derisive term that was coined during the clinton administration and is now being defended by those who refer to themselves as ''conservitive''.
3. ''Homeland Security'' that not only DOES NOT include border security, but in fact MOCKS border security with ''comprehensive immigration reform'' (put out the welcome mat for everyone that wants into America. Including al-quida).
4. ''We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here''. See #3 above.
5. The eventuality that we will all have to be strip-searched before boarding a plane. See #3 above.
Our Troops in Iraq were polled by Zogby: (boldface mine)
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
The rock band Dire Straits (Sultans of Swing, Money for Nothing) said it best in the song Industrial Disease: ''Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong''...
We should make Lemonade out of it.
Guess what? We have a Lemon. It is called Iraq. Now we can blankly stare at that Lemon and say ''DUUUUHHHH see the Lemon? That is a Lemon'' (''stay the course'')'', or we can use that Lemon to make Lemonade.
So how do we do that? First ALL AMERICANS OUT OF IRAQ!!! NO, ALL!!! Even if our troops have to DRAG their fellow AMERICANS kicking and screaming saying ''NO!!! LET ME STAY!!! I WANNA HELP!!!'' NO, they must be removed from Iraq as well.
ALL ''americans'' that are in Iraq ''to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people'' MUST LEAVE IRAQ NOW.
Our Troops need to tell all ''americans'' in Iraq, ''You can either come with us and live or we will return your corpse to your family, that's up to you''.
Did I mention that every last soldier has to leave Iraq as well? I didn't want you to misunderstand me on this. They must leave Iraq as well. While dragging someone ''that must stay in Iraq to help the Iraqi people'' either alive or in a body bag.
Did I fail to emphasize that ALL Americans MUST BE EVACUATED from Iraq? LIVING OR DEAD? AS IN RIGHT NOW!?!!?
The LIBERAL in the White House and his dittoheads have led us to belive that OUR TROOPS exsist to ''provide humanitarian assistance to poor downtrodden people''.
Our MILITARY does not exist ''to provide humanitarian assistance'' TO ANYONE. That is not it's purpose. The purpose of our Military is ''to kill people and break things'' NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
After OUR COMPLETE EVACUATION from Iraq we make it plain to ALL our enemies: Did you see what happend to saddam? Did you see what happend to saddam's Iraq?
DO YOU WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU? Are you listening, kim jong-il?
BTW, I'm ahead of you on that one, remove saddam from his prison cell and deposit him on the streets of Baghdad. Let ''the Iraqi people'' deal with him as they see fit. WITHOUT OUR INTERFERENCE OR PROTECTION!!!
''Cut and Run''? NO, Shock and Awe AND LEAVE...
Gerry Studds (the ''gay'' MA congressman) has died.
If you thought the mark foley crap would dissapate before November you are now VERY mistaken.
The R's were not killed by the D's, the R's committed suicide...
And I like this song:

30 years later:

Might as well abuse YouTube while I still can...
I can't do website design this good:
I am quite impressed. Good job... 
Welcome to those who clicked over to here from Brainster's Blog.
Even if it IS Fri., Oct. 13th. BTW, this is quite easy to do in HTML. And really hard to do with a typewriter. Dan Rather didn't realize that. Which is why he ''got retired''.
Excuse me; ''Dammit, Jason, put the hockey mask and butcher knife away!!! And shut off the chainsaw!!! It's NOT Halloween yet!!!''...
Stumbled across this on YouTube:

Led Zepplin "Rock N' Roll" LIVE
Rock n' Roll by Led Zepplin, live (circa 1980)
rocknroll zed zepplin jimmy page
Added: 4 months ago in Category: Music
From: jchema05
Views: 20,855

The 'tard that posted it thinks it was filmed in '80. Bwhahahahah!!! I know where ''the Cadillac ad'' film clip came from. *sincker*.
I bet it's older than the 'tard that posted it.
That's the good and bad about YouTube, anyone can post any video clip to it and because of the volume of video clips it is nearly impossible to tell WHERE any video clip came from.

Like this one (I wish Michael Savage would use this instead, it was even recorded LIVE in San Fran):

If the video doesn't work CLICK HERE
In 2000.
BTW, I ain't ''stealing'' this, I OWN this on videotape. And I didn't upload this. I don't have the hardware to do that...
Our political situation has actually devolved into three factions which I call:
1. The Real Right: Noted for it's complete rejection of 'multiculturism', in that opposing cultures fundamentally CANNOT comprimise with each other without one side standards and mores being utterly destroyed by the other's. A good example is what has been happening throughout europe and to a lesser extent in ''dearbornistan''. The West's concept of freedom of speech for example? The muslims OPENLY DEMAND the right to a veto of it whenever they want to.
The so-called ''cartoon riots'' demonstated this. As did their reaction to The Pope's suggestion that islam just might advocate violence against non-muslims.
This was also seen several years ago right here in our backyard where a Winter Park muslim woman DEMANDED her ''sacred muslim right'' to have her FL Driver's Licence bear a photo of ''her'' in a niquab with only ''her'' eyes visible. And it was eventually stopped.
I (and many other people) keep seeing this over and over again, the muslims DEMAND and expect us to comply. NO MATTER WHAT.
The Real Right understands that THIS IS ALSO APPEASEMENT of our enemies.
The Real Right also understands we can't be 'the day-care center' for everyone from the third world that wants TO EXPLOIT our inherent generosity.
The Real Right also understands that ''naked capitalism'' (''if it sells, just sell it'') is also destructive. Sell dope to kids? That's pretty much what the pharmacuitcal industry is doing these days.

more on the way...
North Korea has apparently succsessfully tested a thremonuclear device. Possibly a Hydrogen bomb. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING... (as of 11pm ET, 10/8/6)
UPDATE: Steven Den Beste (formerly of USS Clueless) speculates that it was indeed an H-bomb, albeitly such a poorly designed rush job that NK was lucky it worked at all!
Offically there has been no independent confirmation that NK did indeed detonate an H-bomb but I tend to belive that they did so. And considering how ''successful'' their missile tests were 7/4 there is no current need to worry about NK's threat capabilites.
In fact this flaccid chest-thumping may well be purely for the edification of The Troll Doll. It's quite possible that he acutally belives that these weapon tests were a smashing success. But in reality they were intended to be poorly-performing in order ''to rattle the cage'' of the West but not enough to make China concerned enough to say ''THAT'S QUITE ENOUGH OF THAT Mr. Troll Doll!!!''. Because if China decided NK had ''grown too big for it's britches'' they would take matters in hand, annex NK and The Troll Doll would be sitting in a Chinese prison cell RIGHT NOW...
For one thing I'm fully aware that we are indeed in a 'clash of civilizations'; ''Western Civilization'' vs. islam. What I consider ''liberals'' are personified by campus leftists who like to chant ''hey, hey, ho, ho, western civ has got to go''. When you ask them ''Ok, fine, what do you want to replace 'western civ' with?'' the answer you get is often a fumbling, stumbling one that often reads like the lyrics to the John Lennon song ''Imagine''. Or some dreamy vision of what life was ''before western civ'' that often does not conform to any historical reality (or delibrately omits the aspects of such civilizations that stubbornly fail to conform to their dream of a utopian world).
When you point out the fact that slavery is still openly practiced in various parts of Africa, they hem, haw and change the subject. When you point out to these folks that the failure of government after hurricane Katrina plainly occured ON ALL LEVELS they hem, haw, and screech that ''it's all bush's fault anyway''. Which puts the lie to thier claim of bush being a dictator because in order to circumvent the collapse of the State government of Louisiana and the government of the City of New Orleans during and after Katrina the president would have had to act unilaterally as a dictator.
The OTHER reason I'm not a ''liberal'' is I take an honest and realistic view of the world. And that's why I tend to clash with those on ''the right''. While I too would like other cultures to adopt our standards and mores I'm not unaware that we have little effect in the way of actually promoting them. And when our cultural standards are diametrically opposed to those of another culture is either use 'diplomacy' to effect at best superficial changes. A good example is the fact what we call 'software/movie/music piracy' is blatant and rampant throughout all of Asia. ''Western'' software companies, the MPAA, and the RIAA complain, and from time to time governments in Asian countries do 'crackdowns' of such copywrite infringment and as soon as the press and police go away the 'pirated software' reappears openly for sale on the street.
THE ONLY OTHER WAY to effect such a broad cultural change is by force. Dictitorial control where behavior we disagree with is banned with ''the muscle to back it up''. That is how we made Japan 'pacifist' after WWII. When they signed the peace treaty to officialy end WWII our NON-NEGOTIANAL terms were that Japan completely demilitrize with the promise that the US would provide for it's common defense in place of the Japanese military.
How through Japanese demilitrization is has been demonstrated in ''Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
When we requested the assistance of the token Japanese Army the Japanese Parliment had to ammend the Japanese Constitution (that WE created for them) to allow the deployment of Japanese troops on foregin soil! WE had explicitly banned the use of the Japanese Military outside of Japan. Even then, the Japanese made it quite clear that the only thing the Japanese Army could do in Iraq is only humanitarian aid for Iraqis. They were armed, but are only allowed to use their weapons in self-defence. They WERE NOT permitted to even act jointly with American or British forces in any action that could be construed as an offensive one.
Little wonder why in 2oo4 the Japanese had withdrawn the 3,000 troops that they commited to ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' (and why there was little complaint from the US and UK about it).
I too had bought into the idea that if we merely removed the dictatorship of saddam hussein and the baa'th party ''the Iraqi people'' could and would create ''a new Iraq'' that is stable, prosperous and does not ''threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder'' (click the link, those are not my words, those are the president's).
What have we brought Iraq? If you define ''freedom'' AS ANARCHY (as so-called ''liberals'' like to do) we have indeed brought ''freedom'' to Iraq. A ''Lord of the flies'' form of ''freedom''.
The daily reports of ongoing bloodshed there (that ''our troops'' are unaffective in quelling) have brought me to the conclusion that I no longer care what kind of government is created in Iraq (or even if it remains a single country) I merely want our fellow Americans to either IMPOSE ORDER to Iraq or if that is not possible then YES, we MUST ''abandon'' Iraq.
We tried ''to bring freedom'' to a part of the world that does not merely not understand what we call ''freedom'' but in fact is actually opposed to it.
I've said it before, the right idea is ''shock, awe and leave'' if Iraq presents us a threat to us in the future...
For many years now there have been aspects to this war that we still are reluctant to deal with.
The first and most important one is how this war is even defined.
We've all heard the buzzwords ''radical islam'', ''islamo-fascists'', ''islamic fascists'' and so on and so forth, but the truth is it's NOT ''a tiny minority that have (pick a word; distorted, twisted, perverted) the pure religion of islam''. The phrase that president bush coined: ''islam is a religion of peace'' has become a much-derided term 'on the blogosphere'. Usually reduced to the acronym RoPMA (''Religion of Peace My A...''). The reason that has happend is people are actually reading the koran and figuring out that it does indeed mean what it says. ''undercover black man'' said in a comment to a blog:
Dude… what part of “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” don’t you understand? Is there any holy book among world religions, EXCEPT the Koran, which advocates the spread of its beliefs through force of arms?
Read all the comments to get the context of what he said. Those who are in denial responded with things like:
''These are obviously the words of a person who doesn't know what he is talking about. Who told you that the Koran says this? You obviously have never read it.
You are inventing facts and quoting hearsay to promote your mistaken view of reality.''
''undercover black man'' rebutted that quite well:
Well, it seems I’m busted. The wording I quoted earlier – “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” – comes not from a scholarly translation of the Koran, but from a polemical anti-Islam website: prophetofdoom.net. And, yes, this customized phrasing has been picked up and spread about the Internet by right-wing bloggers.

Fortunately, the entire text of the Koran is available online. A University of Southern California website even provides verse-by-verse comparisons of English translations by Mohammad Habib Shakir, Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall – the most widely cited translations in the English-speaking world.


Available online, also, is an English translation by Rashad Khalifa, an Egyptian-born chemist who became a U.S. citizen and founded his own Islamic offshoot, United Submitters International, in Arizona a few decades ago.

Now… the ninth sura (or chapter) of the Koran, Surat at-Tawba (which I’ve seen translated as “the Repentance,” “the Immunity,” “the Dispensation” and “the Ultimatum”), concerns how Muslims are to deal with pagans (or “idolaters”), as well as Jews and Christians, under their jurisdiction.

Basically, this chapter gives the pagans three options. Either they “repent” and convert to Islam, or formally submit to Muslim governance and do nothing to oppose Islam. Or, as is written in the third verse, “if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve.” [Pickthall]

Here we come to verse 5 (all parenthetical portions within quotes are from the original text):

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [Shakir]

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” [Yusuf Ali]

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [Pickthall]

“Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.” [Khalifa]
I maintain ''the customized phrasing'' (his words) of koran sura 9:5 at the top of this blog. And I see no reason whatsoever to remove it. I ''did my homework'' and pulled up the website he posted in URL form. It was a cut'n paste. Three different translations of the koran and the same meaning. And in fact they are consistent with ''the customized phrasing'' that appears above.
Other posters to this comment thread chose the ''Well, the Bible says'' argument:
''As for other religious books that command the killing of unbelievers, how about the Old Testament? To wit:

God commands the Israelites to drive out the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, warning, "You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. They shall not remain in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me" (Exodus 23:32-33).

Later Moses emphasizes that "you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter. You shall not intermarry with them...You shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire" (Deuteronomy 7:1-5). The Israelites are also commanded to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven" (Deuteronomy 25:19).

When Israelite men start consorting with Midianite women, God orders Moses to "assail the Midianites and defeat them," lest the temptation to pagan practices continue (Numbers 25:16-18). Moses later chastises the commanders of his army for sparing the Midianite women and children (Numbers 31:13-18).

That sounds pretty damn violent to me. Should American Christians fear Jews as well?''
The commenter ''Terrahawk'' shot that argument down with:
You're missing the point. The commands about war in the OT are limited in time and scope. The Jews aren't commanded to fight until either everyone is a Jew or living according to Jewish law. In Islam, the command is open-ended.

At best you are saying that you can't refute what UBM has clearly pointed out. Since Islam does command those actions, what should we do with that knowledge?


Maybe the majority do condone the actions.
The propriator of that blog proves he is indeed sane:
Michael Cohen said...

Darius H, I will debate facts once I have made clear that you appear to me to be grasping at straws. Liberals hate to be caught on the wrong end of the facts like that because their ideolgy are beliefs are total beliefs that may not be challengeable even though they are all too often, wrong.
You have become desperate and have proceeded to "thrash about" like a creature caught in some trap. This is what you post appears like to me. I am sure others would agree with me and I apologise if it seems unkind.

Undercover black man has raised the issue that there is a perfectly valid basis in the Koran for terrorism. While it is apparent that a fair majority of muslims are nice people, human enough not to desire to fill me with shrapnel, it is hardly relevant. His point has the following implications. While the fact temains that the majority of them do not wish to kill jews and christians, that does not stop the minority who do. Secondly That minority is dangerous and its existence is inherent due to their religion. The former is due to the totalitarian nature of Jihad in Islam as the objectives of Jihad are much wider and deeper in scope than any other major group in existence and the powerful motivations posessed by the Jihadists. This makes comparisons to Mr. Mcveigh irrelevant. The latter point, that the existence inherent of jihadists amongst muslims, is predicated upon the content of their holy text, and the fact is that no muslim, no matter how well meaning is able to use their key holy scripture to attack the actions of the terrorists. To seek to redefine the jihad is heretical, to oppose it is apostasy and there are people living under the threat of death for doing so. Hirsi Ali being the prime example.

This is the Nature of the threat we as the west are faced with.

Returning to my earlier comment on Mr Darius H's comments, having been peresented with the evidence that the Koran preaches a never ending and comprehensive jihad against the non believer, rather than face up to this fact, Mr Darius H's response it not to ask "what one should do about this information?". Instead, he decides that it is much better to blow smoke, by saying that the Christian past of the west doesn't look good. That is mere distraction from the problem. An patently false at that. What does the fact tht we had slaves have to do with the Jihad against us? What does the fact that Charlemagne's response to the Saxon raids upon his territory was to crush them then convert them Christianity have to do with Jihad, which has manifested in 1400 years of attacks, ranging from Piracy to all out invasion? the answer to all this is none at all. The source of all this is the complete arrogance that only liberal Truth exists.
This came to me with the description that this comment section came from ''a left-leaning blog''. These days it sounds more sane than what comes out of the White House on any given day.
Our president LOVES to say ''we are not at war with islam''. Whenever I hear that phrase I want to vomit. As far as I'm concernend, that is more proof that the president ACTUALLY IS STUPID!!!
It would be no different if FDR had said ''We are not at war with Japanese Shintoism or the Japanese people'' AFTER the suprise attack on Hawaii on 12-7!!!
Am I advocating ''internment camps'' for muslims? Absoultley not. 65 years ago I would also be opposed to ''internment camps'' for Japanese. We have no need for ''internment camps'' for muslims. We didn't NEED ''internment camps'' for Japanese in this country THEN and we don't need ''internment camps'' for muslims NOW.
That mosque in Melborne FL needs to be emptied and all it's contents ''returned to sender''; saudi arabia. Then the land should be claimed under eminent domain for OUR use. INSTEAD of A SETTLEMENT for our enemies...

My Blogger Profile

Living on the cutting edge...