From both the president and ''talk radio'' is: ''We won't leave Iraq UNTIL WE ACHIVE VICTORY!!!''
First, let's look up the word ''Victory'' in the Dictionary (I'll use Dictionary.com):

vic‧to‧ry  /ˈvɪktəri, ˈvɪktri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vik-tuh-ree, vik-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph: American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest: The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory.
5. (initial capital letter) the ancient Roman goddess Victoria, often represented in statues or on coins as the personification of victory.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME victorie

It is time for ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' to end. It is time for ''OPERATION AMERICAN VICTORY'' to begin.
We begin ''OPERATION AMERICAN VICTORY'' by bringing heavy equipment into the center of the Iraqi desert. We will have to excavate a large pit.
Then FINALLY we begin to wage war in Iraq. ''NO MORE MR. NICE GUY, NO MORE MR. CLEAN''.'
NO MORE LIBERAL ''winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi people''. We gave ''the iraqi people'' over 3 years and a longer period of time than WWII (I guess those who fought WWII ''were just impatient due to television'' as well).
The way I see it, FOR EVERY American Soldier that died in Iraq, A THOUSAND ''iraqis'' pay the ultimate price. That would be about 2.5 million ''iraqis''. For every American Soldier that had to return home with missing body parts, only 100 ''iraqis'' have to pay. Even so-called ''conservitives'' were WHINING about ''haditha'' and ''abu ghrabih''.
We keep hearing how ''America and Israel are 'massacring' moslims''. That is moslim taquua, (never be honest to ''infiedels'').
The moslims keep saying ''as much as the infiedels love life, we love death''.
Let's give them WHAT THE MOSLIMS WANT.
A while ago I managed to refute both a ''junk food conservitive'' AND a hard-core liberal (at the same time) with ''The JFC is NOT 'A War Monger', I AM''... posted by YIH @ 5:50 AM on Wednesday, November 29, 2006  : 

Today is Tue. Nov. 28 . This officially puts an even more important point on this timeline.
''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' has now gone on LONGER than WWII.
At this point in WWII the Japanese had signed off on it's surrender and stood down. WE WON!!! We defeated our enemies!!!
With Iraq we are non-fighting a non-war against non-enemies while calling it ''fighting our enemies''. How 'Orwellian' can this get? And yet we SOMEHOW expect some kind of ''victory'' out of this.
The JFC's keep saying ''just keep pressing on with the training of 'Iraqi' forces we'll get our victory SOMEHOW''. Not good enough... posted by YIH @ 5:44 AM on Tuesday, November 28, 2006  : 

I keep going to Hugh Fitzgerald because he keeps making sense of things:

This could not have been prevented by more American troops. It could not have been prevented by more American aid. In the end, the Sunnis would never acquiesce in the reduced status and power which was the inevitable result of the overthrow of the Sunni despot Saddam Hussein. And the Shi'a woudl never permit a return to the situation before, nor will they ever willingly surrender or share, in a way that non-Muslim Westerners might agree to share among themselves, power or money. And whatever promises might be extracted by the Americans will be broken just as soon as the American aid or presence is no longer deemed necessary. This is something our almost comically ignorant makers of policy will not recognize. How can they? For if they did, then the entire enterprise, save for the part about scouring for major weaponry,would be seen to be based on false assumptions, on nearly criminal negligence in the lack of attention paid both to Islam and to Iraq. All that ails Ameican foreign policy, including the care and feeding of all those "experts" at think-tanks quick with pronouncements and prognostications based on very little, and certainly not on sustained and quiet study, removed from the hectic vacancy that is encouraged by those very think-tanks, and those interviews, and those rich consultancies to televisiion channels, and those seminars sponosred by a Center for Advanced International Blah here and there, when what is needed is less media exposure and more midnight oil.

The utterly unsurprising becomes, for some, a series of amazing surprises. A tragicomedy of error after error, because based on two basic errors: about the definition of the enemy (and hence of the rightly-defined goal), and about the understanding of Iraq (and hence of how the specifics of Iraq can be naturally exploited to further that rightly-defined goal)

Coming. Home. Chickens. Roost.

He understands the reality of the situation... posted by YIH @ 8:52 PM on Sunday, November 26, 2006  : 

We HAVE ''lost in Iraq''. This whole ''politically correct'' non-war in Iraq is reaching it's peak:

WASHINGTON — President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are facing a decision whether to keep their scheduled meeting next week in Jordan at the risk of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr making good on a threat to pull his Shiite faction from the fragile coalition government.

We were so obsessed with ''bringing freedom to the Iraqi people'' that we had no idea who or what we were ''bringing freedom'' TO.
Now we have a standoff situation: bush mananges to keep his appointment with al-maliki;
The onus shifts to al-sadr to make good his threat to essentially dissolve the artificial ''Iraqi government''.
Or al-maliki decides to avoid meeting with bush in Jordan or (doubtful) bush himself decides to refrain from meeting with al-maliki:
That essentially installs al-sadr as ''the new saddam'', the new ruler of non-Kurdistan ''iraq''.
We have already told al-sadr that WHAT WE (THE U.S.of A) CAN DO WITH ''OUR TROOPS'' can be stopped on his orders!!!
For three years now I've heard/read ''we need to take out al-sadr''.
But here's the problem:
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO IT!!!
Now it's too late, if we NOW ''take out al-sadr'' the artificial ''government of Iraq'' utterly collapses (al-sadr has enough power to say what HE ALLOWS ''our troops'' to do or not do).
Yes, that's how bad it's gotten!!!
If our ''our troops'' are put in a situation where they are little more than 'sitting ducks' for whatever moslim wants to pick them off they should not be there... posted by YIH @ 8:45 PM on Friday, November 24, 2006  : 

No, NOT ''Autumn'', Thanksgiving. And yes, rusty humphires, DEEP FRIED TURKEY ROCKS!!!
Yes, deep frying turkey can be dangerous. There are many things if mishandled can be dangerous.
Done properly, you won't want turkey done any other way... posted by YIH @ 8:13 PM on Wednesday, November 22, 2006  : 

And rebecca hagelin's fault as well.
UPDATE: Faux News finally realized it was trying to do to America what mark foley was trying to do to congressional pages. And like mark foley ''they fell on their sword''.
But it again shows the true nature of pawn vanity. He will (and in fact has) defended child molesters called ''Catholic Priests'' and is more than happy to jump on any seedy bandwagon that Faux News brings out for display. ''A great American?'' Not even close... posted by YIH @ 6:49 PM on Monday, November 20, 2006  : 

A week ago I was in an online chat room that I'm a regular of. I signed in with my usual 'handle' (Your Image Here) and about 30 minutes later a liberal from Orlando also joined in. Of course the liberal is saying ''we need to get out of Iraq''. I said ''I agree'' (any reader of this blog knows I openly advocate the same thing).
Then the house ''junk food conservitive'' proceeds to blast the liberal using the standard mindless boilerplate that I now consider absolutelty disgusting.
After taking a few blasts from the JFC (might as well make it an acronym, I use it often enough) the liberal whines ''What are you, a warmonger?''. Couldn't resist that one, and replied ''No, the JFC is not a warmonger. I AM''.
Before March 20, 2003 my opinion was: ''OK, if saddam (and his WMD) are this incredible threat to America that the bush adminsistration is claiming then let the dogs of war run free!!!''
Order ''the football'' be delivered to the President, he authorizes the launch codes, makes the call, and ''PUSHES THE BUTTON'' on A SINGLE thermonuclear-tipped ICBM target-locked to the center of Baghdad. Game. Set. And Match.
SUDDENLY A BILLION moslems would realize: ''OH POOPIE!!! THE AMERICANS MEAN IT THIS TIME!!!''.
Then the President comes on the TV and says: ''For eighteen months we have been demanding proof that Iraq has disarmed in accordance with UN resolutions. The Iraqi government has failed to do so and has in fact done everything it could to AVOID resolving this issue peacefully. We regret that we had to employ our own WMD against Iraq, but we were convinced that if we did not we would fail to defend the world from grave danger''.
THAT is where we failed with Iraq. Instead OF FIRST ''enemy defeating'' Iraq, we skipped that step and went straight to ''nation-building'' Iraq. That set up our defeat there.
It's closing in on the FOURTH year of ''nation-building a new Iraq'' and we have made no progress in that regard. Continuing to expend the lives of our fellow Americans in such a foolish endeavor OUTRAGES ME.
I ABSOULTELY HATE THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT ''OUR TROOPS'' ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SOCIAL WORKERS!!!
''OUR TROOPS'' HAVE BECOME IRAQ'S 'WELFARE CHECK'!!! We need some more welfare reform... posted by YIH @ 7:01 AM on Sunday, November 19, 2006  : 

I've been making some modifications to this blog to improve the way it looks.
When I do so I care little how it appears on IE. I HATE Internet Exploder!!! As far as I'm concerned as long as the clock appears right under the ''Your Image Here'' on IE I'm happy.
When Lawerence Auster was having problems with his blog displaying properly on IE7 (and IE6) I knew why and told him how to fix it. I had the same problem myself!
I'm glad he found someone to fix his blog for him. I perfer a more ''hands on'' approach to site coding. That's right, I'm in charge of blog maintaince here as well.
Don't like how this blog displays on your computer? Click on any 'comment' link and tell me WHY it looks wrong.
If it's because of the background colors on the blog main and sidebar, FORGET IT.
They are that way for a reason and likely won't change. Deal with it.
Here's the irony: I pretty much succeded in getting my blog to look the way I want it to. ON INTERNET EXPLODER!!! *&^^%$#@!?{}!!! In fact, I'M quite impressed with how it looks on IE.
IT'S INTENDED TO LOOK GOOD ON FIREFOX AND OPERA!!! NOT IE!!! I don't want to change how it looks on IE. I just want it to look just as good on Firefox and Opera.
I'll try to before this blog makes it to it's 1^st Anniversery... posted by YIH @ 6:49 PM on Saturday, November 18, 2006  : 

Every now and then I visit ''Michelle Malkin''s blog. Then I saw something familer.
She posted this on November 14, 2006 09:52 PM:

I saw it and thought ''Hmm, wonder where she dug that little gem up?''. She credits Allah (@ HOT AIR: posted at 11:57 am on November 9, 2006 by Allahpundit) clicked the link and read ''Via INDC Bill'' (Posted by Bill at November 9, 2006 11:30 AM). I said ''OK, so where did HE find it?'' he makes no mention of where he found it. A little miffed at that, and said so:

So Bill where did YOU find that little gem?
I got wind of it from The Inquirer, saw it and said ''OH YEAH! THAT'S going on my blog!''.
Back on Nov 1st.
Had to hack the HTML code a bit to make it work like a YouTube Video...

That's the truth, I can't take credit for discovering it, credit belongs to The Inquirer. It has what I call it's ''suprise link'' that doesn't appear every day but when one does show up it ONLY appears for that day. I saw the video and thought ''I'm putting THAT up! RIGHT AWAY!!!''.
I wanted it to function like a YouTube video, so I dug through the HTML and got it to work (unlike YouTube/Google Video it autoloads and plays on loading the page, got rather annoying even on DSL. Sorry dialup users).
BTW, I don't ''hire out'' my HTML coding. Strictly DIY, it's why this blog changes from time to time as I ''get my hands dirty'' with the HTML. Notice OUR FLAG in the Address bar instead of that orange ''B'', quite proud of that one... posted by YIH @ 1:10 PM on  : 

From ''Responding to a post...'' I found a comment that inspired this post:

I used to be for "stay the course" in Iraq or something like that, however, I'm beginning to agree with you that we need to redeploy to Kurdish areas.

Had we commited enough troops to secure the country and if we allowed the ones there now to actually fight, we might have been able to actually establish a western style deomcracy. As ii is, our troops are having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. More troops will not be coming to Iraq. It is likely that we do not have them. Even if we did, the American people would not stand for it.

For better or worse we will be redeploying to Kurdish areas soon. I predict all of our troops will be out of Sunni and Shia areas by the end of July 2007.
B.Poster | 11.16.06 - 1:59 am | #

Originally I was going to respond to this in the comments, then I realized that there is a point that had to be made ''in the blog main''. I can only assume this is the same ''B.Poster'' that I've mentioned before.
This is how I began my reply:
I was originally ''stay the course'' myself. By the end of 2004 I began to have my doubts about our ability to transform Iraq into (as you call it) a western-style democracy. Then I read ''It Didn't Work'' by Wm. F. Buckley and listened to the reaction of it on various talk radio shows. They were in a quandry over it, they couldn't dismiss it as the ravings of cindy sheehan but obviously they couldn't bring themselves to see the common sense of it either.
Then came ''the flash of light'', (''Victory in Iraq'') is the ONLY thing most so-called ''conservitives'' can still defend bush over!!!
Think about it, ''Homeland Security''? With a wide-open US/Mexico border? And the president fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way?! Sucking up to the saudis doesn't help either.
''Fiscal Restraint''? HE MAKES BILL CLINTON LOOK LIKE A TIGHTWAD!!! If I spent like ''lyndon baines bush'' I'd have a couple dozen credit cards and they'd all be maxed out!!!
BTW, If you really need to know, I have one Visa and one MC. They send me the bill, it gets paid in full promptly. I HATE DEBT.
''Responsible Government''? He could have vetoed ''McCain-Finestine'' by merely not signing it into law. He does anyway IN THE HOPE ''that the Supreme Court would strike it down anyway''. Then the Supreme Court upholds it. Guess who got left with egg on thier face? Bushbots.
Rick Darby coined the phrase ''Reverse Bush Derangement Syndrome'', and that is what most of talk radio and a majority of blogs have become.
Their HOPE of some kind of (vaugely defined) ''success'' in transforming Iraq is all they have left. That is why they are quite literally BLIND to the reality of 2/3^rds of Iraq.
They would rather have another 50 to 100 of their fellow Americans be shipped home in coffins every month than to admit they (and he) were wrong.
But THEY (not just bush) THEY are keeping 100,000 of our fellow Americans where they can't fight ANY enemy (because bush has declared ''the Iraqi people'' as ''not our enemy'').
When the facts of what is happening in Iraq is shoved in their face they dodge, desperately clinging to the HOPE that bush will do right on just this and this alone.
As a good example I leave you with the oft-stated claim that saddam was part of and supported al-quida. Bush himself denied that... posted by YIH @ 6:09 PM on Friday, November 17, 2006  : 

Having read and listened to many post-mortems on the '06 election I wanted to toss in my own 2 cents on the common whining about it:
1. ''Pelosi says 'impeachment is off the table' but we just know she's lying''; My point is ''So What? They should be getting busy on impeachment first thing in January''. To the parent of a pre-schooler these days knows about the video or DVD that I've heard nicknamed ''toddler crack''. That video is one the pre-schooler will quite literally watch non-stop over and over again from the time the child wakes up in the morning to falling asleep at night. And I've seen or heard of parents of toddlers take advantage of that fact to use said video as a 'virtual playpen'.
That's what Impeachment proceedings would be for the pols (and the pundits), a 'virtual playpen' where they can busy themselves and otherwise do little harm to themselves or others. As in being too busy in a shouting match over impeachment to have much time or attention to devote to amnasty for illeagals. Granted, a delaying tactic at best, but we have to use whatever we got these days.
2. ''Now that the D's are in power our troops will be leaving Iraq''. Another ''So What?'', I've been openly advocating the same thing for quite some time now. Hugh Fitzgerald makes a similar point, that while the motivations are rotten to the core the ultimate result is actually desirible.
I'm become quite convinced that outside of Kurdistan all ''our troops'' are there for is to be little more than the targets in a shooting range. I cannot nor will not support that. I say send ''the Iraqi people'' 100,000 paper gun range targets in place of the 100,000 of ''our troops'' in 2/3^rds of Iraq.
3. ''Now bush will get amnasty for sure''. I'm convinced that this was one of his aims from the time he was Govenor of Texas and merely considering a run for president. It's quite possible that he could implement amnasty via either Executive Order or even a blanket pardon not unlike the one jimmy carter did with vietnam draft dodgers. If clinton can pardon someone off the ''FBI's Ten Most Wanted List'' bush can pardon literally tens of millions of lawbreakers with the stroke of a pen. Can't even call it unconstitutional, though I doubt our founding fathers ever envisioned that the power of the pardon would be so throughly abused in such a manner (nor did they envision the ability of a president to be ''president for life'' as FDR did).
BTW I support a Constitutional Amendment that would allow the House to 'veto' presidential pardons by majority vote. That's what the amendment process is for, NOT for things like ''the flag burning amendment''.
That is my point of the first two. Keep Washington embroiled over ''withdrawl of troops from Iraq'' and ''impeaching bush over Iraq'' in order to busy them with nonsense. Not unlike plopping a toddler in front of the TV to watch their favorite 'Barney' video over and over again. posted by YIH @ 3:59 PM on  : 

Vanishing American replyed to a previous post with:
''I think you've got a point. The likelihood of it being used against people who dissent against the PC orthodoxy is greater than it being used against real enemies.''
THAT is what really troubles me:''As for the police who have one of the kidnappers of your daughter, let's be honest. If we do not give them the tools, leeway and permission to do whatever is necessary to prevent her brutal murder, we are a society not worth saving. The message sent to our enemies that we will not do everything to defend and protect ourselves is far more harmful than anything of concern to John McCain with regard to our current techniques of interrogation.'' (bold and italics mine).
I can fully understand rusty humphries EMOTIONAL reasoning behind this opinion. He has two daughters he obviously loves dearly.
BUT he doesn't understand ''the big picture''.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, three years from now we have 'president hillary clinton' (I'll be honest, I see that as inevitable now). Giving such power to the Executive branch of our government is something to NOT embrace with open arms but something TO AVOID.
I wonder if he would like to be arrested on charges of ''hate speech'' and have ''the tools, leeway and permission to do whatever is necessary'' used upon him. I doubt he'd like to be ''waterboarded'' by an underling of 'president hillary clinton'.
P.S., If you have ever heard rusty humphrie's radio show you'll notice that show's theme song is ''rusty! heck yeah!''. Perhaps you should hear THE ORIGINAL VERSION of that song [CAUTION: FOUL LANGUAGE!!!]... posted by YIH @ 6:52 AM on  : 

This may (may not) suprise you but I have been no fan whatsoever of the so-called PATRIOT act. Nor did I favor the administration declaring jose padilla ''an unlawful combatant'' and subject to detention without formal charges and access to legal representaion (NOTE: he IS a US citizen).
The Supreme Court (rightly, in my opinion) struck down the president's claim and basically told the administration ''Do it by the constitution, charge him or release him''.
The reasons I favor the repeal of the so-called PATRIOT act:
1. 90% of it was legislation sought by bill clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing (and died in Congress then). And we all understand what ''enemies'' and ''terrorists'' that clinton was seeking to curtail the actions of.
2. The fact that president bush has reffered to The Minutemen as ''vigilantes''.
3. The possibility that no matter the outcome of the next presidential election, we may have a more openly (instead of surreptitionally) liberal administration replacing the current one.
There were many who were happy ''that the president now has the tools to fight the terrorists''. The problem is what defines a ''terrorist'' is not unlike what defines ''hate speech''. It CAN change according to the political whims of those who define those terms.
With moslems increasingly portrayed as ''victims'' of ''racists'' such as those who accurately show that the koran proscribes moslims to unrelenting war in all forms against non-moslims and those of us who show moslems speaking and acting like moslims there is a distinct possibility that THIS or a future administration will see all defenders against moslims (in ANY way, including telling the truth about them) as ''terrorists''... posted by YIH @ 4:23 PM on Wednesday, November 15, 2006  : 

For years now the grate winter debate has raged; Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays.
While I perfer Merry Christmas myself I can't get bent out of shape over Happy Holidays either. To me the web posts and talk radio bluster comes off as like pro wrestlers doing the pre-match hype.
But what I saw at my bank the other day IS worth a rant. Call me old-fashioned but I perfer to go into the lobby and walk up to the teller and do my transaction face to face. Like the electric company office my bank likes to decorate for that particular month's main holiday. Being November how they'd decorate is obvious (they at least wait 'till December for the Christmas stuff). What triggered this rant was what I saw sitting next to the teller window, a small Cornicopia complete with the message ''Happy Autumn''.
THAT'S RIGHT, ''Happy Autumn''!!!. I kid you not. PC run amok. posted by YIH @ 3:45 AM on  : 

As a way to keep the amount of political commentary down on Chizumatic Steven Den Beste posts his strictly political posts to Chicgao Boyz. His most recent one pushed me to respond to it.
It demonstrates a striking lack of knowlege about the reality of Iraq:

Bailing out of Iraq won't result in increased radicalism in the Middle East. (Though we're told that invading the place did result in increased radicalism.) "Redeploying" won't convince the radicals that we're cowards who have no staying power and can be worn down in a long fight. It won't convince the radicals that they can attack us with impunity and that the price of doing so won't be catastrophe for them.

This is an example of the ''junk food conservitism'' that I often rail about. That is we do anything BUT ''stay the course'' then ''the terrorists win''. It also suggests (by using the term ''Redeploying'' in a sneering way) that somehow, just somehow, if we just keep doing whatever we're doing in Iraq that someday in the future this fantasy future Iraq will somehow become reality.
This ''junk food conservitism'' mentality keeps lamely trying to argue what we are doing in Iraq is actually fighting a war. In truth it's non-fighting a non-war towards a non-victory.
The vast majority of ''our troops'' killed and maimed in Iraq are not being killed in combat with the enemy they are merely being used as target practice for any of dozens of warring factions.
I attempted to post a reply to Steven Den Beste's post on Chicago Boyz. For whatever reason, it failed to post. Not a problem; I saved a copy of that reply and will post it here instead:

One thing that bothers me is when it comes to Iraq that you seem to belive in myths and fantasy.
And for you that's understandable. While this past two years I've been studying Iraq and what is ACTUALLY going on over there you have been watching DVD after DVD of anime.
I advise you to go to Jihad Watch and read the writings of Hugh Fitzgerald. Or ParaPundit and any post on Iraq. The mytholgical Iraq you visulize that is stable, ''westernized'' and functioning as singular US-friendly state is as realistic as teenage girls that can cast magic spells.
A 101 dead Americans this past month alone who were following the orders to try to create what is clearly a fantasy is obscene.
We do indeed need to what you sneeringly call 'redeployment' to bases on the northern and southern Kurdish borders. And allow the rest of Iraq to emerge from anarchy any way it can.
There is no vaugely defined 'victory' to be had in Iraq. Not with an adminstration that is still committed to ''winning the hearts and minds of the (fictional) Iraqi people'' and leaving 100,000 of our fellow Americans to essentially be target practice for any one of dozens of competing factions. Read up on the reality of Iraq or pop Dragon Ball Z back into the DVD drive. Your choice.
Another myth you cling to is that anything but ''stay the course'' is only a far left-wing view.
Is Wm. F. Buckley a raving liberal moonbat? Or George Will? Or Diana West? There is an increasing number on the right that see getting our fellow Americans killed and mamied in persuit of a fantasy is quite literally insane.

I added the links on posting it here. Harsh? You betcha, but if you visit Chizumatic you will also discover my criticisim of SDB is also quite accurate. posted by YIH @ 7:15 PM on Sunday, November 12, 2006  : 

This is the first review of anything I've ever posted. But hey, this blog is a 'grab bag' you never know what you'll find here.
DINNER SHOW: Capone's, Kissimmee FL. Not much of a website that's for sure, looks like something I could throw together in an hour.
While it's been around since the mid-80's I'd never got around to visiting it until now. I'd been to the other, better known ones such as Medievel Times on a dozen occasions, Arabian Knights once and the now-defunct Wild Bill's western review once (it's defunct for good reason, it was awful).
THEME: If you did click on the link, the theme is quite apparent; An Al Capone Chicago speakeasy circa 1930. You enter via the (rather small) lobby/gift shop and are directed to ''the door'' where ''the secret password'' is given in order to enter the speakeasy. Being nearly at the front of the line I was able to see that part of the show. After one performance it becomes a matter of assigning parties for seating.
NOTE: Having been around for 20 years, the place has become quite polished and efficient in how it handles guests. That's not a knock against it, they handle crowds quite well without being unfriendly or unduly distracting from the overall theme.
FOODSERVICE: Food is served buffet style, all you can eat (in an hour). After being seated the waiter/waitress comes to your table for your drink orders. I gotta give the waiter credit, when a member of my party ordered Iced Tea he suggested that she would likely be disappointed by it. He knew that here in The South people take their Iced Tea seriously!!! And suggested another beverage. She took his advice and got a Coke instead.
Guests are brought to the buffet line by 'station' in order to avoid crowding the buffet area. The general idea is to not have a long line for the buffet but also to give each guest adaquate time to get their food.
FOOD: By dinner show standards, not bad at all. I'll be honest, with this type of attraction, you are going there for OK food. That is what Capone's delivers. Nothing worth going there just for the food but nothing that could be described as disappointing either. It's generic Italian: A little salad, (and I DO mean little, lettuce, sliced cucumbers, cherry tomatoes, french and ranch dressing. That's it!) Steamed veggie medley, Mashed Potatos and chicken gravy, FRESH Garlic Bread (that alone gets an honorable mention), Vegetable and Meat Lassanga, Spaghetti, Goulash (with meatballs? First time I'd seen it served that way, but the meatballs were good anyway), Mac and Cheese, Sliced Ham, and Rotisserie Chicken.
Nothing noteworthy but nothing truely disappointing either. By dinner show standards, they did a good job with the food.
DRINKS: Keeping with the speakeasy theme they do indeed serve alcohol (full liquor licence). If they have a cash bar I didn't see it nor was it ever mentioned. Drinks are ''on the house'' and include draft Beer, Sangria and ''rum runners'' (my guess, 8oz. 'Hawaiian Punch' with a shot of rum, I wasn't driving, so that's what I had). I was actually expecting watered-down drinks, and they were not! Drink service was also good, my glass was only empty for a few minutes before my waiter cheerfully refilled it.
SHOW: As noted the theme is ''Roaring 20's'' I had no problem with the sight line, the sound system was quite good and not a visible microphone to be found. They even got the sound levels right! Nothing was muffled or overdriven and with very little echo.
Being this is a tourist attraction the show is G-rated, the girls showed plenty of leg (and some midriff) but less bare skin than you'd see on an average public beach.
The show was tightly scripted but allowed various characters to interact with the audience. Someone in the audience has the nickname ''Possum'' and the cast had fun with that!
I didn't like the shrill voice of ''Bunny'' nor did anyone else I spoke to. While the voice quickly got grating her performance was very good.
It's a carefully structured 3 hour expirence. They actually split up the show into two one hour acts with a intermission to allow those who smoke to go outside in order to have a cigarette (or bathroom break). While I can't blame them for not allowing smoking in the building, I give them credit for allowing us to go outside for a smoke (Yes, I do. AND STUFF IT, I don't want to hear it).
The second act was about wrapping up the story complete with the patented happy ending. The singing and acting were very good. Even the obligitory 'torch song' was done quite well.
As a way to say ''the show is over'' the staff threw out inflated party balloons for the Guests to play with. The lights came up, and it was ''G'wan, get out of here!!!'' (we were the first of two shows).
RECOMMENDED? YES!!! Absoultelty. If you visit here for disney world Capone's is a perfectly wonderful dinner show. But remember, if you can't WALK there, you must have a ''designated driver''.
UPDATE: I thought I'd better tell you, YES, I was ''comped'', Capone's DID NOT ''comp me''. I was treated no differently than anyone else in my (quite large) party. My employer picked up the tab.
I wrote this review completely on my own. No one told me I had to, no one paid me to do it... posted by YIH @ 2:58 AM on  : 

This is MY blog. It does not have a topic. If I want to post a music video on it I will:
Don't like it? Not my problem... posted by YIH @ 12:21 AM on Saturday, November 11, 2006  : 

There seems to be a mentality that is about WORSHIP of those who serve in all our Armed Forces.
SCEagle is not a god. That's not at all a disparagement of him, it's an acknolwedgement that he's a real human being WITH VERY REAL human problems serving Our Nation with distinction overseas. As ''our troops'' in Iraq are doing.
I disagree with the mission they were sent to do, not ''the troops'' themselves.
What I describe as ''junk food conservitives'' DELIBRATELY try to confuse the two. They work to frame the debate as ''if you don't 'support the mission' you don't support the troops'':

Unlike mark, I'm quite aware of what is going on in 2/3rds of Iraq.
BTW mark, I have no intrest whatsoever in meeting you in a boxing ring. Not my style. posted by YIH @ 5:17 PM on Friday, November 10, 2006  : 

The expirence that Heather got at WSB paid off big. She not only 'kept the seat warm' as producer for Andrea Shea King's Sunday Night Show, she dived in and replaced her regular producer. VERY IMPRESSIVE!!!
Mark literally stated on the air that Robert Spencer would be on the Sunday Night show. And he was rather annoyed about saying that: ''Your Image Here, (he did indeed address me directly) I GOT Robert Spencer for the Sunday Night Show!!!''
Not only did he not deliver what he claimed, he ''chickened out'' when it came time to put up or shut up, he ''got sick''.
He didn't have the cojones to say ''I blew it, I'm sorry, I couldn't get Robert Spencer on the show''.
He merely ''called in sick'' and left his job to Heather. She did an impressive job as mark's replacement as both Andrea's producer and in the chat room.
If I could do so I would FIRE mark. His only luck is that I am unable to do so. He failed to do his job completely.
The only thing I can do is treat mark with the disrespect he earned.
UPDATE: I did forget her last name, it's Jackson. When she ably replaced mark as both producer and in the chat room I knew ''yep, that's the same Heather that interned on Neil Boortz's show over the summer''. Yeah, what she has already done is something that mark might not be able to handle; ''The Big Time'' a top 10 nationally syndicated show!
You think I'm lying? First, click here:http://boortz.com/nuze/200508/08262005.html#heather Then go to boortz.com and in the search box enter ''heather'' (no quotes or captialization needed) and click Go!
That's the same Heather that subbed for mark Sunday Night! Neil and his staff respected her so much that she got 'Heather's Corner' on his site. Now she's working her way up the ladder on WDBO. You've got to compete now mark, deal with it... posted by YIH @ 11:51 PM on Sunday, November 05, 2006  : 

Well, the verdict on saddam is now in. (as of 4:30am EST) Guilty. Sentenced to Death. Did anyone expect anything else?
The trial of saddam was indeed a sham, done more for the entertainment of the president and his boosters than for any other reason.
I myself have suggested that this show trial be ended and saddam removed from the protection of his jail cell and deposited on the streets of Baghdad. At that point he will have the life expectancy of a generic teenager in one of dozens of modern horror movies. And probably die in a more brutal way than the special-effects ''deaths'' of said movies.
As you can see from the sentence above I care not that saddam was sentenced to death, the moment he was captured alive his fate was sealed. The ''trial'' was what I objected to, it was the zacharias moussoui trial duplicated in Baghdad. In both cases the accused was allowed to turn it into a complete farce. Even though the outcome and sentence were obvious the Defendant was allowed to shame our legal system with continious silly outbursts.
That is what we have taught the muslims, the US legal system is a joke, a playtoy for them.
That's why I said we should have ended that farce and let ''the iraqi people'' exact their own form of ''justice'' on saddam. That would have actually punished saddam and sent a message to other muslims. It would have shown the muslims ''we're done playing games with you''. posted by YIH @ 1:07 AM on  : 

To quote the president: "The Democrats have taken a calculated gamble. They believe that the only way they can win this election is to criticize us and offer no specific plan of their own,".
OK, mr. president, what the hell is YOUR plan?
Your babble has put 101 Americans in coffins and those coffins are being buried in Arlington National Cemetary. IN JUST THIS PAST MONTH!!!
Meanwhile in Iraq your buddy has told ''our troops'' to widthdraw our cordon of 'Sadr City' and call off the search for one of ''our troops''.
IS THAT ''YOUR PLAN'' MR. PRESIDENT?!?!?!? To give command of ''our troops'' TO MOQUTADA AL-SADR?!?!?!? WHAT KIND OF ''PLAN'' IS THAT?!?!?!?!
To head off the ''junk food conservitives'' of talk radio, yes I do indeed have ''A PLAN''. In fact, I've already explained it. TWICE.
The president may be a very friendly person but it doesn't change the fact THAT HE IS AN IDIOT.
He (our president) is actually stupid. It's not ''stratergy'' it's stupidity. I understand the perfectly natural desire to protect ''the slow''.
On The Andrea Shea King Show there is a caller known as ''Gary from Winter Garden'' (on other radio stations he got the nickname ''Sir Gary''). He's a devout Christian, and a very pleasant man, absoultely friendly and as polite as humanly possible.
And it would take about 30 seconds of hearing him why putting him in control of anything WOULD BE A VERY BAD IDEA.
Local talk radio treats ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT POSSIBLE. BECAUSE HE'S ''slow''. If ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' runs for President of The United States I would vote for (almost) anyone running against him, tell him face-to-face why I did so and ask him ''Can I still be your friend anyway?''. ''Gary from Winter Garden''/''Sir Gary'' IS LITERALLY our local 'Forrest Gump'. A wonderful, loveable idiot.
The problem is we now have ''President Forrest Gump'' in The White House and A LOT of so-called ''conservitives'' embarassed about it.
To be honest, if ''President Forrest Gump'' was merely spending money mindlessly that I could tolerate. Money doesn't have familes. Spending THE LIVES of our fellow Americans mindlessly CANNOT be tolerated.
UPDATE: In The American Thinker Diego Sevi posts an ''Open Letter to President Bush'' basically begging us to stay to help protect Kurdistan, and that I agree with. I consider that 'doable', he notes that Kurdistan is stable and friendly to US (which is true). I do indeed think our presence in Kurdistan would help the Kurds maintain their internal stability. The other reason we need to stay in Kurdistan is to keep Turkey from interfering in Kurdistan's affiars and vice-versa. As to the rest of Iraq (shia-sunnistan) there is nothing we can accomplish there. Nothing.
In fact, stability in that region of Iraq is NOT in our best interests nor is ''democracy'' or ''freedom'' to a people who have no understanding of and are culturally hostile to both concepts. As Vox Day and Hugh Fitzgerald have both noted the hostilities in ''shia-sunnistan'' should be allowed to continue to expend the manpower and resources of dar-al-islam. As in we let them kill and consume the resources THERE so they have less of both to use over HERE.
WITHOUT the presence of ''our troops'' to continue to be haplessly caught in the crossfire.
The only purpose ''our troops'' are serving in ''shia-sunnistan'' is as target practice for dozens of rival factions vying for control. Which one(s) will win? It surely won't be the artifical 'government of Iraq' that we set up. I belive what will remain will be a small, poor sunni rump state and a rather large (but also impoverished, despite it's oil sales) shi'ite state allied to some degree to Iran. It cannot evolve into any other direction.
But in the years (and it will take years) for the remainder of Iraq to sort itself out there will be a lot of devastation and bloodshed due to a tribal and sectarian rivalry that has exsisted there for centuries that was only kept in check by a succession of dictators. Saddam was little different than any of his predicessors and whatever ruthless faction rises to power and brings order to whatever remains of Iraq.
UPDATE II: The always sensible Diana West looks at Iraq and sees exactly it as I do, a surreal (and insane) example of denial of reality from the White House. posted by YIH @ 1:45 AM on Saturday, November 04, 2006  : 

It's Archives only go back to October '06, Newborn babies are so cute... posted by YIH @ 12:33 AM on  : 

I'll ''put my cards on the table'' (poker anologies are popular these days), The Miami Herald IS a liberal newspaper. And Leonard Pitts Jr. IS also a liberal, but at least his eyes are open!!!

Simply Orwellian: Cutting and running from 'stay the course'

A.K.A: A new course on 'staying the course'

BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com

'The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -- if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. `Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' '' -- from 1984 by George Orwell

''I'm here to tell you we're going to stay the course.'' -- George W. Bush, Nov. 28, 2003

". . . We've got to stay the course, and we will stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, April 5, 2004

''The United States of America will stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, Nov. 21, 2004

''We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq.'' -- George W. Bush, Aug. 4, 2005

''We will stay the course; we will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed.'' -- George W. Bush, Aug. 31, 2006

"Listen, we've never been stay the course . . .'' -- George W. Bush, Oct. 22, 2006

Ahem.

''Orwellian'' is a word you toss out to prove you stayed awake in freshman English. Often, it is used to evoke a world in which all people are always under surveillance, as was the case in the totalitarian state George Orwell depicted in 1984, his 1949 masterpiece. But as you know if you read the book, surveillance wasn't the most chilling aspect of the world Orwell foresaw.

No, the thing about that world that made your skin creep on your bones was the shameless intellectual dishonesty of its leaders, the brazen way they savaged objective truth and dared anyone to call them on it. Nobody did. The people simply accepted what they were told.

In the world Orwell invented, words had no objective meaning beyond that assigned to them by the Party, whose slogans, not incidentally, were, ''War is Peace,'' ''Freedom is Slavery'' and ''Ignorance is Strength.'' In that world, there was no past -- or rather, the past was what the leaders said it was, and it was a waste of time to check for yourself, because all books, newspapers and other records were constantly being updated to reflect whatever the new reality was.

Thus, ''Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia.'' Much as we now learn that the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq has ''never been stay the course.'' And never mind that the president and his henchmen have spent three years pounding that phrase like nails into the public consciousness.

''Stay the course'' doesn't work anymore, not with most of the nation united against the war, so the White House announced last week that the phrase would no longer be used. That's their prerogative. But it's quite a leap from won't be used to never has been used.

So did we dream these last three years? Is ''stay the course'' just something we mumbled in our collective sleep as we twisted in our collective sheets? Or do we learn something here about the administration's level of respect for our collective intelligence?

It is not, by now, surprising that the president and his surrogates rewrite the past. We've seen that before, after all. Seen it with John Kerry the war hero ''traitor,'' with John Murtha the Marine ''coward.'' Saw it with WMD, which, it turned out, were not the reason we invaded Iraq. (Where'd we ever get that idea?) What's painful, though, is that we see it so quietly, see it, as the citizens of 1984 did, with apparent acceptance.

The truth is being stolen right before our eyes. Yet there are no mass demonstrations at the executive mansion. There are not a million headlines saying, "Wait Just A Bleeping Minute!''

''We've never been stay the course,'' he says. Oh, we say.

To which I can only add that war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. And Orwell was off by only 22 years.

When I read this in my local paper, there was nothing I can say to disagree with him...

posted by YIH @ 7:01 AM on Friday, November 03, 2006  :