Democrat Distortion in Pursuit of Power

Democrats Focus on Terrorism Report in Attacks on Bush
Conclusion of Rising Extremism Since Iraq Invasion Is Used to Counter Assertion That the World Is Safer

By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A03

Democratic lawmakers yesterday seized on elements of a new classified intelligence assessment as validation of their long-standing position that the Iraq war has been a distraction from the broader war against terrorists, seeing the new study as an opportunity to undermine President Bush's determined offensive to turn terrorism to political advantage in the midterm elections.

A classified National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April but disclosed in news reports over the weekend, offers the U.S. intelligence community's first formal evaluation of global trends in terrorism since the April 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials said the report concludes that the Iraq war has fueled the growth of Islamic extremism and terror groups, but White House officials responded that the reports reflected a selective and distorted interpretation of the study.

Democratic lawmakers said the NIE finding undermines Bush's frequent claim that the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government has made the world more secure and confirms the need for a major change in strategy in Iraq. The findings were featured prominently at a hearing Senate Democrats held yesterday to review the conduct of the war and were cited by several retired generals offering harsh critiques of the administration's preparation for the Iraq war.

"The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers . . . keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security," said Democrat Paul Hodes, who is seeking to oust incumbent Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.).

Democrats excell at selective leaking and taking out of context quotations and twisting them to suit their own political needs. Reminiscent of their attacks against Ann Coulter and her book Godless, they take a couple of sentences out of a large report and draw broad erroneous conclusions about the total. The report reflects the state of terrorism worldwide, not here in America.

For Democrats, it's not about the truth, it's not about security, it's about their desire for power. Democrats and their surrogate organizations routinely subject Americans to a campaign of smear and distortion similar to that of the propaganda employed by Joseph Stalin and his successors. The machinations of behind the scenes manipulators like the foreign born George Soros and their puppet organizations like moveon.org and People for the American Way, represent a very real threat to our nation and our way of life.

Their willingness to twist and distort information and their unrelenting desire for power proves their unworthiness and the threat they represent to our nation.

Full Story: Deceptive Democrats a Threat to Our Security

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Al Gore Lowering the American I.Q. One Liberal at a Time

Gore Unveils Global-Warming Plan
Cutting Emissions, Restructuring Industry and Farming Urged

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page A02

NEW YORK, Sept. 18 -- Former vice president Al Gore laid out his prescription for an ailing and overheated planet Monday, urging a series of steps from freezing carbon dioxide emissions to revamping the auto industry, factories and farms.

Gore proposed a Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association ("Connie Mae," to echo the familiar Fannie Mae) devoted to helping homeowners retrofit and build energy-efficient homes. He urged creation of an "electranet," which would let homeowners and business owners buy and sell surplus electricity.

"This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue -- it affects the survival of human civilization," Gore said in an hour-long speech at the New York University School of Law. "Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours."

Gore was one of the first U.S. politicians to raise an alarm about the dangers of global warming. He produced a critically well-received documentary movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," that chronicles his warnings that Earth is hurtling toward a vastly warmer future. Gore's speech was in part an effort to move beyond jeremiads and put the emphasis on remedies.

Somebody get a net, Al Bore's escaped the Ha, Ha, Hotel again. "Global warming," "Global warming," I guess it's true what they say about small minds being easily entertained. Old "Bead Brain" is a one issue parrot. Awwk, Global Warming! The truly sad part is, a lot of people are buying this nonsense. Oh, I know it's mostly Liberal moonbats, but it's still pitiful, especially with the growing evidence that there is no anthropogenic relationship.

I have an idea let's paralyze the economy with a whole bunch of new environmental laws, make everyone buy a new hybrid car, on penalty of death. Go back to living in a cave and freezing to death. Oh, maybe we should stop breathing as well (would that Mr. Bore did that; think of all the hot air we would be spared).

Folks, Al Gore failed divinity school, so how does that qualify him to be a prophet? He doesn't even know who he is, let alone how to "save the planet."

I don't know who to pity more, him or his followers.

Full Story: Al Gore's Hot Air Express

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Surge in Anti-Muslim Incidents Reported
Md., Va. and D.C. Among Top 10 Locations for Harassment

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 19, 2006; Page B03

A national Muslim advocacy organization yesterday blamed a "negative and politically charged" environment on the Internet and talk radio for the 30 percent jump in anti-Muslim incidents reported to the group last year.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations received 1,972 complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment in 2005, up from 1,522 in 2004, according to an annual report released yesterday.

The number of complaints is the highest since CAIR began the report after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The group said it received 2,300 complaints but deemed some of them illegitimate.

"We're seeing a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric fed by the Internet and also on talk radio," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said at a news conference. "You can't turn on the radio without hearing negative, bigoted comments about Islam."

Now this really breaks my heart. Excuse me if I don't cry, but I wonder how many mosques have been attack by Christians carrying torches and guns. I wonder how many rioting Christians these "poor" Muslims have had to dodge. I wonder how many Imams have been killed by Christian mobs roaming the streets of DC.

Perhaps if the members of CAIR spent more time condemning the attrocities of their own people, perhaps if they were to call for the punishment and incarceration of the instigators of all the "hate-crimes" committed by Muslims in the Middle East, perhaps if the Imams in the West were to issue a "fatwa" against the terrorists who instigated this atmosphere of hostility, instead of whining about "profiling" and "bigoted comments about Islam" they might get a sympathetic ear.

As long as you in the supposedly "non-radical" choose to ignore the severe problems inside your own faith, you will reap the results of those murderer's actions.

Say, I have an idea, instead of trying to "educate people" about your faith, educate your own people about their faith. Stop blaming Americans for problems which your own people perpetuate on a daily basis.

Full Story: Whining? I Couldn't CAIR Less

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

McCain's Ludicrous, Self-serving, Stupid, Argument

Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure
Panel Backs Rival Bill On Interrogations

By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A01

A Senate committee rebuffed the personal entreaties of President Bush yesterday, rejecting his proposed strategies for interrogating and trying enemy combatants and approving alternative legislation that he has strenuously opposed.

The bipartisan vote sets up a legislative showdown on an issue that GOP strategists had hoped would unite their party and serve as a cudgel against Democrats in the Nov. 7 elections. Instead, Bush and congressional Republican leaders are at loggerheads with a dissident group led by Sen. John McCain (R), who says the president's approach would jeopardize the safety of U.S. troops and intelligence operatives.

Despite heavy lobbying by Bush, who visited the Capitol yesterday, and Vice President Cheney, who was there Tuesday, McCain and his allies held fast. Even former secretary of state Colin L. Powell weighed in on McCain's side.

Moments after the Armed Services Committee voted 15 to 9 to endorse McCain's alternative bill, the Arizona senator lashed out at CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, who had also lobbied lawmakers personally.

Idiots! Lindsey Graham and John Warner should be ashamed of themselves for being so gullible or naïve or just plain stupid. John McCain should know better; or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps John McCain was not tortured by his captors. Perhaps the Hanoi Hilton really was a Hilton Hotel and he had room service and fresh linens everyday. Apparently McCains arm wasn't the only thing the North Vietnamese broke. Apparently his mind was also broken by their gentle Geneva Convention POW treatment. Oh, wait a minute, the North Vietnamese didn't treat their prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention. They didn't care how we were treating their soldier in captivity (which was in compliance with the accords).

Hey John, the people with whom we are fighting right now don't care either. In what way does beheading with a knife comply with the Geneva Conventions? How does mutilating our soldiers dead bodies comply with you sense of propriety. Can you, Warner and Graham possibly be more absurd?

These RINO Republicans live in a fantasy world. They are delusional if they believe that at any time in history, American troops have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Please tell me who. The Japanese? The Germans? The Koreans? The Vietnamese? The Iranians? The terrorists? To whom are you addressing this ill-conceived, poorly thought out bill?

You are more pitiful than your Democrat allies because you should at least be logical enough to see through this Democrat ploy.

Full Story: John McCain, the Hanoi Candidate.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Further Proof Democrats Value Power Over Security

Democrats Call NSA's Input To Senate Panel Inappropriate

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A07

Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee are complaining that the National Security Agency has played politics in support of the secret program to intercept phone calls between alleged terrorists in the United States and abroad.

On July 27, shortly after most members of the committee were briefed on the controversial surveillance program, the NSA supplied the panel's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), with "a set of administration approved, unclassified talking points for the members to use," as described in the document.

Among the talking points were "subjective statements that appear intended to advance a particular policy view and present certain facts in the best possible light," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said in a letter to the NSA director.

The cleared statements included "I can say the program must continue" and "There is strict oversight in place . . . now including the full congressional intelligence committees," as well as "Current law is not agile enough to handle the threat posed by sophisticated international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda" and "The FISA should be amended so that it is technologically neutral." FISA refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the current law.

Democrats are complaining because they don't want this program to continue. They seem to be against anything that the Bush Administration does simply because it is the Bush Administration. They continue to lie by calling it a "domestic spying" program, they fight against any effort to use clandestine tactics against our enemies, and they speak in words which sound more reasonable coming from Al Qaeda and Hizbollah leaders than from United States Congressmen.

It is readily apparent that Democrats in the Congress are the anti-American Party. They don't believe in freedom of speech, they believe in political correctness, they don't believe in capitalism, they believe in socialism, and they don't believe in victory, they worship at the alter of defeatism. I do question the patriotism of the Democrat Leadership and any who agree with them.

Of particular note is the way they collectively, under Senator Harry "the Nepotism King" Reid, "killed the Patriot Act." It is noteworthy because the Democrats were the first and most vocal proponents of the Patriot Act.

Ever since Tom Daschle, who in 1998 was on the verge of asking President Clinton to step down for the good of the country, decided that it would be better for the Democrat Party for him to attack the Republicans instead (Daschle's own admission, not something I have made up), there has been a steady march by the Democrat Party toward party loyalty and ascendency to power over national interests.

Full Story: Democrats, the Anti-American Party

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sad Day for Republicans

Moderate GOP Senator Beats Conservative Challenger in R.I.

By Shailagh Murray and Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A01

PROVIDENCE, R.I., Sept. 12 -- Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, a moderate who has frequently clashed with the Bush administration, beat back a strong conservative challenger Tuesday night in the GOP primary in Rhode Island.

The victory came amid heavy turnout, after the same Republican establishment that Chafee has so often defied rallied to his side with money and logistical support for a vigorous get-out-the-vote effort. While there is little personal affection for Chafee at the White House, operatives there and in the Republican Party leadership calculated that he is the GOP's best chance of holding the seat in a Democratic-leaning state in November.

The Chafee win represented a rare bit of political good news for Republicans, who are struggling to retain control of both houses of Congress in a highly volatile election year, as polls showing voters to be increasingly frustrated with GOP leadership. President Bush's dismal approval ratings, fueled in large part by public frustration with the war in Iraq, threatens Republican incumbents around the country who are on the ballot this year.

Stephen Laffey, the blustery, populist mayor of Cranston, had sought to become the second challenger to topple a senator in a primary this year, after Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's loss to Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary last month. In the end, however, a race that for weeks had been widely viewed as neck and neck fell decisively in line for Chafee, who was commanding 54 percent of the vote with 99 percent of returns counted.

Chafee is about as "moderate" as Ted "the Lady Killer" Kennedy is sober. Only the far Left-wing Washington Post could call Lincoln Chafee anything but a flaming Liberal.

As for the Republican Party, I am disgusted with their cowardly behavior in this and other races. I do not approve of expedience as a political philosophy. I would rather lose with Laffey than win with a creature like Chafee. The only thing Republican about Lincoln Chafee is his first name. Winning with Chafee for the Republicans is like a corporation bragging about market-share when it is costing them a net loss of millions to retain it. Sure you hold the Senate by one more seat, but you lose everytime he votes.

The very idea that the

"National Republican officials who are backing Chafee announced last week that they would pull their resources out of Rhode Island should Laffey prevail..."

Reminds me of why I don't contribute more to the Republican Party. They are a bunch of "moderate" jelly-fish, completely spineless and unprincipled in the extreme. I will continue to support those Republicans in whom I believe, but:

"...Chafee's? Chafee's? Don't need no stinkin' Chafee's.

Full Story: RNC Saving the Seat, Losing Its Soul

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Reminds Us Of Our Priorities, Terrorism Is Real Threat

President Tries to Win Over a War-Weary Nation

By Dan Balz and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 12, 2006; Page A17

President Bush's Oval Office speech last night was the culmination of two weeks of efforts to rally the nation behind his policies and presidency by summoning the memory of Sept. 11, 2001. Five years after that indelible day, however, this president's capacity to move the public is severely diminished.

There were echoes of the language and logic Bush invoked five years ago when he united a stricken nation looking to him for both comfort and leadership. But he was speaking to a different nation last night.

Setbacks in Iraq have soured a majority of Americans on that mission. Falsely optimistic predictions of progress have undermined the administration's credibility. A majority of Americans question fundamental elements of the president's argument, including his contention that Iraq is the central front in the campaign against terrorism.

Cumulatively, it leaves decidedly uncertain whether this week's flood of rhetoric and remembrance can alter Bush's perilous circumstances -- at a critical moment for the future of the Iraq mission and the president's own domestic standing 56 days before the midterm elections.

When members of the paleo-media spend their every waking moment denouncing the President and the War in Iraq, it is no surprising that the President's poll numbers have declined over the past years. You members of the media have been fighting on the side of our enemies virtually since day one.

The Democrats and you people seem incapable of comprehending the seriousness of the war in which we are engaged. You seem incapable of comprehending or remembering that 9/11 actually occurred. You and your Democrat allies seem to believe that regaining power in the government is of greater than importance than protecting our nation or fighting the war on terror.

Full Story: Press and Democrats Just Don't Get It

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A Travesty Resulting From Our Traitors on the Left.

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A01

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

Details of the rough interrogations could come to light if trials are held for any of the approximately 100 detainees who were held in the prisons. President Bush announced last week that he had transferred the last 14 detainees in the facilities to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and had submitted a proposal to Congress for the rules under which the administration would like the suspects to be tried.

This should never be, but because of the hostility of those on the Left with their political agenda of seizing power, these fine Americans are forced to be concerned. It is hard to believe that there are Americans who hate their country so much that they attack our own people in their efforts to protect America from an insidious, violent, demented, enemy bent on the total destruction of all we stand for.

You Democrats out there grow up! This is a war, not a police matter. The people we are fighting are at war with us. They do not want to negotiate. They are not interested in peace. They do not care if we are nice to them. They want us dead. They want us converted to Islam. They will not stop unless we stop them through force. You cannot make peace with them. If you ignore them you will die. Your every word of quitting and surrender gives them added zeal. Your defeatism sustains them. Your willingness to sacrifice our nations security so that you can regain control of Congress and the Presidency reveals you as traitors.

Full Story: Americans Engaged in Fighting Terrorism Should Not Have to Fear Our Justice System

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Cheney's Accusations: Patently Obvious

War's Critics Abetting Terrorists, Cheney Says
He Cites Allies' 'Doubts' About U.S. Will

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A12

Vice President Cheney offered a veiled attack yesterday on critics of the administration's Iraq policy, saying the domestic debate over the war is emboldening adversaries who believe they can undermine the resolve of the American people.

"They can't beat us in a stand-up fight -- they never have -- but they're absolutely convinced they can break our will, [that] the American people don't have the stomach for the fight," Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The vice president said U.S. allies in Afghanistan and Iraq "have doubts" the United States will finish the job there. "And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States," he said. "Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists."

Cheney unapologetically defended the 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying the administration would have done "exactly the same thing" even if it knew before the war what he acknowledged knowing now -- that Iraq did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Yet he also gave a bit of ground, as he was pressed repeatedly by interviewer Tim Russert about statements that turned out to be wrong or damaging to his credibility.

It completely escapes me how what the Vice-president said is surprising to those on the Left. Our enemies have repeatedly quoted Democrats in Senate and House as well as those statements by the pundits of Mainstream Media. The very words spoken by alleged "Americans" like Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Klugman, Eugene Robinson, and the other Know-it-all Liberals today will be heard coming out of the mouths of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ayman Zawahiri tomorrow. How is this not aiding and abetting our enemies?

We know that Osama Bin Laden believed he could strike America with impunity because, after 8 years of a do-nothing but fail Clinton [mis-]Aministration, he believed Americans lacked the will to stay the course. Now we have idiot members of Congress and their propaganda outlet, the members of the Paleo-press, confirming his claims everyday with their repeated calls for abandoning the war in Iraq.

Only those who place their politics above the well-being of our nation could conceiveably say the kind of things which are routinely said by the likes of Cindy Sheehan and John Conyers. Those who call for the abandonment of our just cause are a living breathing insult to our troops, our veterans, and our founders. They are traitors to our nation. These voices are as evil as Tokyo Rose and Berlin Betty.

Full Story: Cheney Telling the Truth in Calling Down Critics

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Froomkin Missing the Message Again...Deliberately

On Quoting bin Laden

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; 12:46 PM

The spectacle of the president of the United States extensively quoting Osama bin Laden to bolster his controversial policies during political season deserves notice, and reflection.

By all rights, President Bush ought to be embarrassed that the al Qaeda leader who masterminded the September 11 terrorist attacks remains at large almost five years later.

But Bush yesterday let bin Laden share his bulliest of pulpits, giving the mass murderer precisely the attention he craves and endorsing his extreme view that a Third World War is under way.

Here's the text of Bush's speech.

Mentioning bin Laden so much couldn't help but remind listeners of Bush's failure to capture or kill him. But the risk was easily offset by the fact that bin Laden remains the most effective bogeyman out there, and job one for the White House in the run-up to a potentially crippling mid-term election is to scare the hell out of people.

Uhh...Danny Boy, before you get too excited by the fact that the President has not yet captured Bin Laden, let's not forget that if Billy Boy had accepted the Sudanese offer in 1996, instead of "not have[ing]sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky," President Bush wouldn't need to find Bin Laden, he would be dead or in prison.

Be that as it may, there is no evidence or even any reason to suspect that the Democrats could or would have done a better job. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite. The Democrats most likely course of action following the attacks on 9/11 would have been to wail and moan, make a big public showing of grief, lob a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan and proclaim victory. That is the way Democrats have traditionally handled our enemies from 1946 onward.

Of course your and those of your co-conspirators in the Democrat Party Propaganda Wing are ignoring the message the President was presenting, which was that it is people like yourself and our Democrat Party leaders who are providing our enemy's talking points. Bin Laden and Hassan Nasrallah don't need speech writers, they have you guys.

Full Story: Democrat Talking Points Provide Al Qaeda's Speeches

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Weisman's Latest Pro-Democrat Screed

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page A01

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.

The newly declassified intelligence report provided administration critics with fresh ammunition, less than two months before midterm elections and in the middle of President Bush's campaign to refocus the public's attention away from Iraq and toward the threat of terrorism. Senior Senate Democrats immediately seized on the findings, using some of their strongest language yet to say the president continues to willfully and falsely connect Hussein to al-Qaeda.

Weisman breathlessly reports old news. Once more; at no time has the President or White House ever said that Iraq or Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 or al Qaeda. That is a lie that has been perpetrated by the Democrats from day one. All one has to do is go to www.whitehouse.gov and look at the texts of the President's speeches, he never made that claim. This effort by the press in conjuction with their Democrat Party to deceive the American people into believing something that isn't true is really getting tiresome.

This report isn't saying anything we didn't already know. What we do know is that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq, that there was a training camp in Iraq, that Zaraqawi was given medical help in Iraq, and that repeated contacts between Saddam's government and al Qaeda have been documented to have occurred. Lastly, we need to remember that this report is only representative of what we currently know, not a fully informed knowledge of all that occurred.

For Weisman to use the hardcore RINO's Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel as representative Republicans and to dismiss Committee Chairman Pat Roberts' statement is as dishonest as is this entire article and only reconfirms the Washington Post's commitment to the return to power of the Democrat Party.

Full Story: Another Ho-Hum, Old News, Report From Congress

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Post Reporter Linton Weeks: Biased and Wrong

Make No Mistake: Presidents Wouldn't Admit It

By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 9, 2006; Page C01

Being president apparently means never being able to say you're sorry. Or wrong.

President Bush said that the Central Intelligence Agency did secretly detain certain people suspected of working for al-Qaeda, and that CIA interrogators have used "an alternative set of procedures" designed to pry information from prisoners. Given the opportunity to say he was wrong or that he was sorry, he did what presidents do: neither.

It is a presidential maneuver that satisfies some Americans for whom the ends of the Bush administration's approach to combating terrorism justify the means, and that angers others who believe civil liberties have been casualties of that war. It is a tack that the president may take again in light of reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee that Saddam Hussein was not linked to Osama bin Laden at the time Bush was mounting a war against Iraq. In any case, it is an unapologetic apologia consistent with 230 years of U.S. history.

"Thomas Jefferson was wrong about a lot of stuff," says Peter Onuf, Thomas Jefferson Foundation professor of history at the University of Virginia. But when it came to admitting he was wrong or sorry, Jefferson "could be evasive."

Why should the President apologize for doing his job in accordance to all laws? As an obvious Bush-hater (something which immediately renders your journalism credentials null and void) you immediately assume that the phrase "alternative set of procedures" implies that something wrong or evil occurred, a conclusion which is born from you own hostility to the President rather than from any factual information. Of course your first sentence belies your objectivity. The Washington Post continues to be a radical, Left-wing biased, Democrat Propaganda rag.

The President stated very clearly that at no time were illegal techniques used for those interrogations. It is your hostility toward America and the President which warps your coverage. This persistent effort by the Washington Post's staff to misrepresent the facts in an effort to attack and discredit the Bush Administration is the reason that your publication is going broke. The American public are no longer interested in your lies and Democrat propaganda. The Post is suffering the fate it deserves.

Full Story: President Bush: No Reason for Apology

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

"Methinks She Doeth Protest Too Much."

Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A09

Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV "docudrama," slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden.

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

Berger said in an interview that ABC is "certainly trying to create the impression that this is realistic, but it's a fabrication."

Poor Bill, he was caught with his pants down during his administration, and now his entire folderol administration is about to be unzipped on prime time television.

He can protest all he wants, but we do know certain facts. President Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter once in February of 1996 when the Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden, with his entourage including Ayman Zawahiri, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (who is now serving a life sentence for his involvement in the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya), Wadih El-Hage and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel (both of whom are also suspected in the embassy bombings), and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates; the offer was ignored by the Clinton administration. The data that the Sudanese government had accrued on bin Laden's network was ignored when offered 4 (yes that's FOUR) times. Mosoor Ijaz in an article posted in the LA Times December 5, 2001, Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize said the following:

"Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton[emphasis added]; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI."

Finally, a second opportunity to apprehend Bin Laden was squandered by the Clinton administration when in July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen a proposal was brought to White House that would have landed Bin Laden in our hands. Again Mr. Ijaz states:

"The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

So perhaps the specifics of the incidents have been doctored for dramatic purposes, but the fact remains that Bill "Bubba One" Clinton, Sandy "Burglar" Berger and Madeleine "Halfbright" Fulbright, either through negligence or incompetence failed to move when information and a known enemy, both vital to our national security interests, were made available to them by some of their own operatives. These are facts, documented by Monsoor Ijaz who was no Conservative Republican political hack, but a strong supporter of President Clinton. In fact, because of his growing contributions to the Democratic Party and his connections in the Middle East, he was singled out in 1994 by the Democratic National Committee which had by then recognised that he was more than just a source of funds.

Ever the liar, Clinton's protest fail to have the ring of truth.

Full Story: Clintonian Incompetence More Than Just A Dramatic Interpretation

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Post Editors Just Don't Get It.

Ending the Lawlessness
President Bush wants congressional action on detainees. That's good -- as long as he doesn't get the bill he wants.

New York Times
Editorial
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A26

PRESIDENT BUSH took major steps yesterday toward cleaning up the mess his administration has made of the detention, interrogation and prosecution of those captured in the war on terrorism. In a White House speech, the president announced that all 14 high-value detainees being held in secret CIA facilities abroad had been transferred to military custody at Guantanamo Bay for trial and registered with the International Red Cross. The Pentagon simultaneously released a new directive on detentions and a manual on interrogations that conforms with the Geneva Conventions and that explicitly bans techniques once authorized by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, such as hooding and the use of dogs. More broadly, Mr. Bush asked Congress to approve a legal framework for the trial of terrorist suspects, which would make the nation's response to the threat posed by al-Qaeda the product of democracy rather than secret executive decisions.

Yet as Mr. Bush took these constructive steps, he also undermined them. He delivered a full-throated defense of the CIA's "alternative set of procedures" that the world properly regards as torture. With an election pending and families of Sept. 11 victims as his audience, he demanded legislative action on issues of enormous complexity in the few remaining days of the congressional session. And the bill he sent to Congress would authorize the administration to resume some of the worst excesses of the past five years.

Congress should welcome the invitation to legislate but resist any preelection stampede. It should seriously engage itself with the issues of security, human rights and fundamental American values raised by the president's proposals -- and make sure that torture, illegal detentions and unfair trials will not be the result.

Once more we are granted a glance into the mush that Liberals call brains. First, there was no "lawlessness" except in the MSM's complicity with our enemies and their revelation of national secrets, to the detriment of our war against the Global Islamic Jihad. "Torture, illegal detentions and unfair trials" have never been part of the picture except in the distorted imaginings of the Left. The editorial staff of the Washington Pest still doesn't understand that they and their fellow elitist "journalists" would be among the first to be beheaded under the gentle ministries of the Theocrats of the Global Islamic Jihad. As the President stated yesterday, the treatment that these enemies of freedom have received, while not very pleasant, have been legal under American law and under international law. What that means is that no torture is being conducted.

Liberals can't seem to differentiate between unpleasant treatment and torture. It is similar to their failure to comprehend that enemies of freedom do not and have never negotiated in good faith, never, not once in history. This more than anything else proves the foolishness, if not outright stupidity, of Liberals and Democrats.

Rumsfeld was absolutely correct in calling down those voices of dissent in the press and the Democrat Leadership. They are very reminiscent of the voices of appeasers prior to World War II.

Full Story:Washington Post Editorial Staff-Enemy Sympathizers

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Bush Comes Out Swinging

Bush Says Detainees Will Be Tried
He Confirms Existence of CIA Prisons

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Michael Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 7, 2006; Page A01

President Bush yesterday announced the transfer of the last 14 suspected terrorists held by the CIA at secret foreign prisons to the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and said he wants to try them before U.S. military panels under proposed new rules he simultaneously sent to Congress.

Bush's statement during an impassioned East Room speech represented the first time he has confirmed the existence of the CIA program under which Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and others have been secretly held and subjected to irregular interrogation methods.

The president's dramatic speech committed Washington to putting senior al-Qaeda members -- including some believed to be the architects of the attacks -- on trial in proceedings that may be at least partly open. Only one person, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been convicted of conspiring in the attacks, and he had little to do with the actual plot.

Standing before an audience that included family members of attack victims, Bush delivered remarks timed to stake out a new policy position before the November elections -- and also to pressure lawmakers to approve quickly the administration's version of legislation on detainee matters that have been hotly debated for years.

Finally the President is doing what he should have been doing for the past 3 years. America is fighting a war for the survival of our way of life against an enemy that is implacable, irrational, and is not interested in negotiation. The most important revelation was the fact that using "alternative interrogation techniques" has resulted in substantial and important intelligence about our enemies, proving the lie of those who argue that subjecting prisoners to hardship never yields good information.

The most tiresome argument I hear from people like John McCain and other Liberals in Congress is the concern that if we don't treat our prisoners of war well and with respect, we risk poor treatment of our own soldiers in enemy prisons. Since when has any enemy we have fought ever treated our troops decently? Certainly not in World War II, not in the Korean War, and not in the Viet Nam war. We know that our present enemies have no compunction in torturing and executing our troops in their captivity. So it begs the question, how could our troops be at more risk than they currently are? In what way could their treatment be worse than public beheading?

These people are the enemies of freedom, the enemies of Christianity, the enemies of Judaism, and the enemies of all Western culture. Their goal is the total domination of the world, and the conversion of all the worlds people to Islam, at gunpoint if necessary.

Democrats, what part of that don't you understand?

Full Story: Fighting Against the Global Islamic Jihad

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hey, Let's All Indulge In A Guilt-Fest Over Our Treatment of Muslims...Not!

Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats
To the government, they were a terrorist risk in the Washington area. To local Muslims, they were unfairly singled out for prosecution and severe sentences in a post-9/11 world.

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 3, 2006; Page A01

The crowd was so big it spilled out of the Alexandria courtroom: teachers, parents, the leader of a College Park mosque. Ali Asad Chandia, 29, a bearded man in a crisp, white shirt, sat quietly amid the throng -- a beloved third-grade teacher convicted of supporting terrorism.

"The defendant portrays himself as a mild-mannered, kind individual," federal prosecutor David Laufman told the judge at the sentencing nine days ago. But in Chandia's home and car, he said, FBI agents had found recordings glorifying terrorism, one even asking God to "grant safety to Osama bin Laden."

"That," concluded Laufman, "is who the defendant really is."

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, law enforcement officials pledged an aggressive effort to choke off future plots. People identified as security threats would be charged as soon as a crime could be proven, even if it was well short of a terrorist strike. The Washington area, where seven of the 19 al-Qaeda hijackers spent time before the attacks, became a focus of their investigations.

"Awaiting an attack is not an option," Paul J. McNulty, the deputy U.S. attorney general, said in a recent speech. He described the approach as "preventative prosecutions."

Yes, these are just poor misunderstood Muslim youths. We should simply admonish them and forget about their desire to destroy our culture and our people.

I got news for all of you Muslims out there; if you don't want to be regarded as a suspect by your fellow citizens, then you need to get out in front on the condemnation of those Islamic Global Jihadists. I have yet to see a concerted campaign of anti-terrorism, anti-martyrdom, anti-radical Islamism from the Muslims who are so ready to complain about how they are being treated. Mealy-mouthed half-measured statements just don't cut it.

When Zogby gets out there and complains about how Muslims are being treated in America and then makes a statement similar to, "Of course we condemn these terrorist acts and oh, by the way, why Americans shouldn't treat Muslims so badly," it just isn't convincing. I am still waiting to see a Muslim Cleric in America stand up and shout at the top of his lungs that these maniacs are violating God's Laws. Why don't the stand up and condemn those among them who have been caught working against American interests rather than protesting everytime one of them is convicted.

Until I see a change of attitude, until I see a bunch of Muslim Clerics out there protesting the behavior of Osama bin Laden and Hassan Nasrallah, and declaring them guilty of apostasy, I will not have any degree of sympathy for their complaints. Their cries of outrage are empty words undeserving of our concern.

Full Story: Muslims, Look to Your Own for Blame

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Ironic "Death Sentence" Recommendation For 3 Soldiers

Army Official Recommends Court-Martial for Soldiers
Charges Could Carry Death Penalty

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 3, 2006; Page A06

An Army investigator has recommended a general court-martial, on charges that could carry the death penalty, for four U.S. soldiers who killed three Iraqi detainees during a May raid, according to a copy of his findings made available to The Washington Post.

The soldiers, all members of the 101st Airborne Division, maintain that they acted in self-defense after the detainees resisted, and further that they had been ordered, before the raid on an al-Qaeda training camp, to kill all military-age males they came across, attorneys for the soldiers said yesterday.

In a 10-page report dated Aug. 31, Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr., the Army investigator, recommended that three of the soldiers -- Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spec. William B. Hunsaker and Pfc. Corey R. Clagett -- be charged with conspiring to commit premeditated murder of the detainees and then threatening another soldier not to tell anyone. Daniel found that Spec. Juston R. Graber withdrew from the conspiracy but still should face murder charges for following Girouard's order to shoot a detainee in the head.

In light of aggravating factors, Daniel wrote, the soldiers' alleged offense "warrants a sentence of death," should they be found guilty. All the soldiers are from the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

Is anyone as struck by the irony of this recommendation as I am. These guys risked their lives in Iraq fighting for our safety against an enemy who, if positions were reversed, would award their fighters with praise and honors and this clown Lt. Col. James P Daniel, Jr. wants to sentence them to death. There is good reason to doubt the story as laid out by the accusers. If memory serves, the one American soldier who made the allegations actually had his back turned what the shots occurred. That means he only saw the aftermath of what happened, and what his imagination constructed at the time of the shootings. The other witness is an Iraqi civilian whose allegience is in doubt.

If events went down exactly as Daniel states, then imprisonment would be appropriate, but the death penalty? This doesn't even come close the that level. Now in the other incident in which a rape alledgedly occurred and the family was executed, there is good reason to make such a recommedation, but this case is too close to the "fog of war" for such a penalty to be suggested. It is not even clear that these men did anything wrong at all.

I have to question the motives of this Lt. Col. Daniel, Jr. Is he just an overzealous prosecutor or is he a guy with some sort of an agenda against the troops, the war, or the President? Sorry, I just can't help myself, anytime I run into a non-sequitor, something that gives me a shock because it seem illogical, I begin to get the old "L-word" suspicion. Believe it or not, their are Liberals in the military and there are even some Bush-haters. I have to wonder if this guy is one of those who when he retires will be a member of Iraq Veterans for Peace, or some other radical Leftist group.

Full Story: Disproportionate Recommendation from Prosecutor?

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

AP Reporter Distorts Rumsfeld's Speech to American Legion

Rumsfeld Reaches Out to Democrats
In Letter, Secretary Says Recent Speech Was Misconstrued

By Anne Plummer Flaherty
Associated Press
Saturday, September 2, 2006; Page A12

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats yesterday, opening the door for them to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.

In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said remarks he made Tuesday during a speech in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the news media. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.

"I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive," Rumsfeld wrote.

In his speech before thousands of veterans, Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement. He alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."

Well it seems that we have identified another Democrat Propaganda Operative at AP. Robert Burns was forced to re-write his report on Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City. This Post story fails to discuss the blatant distortion which it and many other news organizations so readily broadcast across the nation.

Stars and Stripes has the full story.

"The AP had written that Rumsfeld had “likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis” and that Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security."

This was later revised to more accurately reflect what Rumsfeld actually said:

According to AP, he quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was “a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.”

“I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,” Rumsfeld said.

“Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?” he asked. “Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, is the real source of the world’s troubles?”

Hmmm, that is considerably different from what AP's Robert Burns originally reported. Of course our nation's professional whiners (the Democrat Leadership) refused to feel less "offended" by these revisions.

I am sooo disappointed that Rumsfeld didn't say what was first reported, because that was closer to the truth about Democrats.

Full Story: AP: Liars at Large

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

A View Into Our Own Future?

Mexican Lawmakers Block Fox's Speech
Foes in Congress Seize Chamber

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 2, 2006; Page A01

MEXICO CITY, Sept. 1 -- In a historic rebuke, opposition lawmakers seized control of Mexico's congressional chamber Friday and blocked President Vicente Fox from delivering his final State of the Nation address.

Fox, who was adorned in Mexico's green, red and white presidential sash, stood awkwardly in the chamber's foyer for nearly 10 minutes before conceding that he had no chance of entering. Surrounded by bodyguards, Fox was handed a microphone. He quickly said that he would leave and gave a copy of his speech to a legislative official.

The lawmakers who commandeered Mexico's congressional building are aligned with the Democratic Revolutionary Party, or PRD, and its candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is demanding a full recount of the July 2 presidential election results.

The bizarre scene played out live on national television. After giving up any hope of delivering his speech, Fox turned and left the building with Mexican first lady Martha Sahagun, who had donned an evening gown for the occasion. Fox smiled and nodded, while Sahagun chatted with the crowd that formed around them outside the building, which had been ringed by riot fencing and was guarded by 6,000 police officers. Then they disappeared into a waiting sport-utility vehicle.

This is the danger of Leftism. This is the danger of those who would turn this nation into a "Socialist Paradise." This is what comes when emotion rules over intellect. The rebel Obrador lost the election. He then claimed that the election was flawed and appealed to the seven judge panel of the Mexican electoral court saying that he would let them decide whether or not the election was legitimate. Once it began to appear that Obrador's demanded recounts and annulments were not affecting the outcome of the election, he began to talk of forming a "parallel government." If things continue as the have been progressing, Mexico will shortly be in a civil war, and our borders will be under even greater assault by those fleeing the conflict.

We have seen the beginnings of this same tableaux in our own country. Al Gore led the charge of our own American Left in his unprecedented and unseemly refusal to accept the results of the vote in Florida and his resulting loss in the Presidential election of 2000. From that day forward, those on the Left have continued a campaign of lies and inuendo alledging voting irregularities in every election they have lost.

"Diebold!" is the new rallying cry of the Democrats and their moonbat Kool-aid drinkers. Mind you they have not one shred of evidence to support their claims of election fraud, only their arrogant assumption that "most people" agree with them therefore their side "should have won" the election. Of course we know, and they know, that most of the "dirty tricks" and "fraudulent voting" have come from those on the Left. That is why they are so vehemently against the requirements various states have sought to impose that voters must have a photo-ID.

Voter roles including dead people, convicts, and non-existent people have all been seen in past elections. For some unknown reason these "irregularities" always seem to "crop up" in precints dominated by the Democrat Party.

As the general quality of our educational system continues to decline, we are turning out more and more young people incapable of bringing to bear the critical thinking necessary for discerning fact from fiction. The inevitable end result is what we see in the denizens of democraticunderground.com and dailyKos.com. For those people myth becomes truth and opinion is fact. They already routinely bandy about claims of Diebold machine hacking and "voter intimidation" following every election loss. How long will it be before the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and Russ Feingold try to bar the President from the House Chamber?

Full Story: Liberals Are Deranged and Dangerous Throughout the World

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Uh-Oh Democrats, Your Dreams of Failure in Iraq Are Fading

In Iraq, Singing for a Chance at Hope and Glory
TV Reality Shows Offer Rare 'Breath of Fresh Air'

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- In the basement of the heavily guarded Babylon Hotel, on a low, black stage lit up like an operating room, contestant No. 65 was having a bad day. In the morning, Yasser Ibrahim, 22, had passed checkpoints and closed roads, armed soldiers and traffic jams, traveling two hours on a trip that normally takes 15 minutes.

When he arrived, he found dozens of young Iraqis, neatly dressed like him, lining up for a dream that has become ever so elusive in Iraq.

"Fame. I hope for fame," gushed Raghad Laith, 16, looking fabulous in a long, black dress, high-heeled shoes with dazzling rhinestones, red lipstick and green eye shadow. "This is a great chance to become a star."

If you thought Iraq was only a dire tableau of bloodshed and mayhem, take a closer look. Ibrahim, Laith and the others at the Babylon Hotel were auditioning for "Iraq Star," the country's version of "American Idol." It's one of a growing stream of made-in-Iraq reality television shows, produced under often-perilous conditions, that are being beamed across the Middle East.

My, my. This has got to be a major blow to the Democrats. Imagine, hopeful Iraqis dreaming of success and wealth rather than cowering in their homes filled with fear and loathing of American troops. Filled with hope rather than anger at President Bush. This must be a nightmare for the Democrat Party. They are so invested in seeing us fail in Iraq.

The only people in the world more hopeful of our failure in Iraq than the Democrats, are the terrorists themselves. The only people more eager to see more dead American troops than the Democrat Leadership are the enemies who are killing them.

Democrats don't love this country or that for which it stands, they love the dream of an American Socialist State with them in complete control and if a few thousand (or million) of our fellow citizens have to be sacrificed to achieve it, well "one can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs," can one?

Full Story: Another Blow to the Dreams of Democrats

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Iraq Defiant. Gee, I Wonder Why That Is?

Iran Defies Deadline On Nuclear Program
U.S. to Press U.N. To Impose Sanctions

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A01

A defiant Iran faced the prospect of economic sanctions after U.N. inspectors reported that the country ignored yesterday's deadline to halt its nuclear program and has been hindering efforts to determine whether it seeks to secretly develop nuclear weapons.

President Bush, invoking the same language that he used to describe Iraq before the March 2003 invasion, called Iran a "grave threat" and said "there must be consequences" for Tehran's actions. "It is time for Iran to make a choice," Bush said in a speech to the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City.

His administration had offered to join talks with Iran and held out the possibility of future cooperation after 27 years' enmity, if Tehran met the United Nations' deadline for suspending its nuclear program. Yesterday, however, U.S. officials said they will demand international sanctions against the Iranian government.

"We are going to move this toward a sanctions resolution at the United Nations," said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs. "We expect others to join us."

Iran and Ahmadinejad are defiant and unafraid,how can this be? Well, how about a multiple choice?

1. Mahmoud is just a really nice guy and Iran has been so peaceful, they deserve to have a Nuclear Arsenal.
2. Mahmoud is just a really nice guy and he is right to feel threatened by those big old meanies the United States of America and President Bush, the real enemies of good, so he needs his Nuclear Arsenal to Protect himself from us.
3. Mahmoud is a nut-job of the first order and he is President of a nation which is run by a bunch of nut-job Muslim theocrats so they don't understand what actions the United Nations might take.
4. Mahmoud is a clever guy and he has heard the repeated cries for surrender and appeasement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East by the Paleo-media, Democrats and Liberals here in America that he believes he has enough allies in Congress to protect him from the President and he knows that a threat from the UN is a nuisance, rather than a problem with which to be reckoned.

I know, you Democrats and Libs out there are shouting out "Two!, Two!" Wrong, the correct answer is "Four!" Democrats have made seizing back control of the United States Government, their paramount raison d'etre. In their zeal to throw President Bush out of office, they would willingly tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. They believe that our President is a greater threat to the world than the homicidal maniac ruling Iran, than the homicidal maniac ruling Hamas, the homicidal maniac ruling Hizbollah, or even the homicidal maniac ruling al Qaeda.

Democrats have ceased to be the "loyal opposition," to become the disloyal, traitorous enemy sympathizers. They oppose any possible victory in Iraq because it might help the Republicans. They would rather have America appear completely inept and incapable of defending herself just so that they can regain the power they believe to be theirs by divine right. They would invite another 9-11 disaster just so they would benefit politically.

Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Feingold, Murtha, and their ilk don't care about anything but political power (Oops! and booze, sorry Teddy).

If you Democrats want to know why Mahmoud Amahdinejad is defiant, you need look no further than the mirror. If you so-called Democrat "Leaders" want to know why America may be forced to nuke Iran, just look in the mirror, for you are the cause.

Full Story: UN Threatens Sanctions, Ooh Iran's Sooo Scared

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below