Today In The Iraq War News: Troop Losses Down, Democrat Lies Up.

This month we lost 73 American lives in the war against Iraqi Islamists. Not a very thrilling fact is it. That's seventy-three families who have lost a brother, a son, a daughter, a father, or a mother. May they all be granted the peace of God's Love and protection.

Though the above fact is sobering and tragic, it is also a good sign. It is a sign of the growing success of our efforts in Iraq. It is a sign that we are losing fewer and fewer troops to the murderers in Iraq. It is a sign that the infamous, by Democrat standards, troop surge is working. Reports are beginning to come in from all around Iraq, that the situation is finally improving.

President Bush's long overdue change of tactics and change of leadership in Iraq and in the Department of Defense (and yes I was one of the foolish who truly believed in Rumsfeld) is beginning to payoff. The situation in Iraq, though still ticklish, is beginning to tip in the favor of those who would see a stable, self-sustaining Iraq governed by some form of democratic or quasi-democratic administration.

And now that we're beginning to show progress, what do the Democrats say?

"Fuggedaboudit! Bring the troops home now! Screw the Iraqi people. They didn't know just how good they had it under Sadam Hussein. Oh sure he was a ruthless murdering dictator, but at least they had running water.

We want our troops to come home now. Not because it is good for America or good for Iraq, but because it's good for us with our extreme leftist political base."

Man talk about fair-weather friends. It's just like Karl Rove ("the Rasputin of the Bush Administration") said so long ago.

Rove rallies NH GOP before midterm election
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Wednesday, Jun. 14, 2006

When he sharply accused key Democrats this week of "cutting and running" on the Iraq war, Karl Rove was in a broad way urging New Hampshire Republicans to stand by President George W. Bush during this key mid-term election campaign...

"When it gets tough, they fall back on that party's old platform of cutting and running," he said. "They may be with you for the first few bullets but they won't be there for the last tough battles."

So to all those who gasped in shock to such an outrageous statement, we on the Right can say "See, I told you so."

Karl Rove was correct, every jot and tittle of his statement for which he was so maligned has proven to be true. Democrats in Congress would rather our troops return in defeat, with crushed moral and doubt in the worthiness of their fellow citizens; our enemies dancing in the streets firing their AK-47's in celebration of defeating the once, but no longer powerful United States of America, than allow victory to occur in Iraq.

Their constituencies demand no less. Those same contituents who spat on our returning troops after Vietnam. Those same constituents who celebrated with Jane Fonda when she sat in the seat of an anti-aircraft battery which had been used to shoot down some of her fellow American citizens.

You Democrats, you who so loudly call for our retreat and surrender. You who lack the intestinal fortitude to see a war to its proper conclusion, even in the face of losses so low that no one could have imagined them after four years. Losses, however tragic, which defy the historical odds but are now considered too high a price for freedom.

We lost more soldiers in one day on Guadalcanal than we have lost in four years. Where would we be now if the Democrats and Republicans of that era were as weak-kneed as those in Congress now? I shudder to imagine.

I mourn the loss of even one of our troops. They represent the finest in what makes America the greatest nation on Earth, but they are each and everyone volunteers. They each made a choice. A choice to fight for and yes to die for the good of their fellow citizens and it cheapens and slanders each and everyone of them for Democrats to preach defeat and surrender year after year after year after year.

God Bless Our Troops!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Poor Liberals They Just Keep Getting It WRONG!!!

In an amazing turnaround, the New York Times featured an Op-Ed that got it right! Even worse for those surrender monkeys in the Democrat Party and the RINO's who run with them, this piece is written by critics of the Iraq war.

A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
July 30, 2007, Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Now don't get me wrong, all is not rosy in their portrayal of operations and conditions in Iraq, but the important point is that we are finally on the right track in Iraq. There is a palpable hope among the troops and the people of Iraq. Sunni's, who have mostly been sitting on the sidelines-if not actually actively supporting Al Qaeda-are now helping the Iraqi police and our troops track down the members of Al Qaeda. There is definite progress being made, not short term "whack-a-mole" progress, but long term take and hold progress.

So what do our "fearless leaders" in Congress say about this progress? Those brave Democrats who never fail to run in the face of adversity? Are they changing their tune? Do they now wish to pursue this possible road to victory? Are they willing to support the troops in the field and our generals in their march toward victory?

Are you kidding? They cannot afford for America to be victorious in Iraq. They cannot afford for Iraq to end up being a successful effort to establish a stable, self-sustaining regime which is at least some semblance of a democracy. They just flat cannot allow American troops to succeed and they will do anything, anything they can to prevent victory and to humiliate our troops and our nation...all in their drive for political victory.

How about Mad Captain Jack Murtha, the champion of cut and run tactics? Well, Mad Captain Jack said today in an interview with John Roberts of CNN:

ROBERTS: Now, on that front, Congressman, two fierce critics of the Bush administration's prosecution of this war, Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, both from the Brookings Institution, just returned from Iraq. They wrote an op-ed in yesterday's "New York Times" in which they said there were some signs of improvement, Anbar province is getting safer, morale among the troops is getting better. Here is what they said.

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw. There was enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

What do you think about that?

MURTHA: Well, John, they were there for seven days. These troops have been extended. In order to sustain this deployment through March or April, just to sustain this deployment, you would have to extend the troops from 15 months to 18 months.

ROBERTS: So you just dismiss that then?

MURTHA: I dismiss it at as rhetoric. I dismiss it as -- you know, in my estimation, the things that I measure are not -- oil production, electricity production, water. Only two hours of electricity.

I don't know where they were staying. I don't know what they saw. But I know this, that it's not getting better. It's rhetorical is what is getting better.

It's over-optimist. It's an illusion. And the American public is saying $12 billion a month in Afghanistan and Iraq is too much. The Europeans aren't helping, and now we're looking into trying to buy our allies by giving them a lot of money so they'll do more in this war.

Ah the old "Deny, deny, deny," routine. Sorry Jack, that won't wash here, these guys have been among the most vocal critics of the war and yet they at least have the intellectual honesty to admit when things have changed...I guess that's the difference between those who report without an agenda and those who have invested their entire political career in our failure, eh Jack?

Oh yeah, let's not forget the other side of the Capitol building. "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid had a few choice words of denial as well:

"The present nor the future seem particularly bright for the Iraqis and Iraq itself. Our brave troops are fighting in this intractable civil war"

No room for change, eh Harry? Nothing but doom and gloom. You "Snivelling Little Rat-Faced Git." [(c)1970 Monty Python's Flying Circus] You don't mind shovelling tons of taxpayer dollars into your own family coffers, but not one penny for the new protective vehicles for our troops.

Like Mad Captain Jack, Snivelly Whiplash just can't contemplate the horror of America and Iraq being victorious over the radical Islamists. I mean after all, their hypocrisy...erm...patriotism only goes so far. They do still have to pander to the looney tunes Leftist at moonbat central (dailyKos and democraticunderground), they do still have to get re-elected. I mean let's keep this all in perspective:

Democrat's political careers vs. the lives of millions of Iraqis and of our troops;
Hmmm...careers-lives...careers-lives...careers-lives...piffle!
Not even a real contest, their political careers, of course.

What did you expect anything less?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Oh Dear! Oh Dear! I Wonder What Lies the NEA Will Tell To Explain This Away

Boy this is going to upset the Liberal apple cart once more. It must be really tought to keep thinking up excuses for you moonbat beliefs in the face of a relentless onslaught of factual data.

Today's public school system is dead it was destroyed by those on the Left who chose experimental outcome based, self-esteem building, teaching over the tried and well proven to be true techniques of educating our youth.

Our taxes are being wasted on a system designed to achieve magnificent mediocrity. The subjugation of the needs of our students education to the desires of the teachers unions and the inability to reward or fire teachers based on the quality of their performance has destroyed our once great educational system.

Check this out:

Once Again Homeschoolers Score High on the ACT Exam

Recently released statistics show the 2006 average ACT composite score for homeschooled students was 22.4, compared to the national average composite of 21.1!

Now homeschoolers have an unbroken record for the last 10 years—since 1996, when testing officials started tracking them—of scoring higher on the ACT than the national average.

For example, the 2005 average ACT composite score for homeschooled students was 22.5, compared to the national average of 20.9.
The 8,075 homeschool graduates who took the ACT in 2005 comprised about 1 percent of all those who took the college entrance exam.

The 1996 ACT results showed that in English, homeschoolers scored 22.5, compared to the national average of 20.3. In math, homeschoolers scored 19.2, compared to the national average of 20.2. In reading, homeschoolers outshone their public school counterparts 24.1 to 21.3. In science, homeschoolers scored 21.9, compared to 21.1.

According to the 1998 ACT High School Profile Report, 2,610 graduating homeschoolers took the ACT and scored an average of 22.8 out of a possible 36 points. This score is slightly higher than the 1997 report released on the results of 1,926 homeschool graduates, which found that homeschoolers maintained an average of 22.5. This is higher than the national average, which was 21.0 in both 1997 and 1998.

Well folks I don't know about you but I find a 10 year unbroken record of evidence pretty convincing.

Of course we know why The Democrats and Liberals oppose home schooling; they need the union votes. I don't know how Democrats sleep at night knowing they are screwing our children out of their education simply to insure their election to political office...of course I guess if you're rich enough to send your kids to a private school like most of them do, you don't have to lie awake at night worrying if your kid is learning or running for his life from some thug in his class.

Three cheers for the Liberal's paradigm of education: Ignorance is Bliss...(and controllability)..Shhhh! The poor saps who are paying for public education are listening. Don't let them know they are being bilked by their government.

The Department of Education employs over 4000 people with a budget of $70 Billion-not one of those employees teaches children how to read, write, or do math-they're all bureaucrats.

Eliminate the DOE! Save our children!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Ah Yes, More We Know What's Good For You "Experts"

Here once more, we are given a perfect example of why Liberals are so very dangerous to all Americans and our freedom.

Like Mr. "Know-it-all," Albert Gore, Jr. these "academics" believe the responsible thing to do is to bankrupt the nation. Raise the price of energy to such a level as to force the American people to cut-back on their energy consumption.

What do they care about their fellow citizens? What do they care about the poor?

Well that last question is dumb I guess, they in their infinite generosity will "provide for the needs of the poor." It is the middle class, or as these people see them, the "bourgeoisie" that will be made to face the consequences. These so-called experts will make sure that all Americans suffer equally...except for those special elites, like themselves, who are needed to take care of the rest of we poor ignorant fools.

How to Hit the Trifecta

By Maya MacGuineas and Adam Carasso
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; 12:00 AM

Rising insecurity in the oil producing regions of the world along with rising carbon levels in the atmosphere are pushing Congress to update our nation's energy policies. But far from providing a bold solution to our converging environmental, energy and security dilemmas, the bill that has come out of the Senate to gradually increase fuel efficiency standards relies on timid half-measures. Congress should instead consider a more effective and long-overdue step towards energy independence and environmental protection -- implementing a broad-based energy tax.

Clearly, U.S. energy policies need reforming. Oil-producing nations hold too much sway over our pocketbooks and our way of life. Given the rising instability and anti-U.S. sentiment in many oil producers around the world, an energy policy that will afford us more independence is a crucial matter of both national and economic security. As many of us recall, oil embargos and energy price spikes can wreak economic havoc, pushing inflation up and hurting consumers, particularly the poor. And global warming, triggered by accumulating carbon emissions in the atmosphere -- of which the U.S. is the chief contributor -- is advancing faster than previously believed, heightening the need to embrace a corrective, low-carbon energy production strategy.

This kind of thinking is the foulest sort of thought crime. Yes I said thought crime. Since the American government has now made a foray into the thought-crime territory in passing so-called "hate-crime" legislation, I think that we Conservatives need to come up with our own version of thought-crime, thought crime against humanity. Contemplating the comlete destruction of an entire society just to promote their unsupported mythological threat of "Anthropogenic Global Warming."

The arrogance of these so-called intellectuals is only exceeded by the complete amorality of their suggested solution.

"Let's impose a carbon tax on the American people. Let's force them to stop polluting this wonderful pristine planet with their foul emissions. If we're lucky, a vast majority of them will die-out and then this wonderful planet can go about its business unmolested by these parasitic humans."

Don't laugh, this is the way these elitists think.

Yes they do think of these brilliant ideas, usually while jetting across the "pristine" skies in their polluting "but necessary" personal and foundation jets from one conference to the next.

You see, the real problem with Leftist Elitists is that if you dare criticize one of their pet groups such as "gays" or some protected minority, then you are guilty of a hate crime, but if you suggest wide spread genocide or mass-murder of the proletariat in the effort to preserve some "noble cause" such as saving the planet, then you are simply being reasonable. Somehow these Leftist "experts" have come to the conclusion that the people of this planet, that's you and I, are expendable.

As for me, I think the next automobile I buy will be a huge gas-hog SUV, that will consume as much of my "fair share" of oil as I can lay my hands on.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

The Anti-Bush, Anti-American Conyers Continues His Crusade To Create Impeachment

Well I am surprised! The number one proponent of impeaching both the President and Vice-president for no reason other than he disagrees with them and wants a Democrat to be in the White House because they can't seem to win an election, is calling for contempt of Congress citations against "President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel."

After seven months of investigation all that John Conyers and his cronies can say is they have "serious concerns." Allow me to translate that for you,

"We're going fishing for some iota of evidence of some semblance of wrong-doing so that we can justify spending tax-payer money on more politically motivated thoroughly baseless investigations in the desperate hope that it will help us win the White House in 2008."

This lying, conniving, communist adoring, hate-monger, has absolutely no intention of ending his five year long campaign for impeachment by any means fair or foul regardless of what he finds. John Conyers has been one of the most consistently anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-American provocateurs to ever be elected into Congress.

Well here's the "unbiased" Washington Pest's story:

Report Suggests Laws Broken in Attorney Firings

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A03

House Democrats, preparing for a vote today on contempt citations against President Bush's chief of staff and former counsel, produced a report yesterday that for the first time alleges specific ways that several administration officials may have broken the law during the multiple firings of U.S. attorneys.

The report says that Congress's seven-month investigation into the firings raises "serious concerns" that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records.

The 52-page memorandum, from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), seeks to explain why Democrats are trying to overcome an effort by the White House to shield officials and documents from the congressional inquiry through a claim of executive privilege. The report also provides the first written account of the Democrats' interpretation of the firings and the administration's response to the controversy.

The investigation "has uncovered serious evidence of wrongdoing by the department and White House staff," Conyers says.

Really great reporting Amy..."Report Suggests Laws Broken In Attorney Firings?" Talk about creative writing.

Let's set the record straight one more time for all of you illiterate, uncomprehending, imbecile, Liberals out there (Okay, I know that is redundant. Liberals are universally stupid), United States Attorneys serve at the "pleasure of the President." They are political appointees. President Clinton fired all of his inherited United States Attornies and not one of you batted an eye. Not one of you cried over his actions...not a single solitary peep.

My only regret in yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Gonzalez testifying, is that he didn't just tell them "None of your beeswax!" and then get up and leave the hearing room.

This is clearly a case of the Senate intruding into an area which is solely the province of the Executive Branch. The Senate has no say whatsoever in who the President chooses to hire or fire beyond that which is specified in the Constitution. No if's, no and's, no but's...quite a few butt-heads, but no but's.

These "Holier than thou" Senators like Specter, and especially Leakey Leahy have no business prying into the workings of the Executive, unless they have clear evidence of malfeasance, which they clearly do not have.

Let's move ahead on this and take it to the courts. You gutless Senators and Congressmen stop whining and get to it. File your impeachment motions. File your contempt charges and let's take it to the courts.

I know that you won't because, other than a few deluded fools-like Conyers-you know that you will be laughed out of court.

C'mon Chicken...squawk, squawk, na-na-na-na-na. Get to it. Let's go. I'm waiting...

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

WaPo Critcizing Harry "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid? "It is a Puzzlement!"

Those people living near the Washington Post's office building will be hearing sirens of police cars, S.W.A.T. teams, and the F.B.I. at any moment. It would appear that there has been some sort of coup in the editorial staff. Did someone take away the Liberal Kool-Aid? Some one spike the punch bowl?

C'mon, something's got to be going on. There's no way America's No. 2 Democrat shill newspaper (New York Lies is still No. 1) can be saying what I am reading here...short of being held at gun-point.

Criticism of Harry "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid's behavior during and after the debate coming from the Post? Preposterous!

Still...although I have a hard time believing it, read it and be equally mystified:

The Phony Debate
Congress could agree on a new Iraq strategy, if its leaders would allow it.
Saturday, July 21, 2007; Page A12

THE SENATE Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth. A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush and his senior aides and generals also support this broad strategy, which was formulated by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. Mr. Bush recently said that "it's a position I'd like to see us in."

The emerging consensus is driven by several inescapable facts. First, the Iraqi political reconciliation on which the current U.S. military surge is counting is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Second, the Pentagon cannot sustain the current level of forces in Iraq beyond next spring without rupturing current deployment practices and placing new demands on the already stretched Army and Marine Corps. Finally, a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security.

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible. But so was Mr. Reid's answer when he was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the United States should manage the explosion of violence that the U.S. intelligence community agrees would follow a rapid pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," the paper quoted the Democratic leader as saying.

For now Mr. Reid's cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq don't matter so much. The result of his maneuvering was to postpone congressional debate until September, when Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report on results of the surge -- in other words, just the outcome the White House was hoping for. But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond. There are serious issues still to resolve, such as whether a drawdown should begin this fall or next year, how closely it should be tied to Iraqi progress, how fast it can proceed and how the remaining forces should be deployed.

This editorial seems...dare I say it...almost reasonable; almost...well considered? Is it possible that some vestige of thought still occurrs in the once hallowed halls of the Post, or is this just a preparation for another presidential sand-bagging later on?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to believe this to be any sort of paradigm shift in the editorial policy of the WaPo. It's just refreshing to see any sort of honesty emanate from this bastion of Liberal thought and politics.

I'm just stuck here sort of scratching my head in wonder...is it even remotely possible that even some die-hard Liberals are capable of seeing through the gossamer camouflage of Snivelly's machinations? I guess even a blind pig finds and acorn every now and then.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Eugene Robinson's "Cognitive Dissonance"

Well, I have never been a fan of Eugene Robinson's hateful, twisted, and remarkably ignorant editorials, but this one takes the cake. Could there be a more pitifully stupid man being paid to display his ignorance on the pages of a used to be great newspaper? Small wonder the Post (and the Times) are dying on the vine.

First, from his comparison to the President's statement about his trust and faith in God with the insanity of Osama bin Laden's desire to destroy Western Civilization, it is patently obvious that, like most of his Liberal brethren, Robinson has absolutely no idea nor can he in the least relate to what most American believe in, God and Christianity.

Eugene says:

"One of the more unnerving reports out of the president's seminar with the pundits came from Brooks, who quoted Bush as saying: 'It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.'

It's bad enough that Osama bin Laden is still out there plotting bloody acts of terrorism, convinced that God wants him to slay the infidels. Now we know that the president of the United States believes God has chosen him to bring freedom to the world, that he refuses to acknowledge setbacks in his crusade and that he flat-out doesn't care what "the polls" -- meaning the American people -- might think. I'm having trouble seeing the bright side. I think I need cognitive therapy."

The very fact that Mr. Robinson, like his fellow secular humanists see faith in an "Almighty" and belief that "a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom" is a cause for worry simply proves how little they know of their own nation's history.

Hey Eugene, perhaps if I quote from our own Declaration of Independence it will refresh your pathetically short memory (too much pot-smoking Eugene?). This simple bit should be sufficient:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I guess you find the words of our founding fathers "unnerving" as well. Of course as a so-called journalist, I know that you probably spent more time drinking beer and smoking pot than you did studying our nation's history or our Constitution and other founding documents, but really are you that stupid (Okay...I know, Liberal-Stupid, it's redundant).

As for the rest of your above rant, the polls only reflect the opinion of the people on the questions as they are asked, not the will of the people. Oh yeah, we elected a leader, not a follower...something else you Democrats just don't seem able to comprehend.

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy, you political hack writer!

Bush's Cognitive Dissonance

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A19

One hopes the leader of the free world hasn't really, truly lost touch with objective reality. But one does have to wonder.

Last week, George W. Bush invited nine conservative pundits to the White House for what amounted to a pep talk, with the president providing the pep. Somehow I was left off the list -- must have been an oversight. But some columnists who attended have been writing about the meeting or describing it to colleagues, and their accounts are downright scary.

National Review's Kate O'Beirne, who joined the presidential chat in the Roosevelt Room, told me that the most striking thing was the president's incongruously sunny demeanor. Bush's approval ratings are well below freezing, [Not as low as the Democrat led Congress'] the nation is sooooo finished with his foolish and tragic war, many of his remaining allies in Congress have given notice that come September they plan to leave the Decider alone in his private Alamo -- and the president remains optimistic and upbeat. [...and that just really drives you crazy doesn't it?]

Bush was "not at all weary or anguished" and in fact was "very energized," wrote Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report. He was "as confident and upbeat as ever," observed Rich Lowry of National Review. "Far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored," according to David Brooks of the New York Times.

It worries you that the President still believes what he believed in 2003 when we went to war, that radical Islamists are a threat to our nation's and our citizen's security, but you are perfectly fine with the leader of the Democrats in Congress, Snivelly Whiplash Reid, loudly and unabashedly declaring to both our allies and our enemies that we're done. That's it, we give up. We surrender, you've kicked our collective butts and we're now going to leave Iraq for you guys to build your Taliban-like "Caliphate."

You're a sick man Mr. Robinson. I believe that maybe you do need some cognitive therapy. What you and your doom and gloom fellow Left-wingers can't comprehend is why the President is able to maintain his optimism in the face of your fellow Democrats' all our assault on his presidency.

It makes you mad that he isn't sitting around moping and whining about how nobody loves him anymore. That's what Democrats do, so why doesn't the President do it. Don't worry Eugene it's beyond your understanding. Those of us who believe in God and in the inevitability of Good triumphing over evil do so because we have faith in a loving, caring God.

Your "I'm smarter than those Dumb Bible Thumpers" attitude, an arrogance born out of ignorance and self-worship, simply limits your ability to understand.

You Liberals love to throw around the word "compassion," but you haven't a clue as to its true meaning. I guess you agree with Barak Hussein Obama's proclamation Thursday which very clearly implied that preventing the genocide which would occur should we pull our troops out is not a legitimate criterion for deciding whether to keep our troops deployed there.

Now that's Liberal "Compassion" for you.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Bravo, Mr. President! Time to Give This Overreaching Congress a Slap in the Face

Yes! I guess the President has decided to take on this corrupt and politically motivated Democrat Congress...finally. It's past time to take the battle with these posers whose sole purpose is to gain political advantage and position themselves for the next election.

This battle is not about truth. This battle is pure politcal pandering and it's time for stop this witch-hunt.

Once more we see that these do-nothing Democrats aren't interested in the actual investigation. They don't care one whit about the fate of these U.S. Attorneys. Just like "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid's 24 hr. whine-a-thon, this so-called investigation of the U.S. Attorney firings is pure theatrics.

Thank God Ted Olsen is up there advising President Bush on this.

Here's the Washington Post's report:

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 20, 2007; Page A01

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals...

...administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Bang the gong! Let the battle commence! It is well past time that this Congress be called to the carpet. This incessant investigation just for the sake of obstruction and campaign publicity is getting tiresome.

Representative Conyers, you want to bring impeachment charges? Then go for it! Quit playing your little childish word games and get cracking! Otherwise, shut up and start doing your job.

You Democrats call this a "Constitutional Crisis," but it is more a case of restoring historical, constitutional, powers to a presidency which, over the past several decades has been too willing to surrender its power to Congress.

Man, I know we're moving the right direction when the shameless, unapologetic liars of the Democrat leadership like "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid begin to hyperventilate and hyperbolize with statements like:

"[This is] an outrageous abuse of executive privilege...The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Dang Snivelly, I didn't think you knew that the way you've been conducting all of those cozy real estate deals and hiring your sons and relatives with impunity. No one is above the law, Senator Reid? Perhaps you should look to your own household before you attack the President for carrying out the duties of his office.

It's even more fun when old "Microphone Moth" Schumer and Henry "Nostrildomus" Waxman begin to hyperbolize. Old Chucky "The Microphone Moth" cried out in his typical self-righteous manner:

"[This administration is] hastening a constitutional crisis."

Ooh, I'm sooo afraid Chucky. Meanwhile, Nostrildomus was just as pathetic as he squealed:

"[The administration's position] makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law. I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Snort, snort!

This is nothing new here folks, in 1984 the Ted Olsen in the Reagan Justice Department issued a ruling that:

"The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

So all of this hyperventilating and hyperbolizing is just that. It is more political grandstanding by people who could never get their political agenda passed if they ever told the truth to the American people.

Not since the Nixon Presidency has there been an effort to restore the powers, stolen by the legislative branch with the help of an "activist" Supreme Court in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Former Reagan White House counsel David Rifkin described this as a return to the principle of a "unitary presidency," stating:

"U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will. [And in constitutional terms] the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

Bravo Mr. President let's get this issue settled once and for all. Let the Supreme Court clarify exactly where the powers of this Congress stop and whether or not the President is entitled to expect open, honest, factual, and confidential advice from his advisors.

Bring it on, Loretta. Oh and while you're at it, Representative Sanchez, let's go back and investigate exactly how many illegal alien votes it took to get you into Bob Dornan's congressional seat in the first place.

I am truly heartened by this move by the White House.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Your Wrong Representative Sanchez, Not Contempt of Congress, but Contempt FOR Congress

That's right Sanchez, this do-nothing Congress, led by do-nothing Democrats; a Congress which has spent LESS time in session (in spite of assurances to the contrary), and accomplished FEWER goals than any in modern history (First hundred hours, was it? Nah! First hundred days maybe...Nah! Oh I understand Nancy, you meant to say first hundred weeks. Right?). This is a CONTEMPT-worthy Congress.

The very fact that you Democrats refuse to accept the White House offer of permitting former and current aides to talk with lawmakers behind closed doors -- without a transcript and not under oath, proves beyond any doubt that this investigation is not about gathering information, it proves that it is about political grand-standing.

This Democrat Congress which was supposed to be the most successful and completely re-write the book on how a Congress should be run has been an absolute disaster producing only one single piece of legislation-the minimum wage increase in the first seven months.

Here's the AP story:

Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge

By Thomas Ferraro
Thu Jul 19, 5:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House chief of staff faced possible contempt charges after a congressional panel on Thursday ruled as invalid President George W. Bush's bid to limit the probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a party-line vote of 7-3, a Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee rejected Bush's contention that his claim of executive privilege shields the top aide, Joshua Bolten, from having to turn over subpoenaed documents.

"Those claims are not legally valid," said panel Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat.

Sanchez said she hoped the White House would yield and produce the documents, but the administration accused Congress of pushing for a courtroom showdown.

As the President says, "bring it on." Democrats have got to know before they even begin that they don't stand a chance of winning this court battle. This is just "red meat" for their simple-minded base voters who actually believe the lies these posers feed them.

Democrats in Congress have only one aim, to destroy as much of the Bush administration as they possibly can and failing that, to attempt to embarrass or destroy as many of its members as they can.

Democrats don't care what happens to the nation or its people. They don't care what happens to our troops, or if another terrorist attack happens and kills thousands of our fellow citizens. In fact I believe that most of them would secretly welcome such an attack as an excuse to further blame the President.

It was amusing to watch Senator Levin sputter, hem and haw when Fox News chief Britt Hume asked him how can he criticize the Iraqi Parliament for failing to meet their goals when the Democrat led Congress has accomplished virtually nothing in twice the time they have allotted for the troop surge to work and the Iraqi government to meet it's far more ambitious and difficult goals.

We Conservatives have long known and said that Liberals are all about appearance and nothing in substance. All of their agenda items are geared toward passing "feel-good" laws which accomplish very little and sometimes do a great deal of damage, such as the "Great Society" legislation of the Johnson Presidency. With the stroke of a pen Lyndon Johnson and his mindless minions in Congress destroyed the foundation of the America's black families and rendered black men superfluous. The direct result of this so-called "Great Society?" The high incarceration, addiction, and crime rates among black men. That is the payoff to African Americans for trusting Democrats, the consigning of a whole generation of Black Americans to indentured servitude to their Democrat masters.

Go! Linda, Go! File those contempt charges and let's go to the courts. Let's find out if the President of the United States has a right to confidential advice from his cabinet and advisors. Let's find out is Congress has the power to micromanage the Executive Branch. I can't wait. One warning though, before you do, you might want to take some remedial Civics courses and learn how our government was set up. You know those "minor details" like...oh, I don't know...say...separation of power, for example.

Your failure in the courts will be one more nail in the coffin of Liberals in America. So...Go ahead Linda, make my day. File those contempt charges...PLEASE!!!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

The True McGovern Legacy

Man talk about divorced from reality. David, you really need to get out of the beltway more. McGovern's legacy and that of his "heirs" is one of mass murder performed at the hands of their primary benefactors, the Communists of North Vietnam and Cambodia.

McGovern's legacy is a Democrat Party dominated by those who hate everything America stands for. A Democrat Party which prefers the intolerant God of Islamic Jihadists to the loving Judeo-Christian God of their own nation's founders. It is a legacy of intolerance for any who oppose the Liberal agenda as defined by the most extreme Leftist elements in the party.

Here's David Broders moronic description of the McGovern love-fest:

The McGovern Landslide

By David S. Broder
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A19

The gathering last weekend to celebrate George McGovern's 85th birthday was more than a salute to a respected elder for his decades of work as a public official and a private citizen to end hunger in the world.

Bob Dole, who has joined with him in that cause since they both were senators, spoke warmly of a friendship that crossed party lines and bridged years of disagreement on other issues. But most of the celebrants were there for another reason. They were veterans of McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, reunited after 35 years to mark one of the great lost causes of American politics.

------------------snip------------

But that campaign has had long-term consequences. As evidenced by the turnout for this reunion, McGovern's race attracted and trained a generation of young people who are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party today.

Youthful rebels then, gray-haired now, they still embody the two forces that define the Democratic Party -- an insistence on openness and reform and a commitment to peace. As Bill Clinton, one of thousands who got his first national experience as a McGovern volunteer, put it in his message to the gathering, they are all "McGovern's heirs."

These McGovern "heirs" are the ones who spit on our returning troops during the Viet Nam War. These "McGovern heirs" are the people who tore up university property, burned their draft cards, and sought to turn our nation into a carbon copy of the "Utopian Soviet Union."

These are the "unilateralists" who sought to disarm America out of fear of being destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. These are the "surrender monkeys" who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up to those who would destroy our nation.

McGovern's legacy is one of intolerance, hatred, and biggotry. The legacy of the Left-wing is one which seeks to classify everyone by race, philosophy, life-style, and whatever unique characteristic they can identify to single people out as "victims." His legacy is one of victimhood.

Rather than held up as an icon of "openness, reform and a commitment to peace," he should be castigated as one of the fathers of the anti-American, anti-military, anti-liberty Left who seek to destroy the very economic and social structure that built this Greatest of Nations.

Broder you really are a fool...and a deceiver.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Iranian-American Prisoners Victims of Their Own Naive Philosophy

This is a sad tale and I really feel for this woman and her mother, but I also feel sympathy for all of the other Iranians who are forced to live under this oppressive regime. It is sad that these Iranian Americans are being detained, but the fact is this woman is one of those naive souls who believe that just being nice and talking sweetly to a dictator like Ahmadinejad will force him to see the errors of his ways.

These Iranian-Americans being held prisoner in Iran for "espionage" are members of ivory tower, think tank, organizations like the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS, US billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute, and other peace organizations who promote a dangerous mythology that merely by being nice to despotic leaders, by engaging them in "a dialogue," we will convince them to relent and cease their territorial ambitions.

Here is one of these scholars sad tales told by her daughter in the Washington Post:

"My Mother's Interrogators
In an Iranian Propaganda Broadcast, the Real Guilty Party Is Clear

By Haleh Bakhash
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A19

Yesterday marked 6 1/2 months since masked agents of Iran's Intelligence Ministry robbed my mother, Haleh Esfandiari, of her belongings and passports at knife-point. It had been more than 70 days since her incarceration in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison before I finally saw her this week -- not as a free woman, but in footage of a KGB-style television "confession" broadcast by Iran's state-run television.

The program broadcast nationwide yesterday -- announced with much fanfare by the Intelligence Ministry on Monday and expected to be continued today -- was supposed to show Iran and ostensibly the world my mother's complicity in a plan to undermine the Islamic Republic using, of all things, female activists and academics. But the footage turned out to be a typical secret police job of deception, vicious in intent yet clumsily contrived.

The broadcast began with a lie. My mother was shown sitting on a sofa in what looked like the living room of a house or a pleasant office, a plant next to the couch, a bottle of water on the table in front of her. In reality my mother, head of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, and a 67-year-old grandmother of two, has spent the past 10 weeks in a cramped cell that past prisoners have said lacks a cot or even a mat. For being an American Iranian scholar, she has been forced to sleep on the floor. She has been subjected to hundreds of hours of harsh and intimidating interrogations, often while blindfolded, totally cut off from the outside world and without access to her family or lawyer, despite our repeated requests to see her.

The broadcast showed my mother "conversing" with someone off camera in what was meant to appear to be a relaxed setting. Her voice was strong. But I was shocked at her appearance. She has aged several years in just months. She looked gaunt -- she has lost a considerable amount of weight -- and pale."

Those on the Left, who so enthusiastically embrace the Neville Chamberlain naivete represented by Lee Hamilton and his WWICS or George Soros's "one world" policies, argue that the reason these people are being so treated is because of Guantanamo. They claim that America has lost its right to complain about such treatment because of our treatment of terrorist linked prisoners in places like Gitmo, but the fact remains that nowhere do we detain innocent women and scholars in conditions like these poor naive "peace-niks" are having to endure in prisons like the notorious Evin Prison.

Love and compassion are very powerful tools, but they only work if the individuals so targeted have a sense of honor and believe in Western concepts like the worth of all individuals. People like Ahmadinejad, or Sadam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden lack this sense of compassion and are sociopathic in their belief that they have the right to oppress and destroy all who oppose them.

In the case of Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad, this right stems from a purely sociopathic desire for power. In others like Osama bin Laden and other members of the Global Islamic Jihad, this sociopathy stems from the belief that their way of life is the only "legitimate" way of life.

Both parties are deadly, disinterested in conversation, and determined to destroy America and all Western societies.

Somehow it seems always to be these "do-gooder," know-it-all, Liberals who are the source of these international diplomatic incidents. They are the same naive Liberals who are now calling for a complete withdrawal of our troops in Iraq.

They are either too naive to understand the catastrophic rewards of such an ill-conceived plan (a fair percentage fall into this category), or they just don't care about their fellow world citizens and simply want to end the war because President George W. Bush is pursuing it (the vast majority).

They are motivated by hatred of America and all it stands for and even more by hatred of Conservatives, Republicans, and George W. Bush. Astonishingly that hatred is spurred by the same arrogance that inspires the Muslim Extremist Jihadis...that they and only they know how the nation and the world should be run.

These Liberals are every bit as dangerous to our nation's survival and welfare as are the Jihadis.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Harry Reid to our Military: "Screw You!"

If it was anybody but one of the inner circle of Democrat traitors, I would have said "Unbelieveable," but coming as it does from Harry "Snivelly Whiplash" Reid, I am not surprised.

In a snit of peak suited more to a third grade playground than the floor of "The Most Deliberative Body in Government," Harry Reid stated, following his failure to achieve cloture (very much a foregone conclusion), that he was stopping all debate on the 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill.

That bill included such things as a 3% pay raise for our troops and funding for upgrading the equipment our troops use in Iraq. I guess Senator Harry and the rest of his Terrorist Enablers don't care as much about the welfare of our troops and their families as they claim.

Again, here is the WaPo's take on it, although I could just as easily have used the NY Times article-they might have been written by the same person for all the difference in them.

Democrats Won't Force War Vote
Effort Halted After GOP Blocks Proposal

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A01

Senate Democrats halted their quest to change President Bush's war strategy yesterday after Republicans blocked a proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.

After the vote, which followed a rare all-night debate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) startled colleagues by announcing that the Senate would not vote on several other proposals intended to force Bush to revisit his war plans. Although war critics in both parties had supported the measures, Reid and other Democratic leaders dismissed them as too weak. Instead, they are holding firm in their bid to persuade GOP critics of Bush's Iraq policy to embrace more aggressive Democratic measures to begin withdrawing troops.

-------------------snip--------------------

Yesterday's 52 to 47 vote signaled that a slim Senate majority supports bringing home most combat forces by May 1, 2008, and came amid indications in recent weeks that a growing number of Republicans are concerned about progress in Iraq. Although Democrats won four Republican defectors, they fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the GOP's procedural objections.

After the results were tallied, Reid asked GOP leaders to accept simple-majority votes. When they refused, Reid announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly until after Labor Day or until Republicans dropped their filibuster. He called the 60-vote requirement "a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president."

"New math?" Umm...Senator Snivelly, perhaps it has slipped your mind that you and your freedom hating fellow Democrats used precisely that same sort of "new math" not very long ago when you were filibustering the judicial appointments made by President Bush...a far less traditional and less legitimate use of the filibuster. Of course I do understand, what with your having had that stroke last year and all. Makes me wonder if you're really up to the task.

Sooo...now you won't allow any further debate on the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill because your own personally preferred surrender strategy was blocked?

What Snivelly is really concerned about is that one of the milder, less emphatic but nonetheless, "surrender" amendments might pass. So rather than giving our troops a raise, and funding the equipment they need to defend themselves in Iraq, Harry is going to "suspend debate," probably until sometime after Labor Day.

No wonder Americans doubt Democrat Party support for the military...they don't support our military. They haven't for more than forty years. It was Democrats who abandoned the Vietnamese people to their fate. It was the Democrats who abandoned the Cambodian people to their "killing fields." It was Democrats who gave away the Panama Canal, it was Democrats who forced Reagan to withdraw the troops from Lebanon after the Marine barracks were bombed. It was the Democrats who waved the surrender flag in Somalia.

It is always Democrats who distrust our military. It is always Democrats who hold our troops in contempt and consider them low-lifes who had no other option than enlisting. It was Democrats that presided over the dismantling of our military capabilities during the Clinton administration. I remember the way Clinton used to crow about how he had reduced the federal payroll. What he never added was that he did it by reducing the size and capabilities of our military...one of the problems facing us now.

These Democrats are liars and traitors one and all. They never have had the guts to fight our enemies; not in my entire life. They were appeasers throughout the cold war and they betrayed our troops and our allies in South Vietnam in the 70's.

So this move by Reid comes as no surprise to me, nor to any American who has followed the activities of the Democrat Party over the last half-century.

Well we turned back the "Surrender Monkeys" this time, but with such losers as Lugar, Warner, Collins, Snowe, and Gordon, I'm not so sure we can manage it again in September. It appears that many in our Senate are more concerned with how they look in the MSM than they are with principled government.

Long Live Our American Republic! (I Hope!)

What do you think?

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

Posers and Pundits

Well here I am after the "all-nighter" that wasn't, hosted by the Senator-posers in the Democrat Party and it made for a real snoozer, I can tell you...or can't. I had no intention of staying up all night to what the traitorous buffoons play their silly little political game at the expense of our troops fighing in Iraq. Apparently neither did these asinine posers.

In case you haven't heard, most of the Democrats took a nice four hour break from midnight until 4:00AM...well they didn't actually show up until 5:00AM (Eastern). Seems that our own Harry "Snivily Whiplash" Reid planned to hold hourly votes just to force the Republicans to maintain a presence on the floor to oppose any "unanimous" motions, but relented when some of the "ladies" asked that they be allowed to take a break. Barbara "Punch Drunk" Boxer was elected to request a four hour break so that these "dedicated Democrats" could get some rest.

Mind you, they didn't "hit the cots," that they so theatrically brought in (making sure that the press' cameras were there to see it). Oh no. Most of our "dedicated Democrats" went home to catch a little shut-eye. It appears that those of us who called this a "stunt" were exactly right.

Here's the Washington Posts take on it:

Senators Pull All-Nighter For Debate On Iraq War
GOP Denounces Effort As Political Theatrics

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A01

Democrats rolled out cots and ordered pizzas as they settled in for a marathon Senate debate on Iraq last night that featured numerous speeches but little chance of getting any closer to resolving the stalemate over how to end the war.

Republicans were determined to block legislation forcing a withdrawal of combat troops, which was expected to come before bleary-eyed senators this morning in the nonstop session. Republicans dismissed the Democrats' overnight effort as political theatrics and vowed to enforce a 60-vote threshold for passing the withdrawal proposal, which would bring most troop homes by May.

--------------------snip-------------

Earlier in the day, Reid had ordered cots to be set up in a ceremonial room off the Senate floor, and reporters were alerted when the beds, along with pillows, were delivered in the afternoon.

The office of Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) dispatched interns to buy toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant for delivery to GOP leadership offices, with a note offering the "supplies for your sleepless night." It added: "Help us bring an end to this war."

Imagine the gall of these so-called supporters of the troops using this kind of theatrics, spending tax-payer funds, just to stage a Democrat Campaign Event. Fortunately, most Americans can see right through this kind of transparent attempt to manipulate the emotions of the voters.

One GOP Senator said this kind of show belongs more in Hollywood than in our Capitol. This pompted the Dumb Blonde Chubkin, Mary Landreux solemnly asked, "Do you see any glittering lights in here." She's lucky I wasn't in the gallery, because my immediate response would have been and was while watching, "No, but I see a lot of smoke and mirrors." It's probably better that I wasn't there, I would have been hauled off to jail for that kind of outburst.

Folks this was "Circus Circus" without the talent or entertainment. Dumbocrats made vacuous, emotionally driven appeals lacking any real content other than whining about being called for the traitors and terrorist enablers they are, and lamenting out poor troops "dying for no good reason." Sounded like Cindy Sheehan wrote some of the speeches.

I do feel sorry for the loss of so many good men and women in Iraq, but it is an insult to them and their families to proclaim them defeated, the war lost, and our only option to withdraw in defeat.

I keep hearing Dimocrats claim that the biggest recruiting enticement for al Qaeda is the presence of our troops in Iraq...well, that may be, but it won't hold a candle to the recruitment attraction that al Qaeda will have if they can claim to have defeated Americans in combat twice...did you forget the Democrat pull-out from Somalia?

Democrats are collectively doing more to win the war for al Qaeda than all of the EID's and snipers combined. Al Qaeda doesn't need to defeat our troops, they just need to allow the Democrats in Congress do that.

Long Live This American Republic!

What do you think?

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

Anti-Military Bias of Press More Evident Each Day

Alright folks, I really getting tired of these Liberal anti-American, anti-War, anti-military reporters and their distorted, misleading headlines and their attempt to portray the American soldiers as the bad guys in Iraq.

We already know that "newspapers" like the Times have a pro-Islamic, pro-terrorist leaning from their past articles and opinion pieces. I find it interesting that most of these so-called reporters...this time for Reuters...just happen to be Iraqis or at the very least Arabs.

Gee, who am I going to believe...American servicemen involved in fighting an intractable, devious, and cowardly enemy, or a bunch of Arab reporters working for a news service which has been shown repeatedly to have been biased and inaccurate and which has been found to have members of Hamas and other terror groups posing as reporters?

Surprise! I think I'll trust the word of our own boys over the highly dubious record of Reuters News Service. Maybe when Reuters figures out how to discern which of their Arab reporters are not terrorist sympathizers I'll start paying more attention to what they have to say.

Anyway, here's the story:

U.S. kills six Iraqi policemen in Baghdad raid
By Alister Bull

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. soldiers killed at least 13 people including six Iraqi policemen after coming under fire from a police checkpoint in Baghdad on Friday, the U.S. military said.

An Iraqi reporter working for The New York Times was also shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad, the newspaper said, a day after two Reuters employees were killed during an incident involving U.S. forces in the city.

Khalid Hassan, 23, was shot in the southern Saidiya district of the capital, the Times said in a statement, adding that the circumstances of the attack were unclear.

A U.S. warplane made a strike during the raid in mainly Shi'ite east Baghdad after U.S. soldiers came under "heavy and accurate" gunfire from a police checkpoint, rooftops and a church, the military said in a statement.

Seven suspected militants were also killed during the clash, in which U.S. soldiers detained an Iraqi police lieutenant on suspicion of planning roadside bomb and mortar attacks on U.S. forces. The military accused him of links with Iranians accused by Washington of fomenting violence in Iraq.

So I guess the title should be "U.S. Kills Six Suspected Terrorists Posing As Iraqi Police." That seems to be a lot more accurate description of what actually occurred, without the inflammatory anti-American sentiment expressed by this Alister Bull guy who probably sits safe in an office somewhere while his Arab reporter buddies go around and collect propaganda for him. The footnote of the article states "Additional reporting by Waleed Ibrahim, Mussab al-Khairalla in Baghdad; Kristin Roberts in Washington."

Seems Mr. Alister Bull[sh-t] doesn't have the stomach to do the investigation himself. Also, it is apparent from his first three paragraphs that he is attempting to imply that somehow something nefarious has occurred and that our troops are to blame. Only later does this "reporter" explain that the individuals the U.S. soldiers killed were firing upon them with "heavy and accurate" gunfire.

I find this kind of intentional bias disturbing, to say the least. I know that it is intentional because, as any first year journalism student can tell you, the first paragraph is the most important paragraph in an article, and one should attempt to give an accurate statement of the entire story in it. This is because many people only skim through the newspaper and the first paragraph is supposed to provide a "nutshell" explanation of what occurred. The later paragraphs are supposed to be used to fill in the details.

I guess this sort of biased reporting is what one should expect from what used to be one of the most respected news reporting agencies. How low they have fallen in their pursuit of their Leftist, anti-American agenda.

Funny that while our boys are over there fighing for our freedom, their faces are clearly visible to all who wish to observe, but these cowards we are fighting always seem to wear masks when they are strutting around in their little propaganda tapes showing off their weapons, pretending to be real men.

The people we fight are cowards. They strike in secret, they hide their identities, and non-combatant men, women, and children are most often their targets of choice. They are not brave, they are cowards.

Got that Michael Moore? Killing people in a suicide attack is not bravery, it is the essence of cowardice. Bravery is killing an enemy and living to deal with the emotional and physical consequences. It's okay Michael, I wouldn't expect a Liberal to be capable of comprehending such a concept.

Our troops are the good guys. They are heroes and the people here in America and over in Europe like Mr. Bull are the cowards and traitors.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Hillary's Secret Plan to "Control" Bill

Informed sources have reported today that consultants within the Clinton Presidential Campaign have devised a plan to prevent future "First Gentleman" William Jefferson Clinton from straying too far afield in pursuit of his favorite pastime and that the Future First Lady has already given here tacit approval to the proposal.

Operation "Humidor" (the meaning behind the name has yet to be determined) would involve the hiring of up to 30 college age "interns" to serve as part of the "First Gentleman's" personal staff. These interns would all be women who would serve directly under Bill.

In addition to the normal duties of interns, these special interns would be assigned such tasks as polishing his...speeches, providing lip service to such issues as may arise, and assuring that his cigar supply is kept at the proper humidity for his smoking pleasure.

The source states that background checks have already begun on a large number of voluteers who have been recruited nation-wide and even though it adds to the difficulty of obtaining security clearances for these interns, applications are being accepted from outside of the United States.

In return for their services, the First Lady has agreed to provide full scholarships at the university or college of their choice to each intern who fulfills her duties to her husband's "satisfaction."

It is believed that a new crop of interns will be brought in each year, and that this entourage will accompany the former President wherever his presence is sought or needed. The campaign hopes that this will reduce the likelihood of any scandals cropping up as they did during the first Clinton presidency.

Reportedly applications are still being accepted for these internships and only one hard and fast requirement is stipulated. All of these new interns must be of age, at least of age by the time the new adminsitration is sworn in.

It is further reported that Bill is "delighted" at the prospect of furthuring these young ladies' educations and will personally instruct them on the in's and out's of good governance. The former President is reported to be laying in a good supply of his favorite cocaine laced cigars in anticipation of a lot of pleasurable smoking.

Keep em' laughing folks. If Hillary actually gets elected we all may be crying for real.

What do you think?

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

Feckless Froomkin: "Once more into the breach..."

"Feckless-ineffective; incompetent; careless and irresponsible."

I guess that about sums you up Danny boy.

Now here we have Liberal hubris and amnesia coming together with such zeal that I just have to comment on it. Froomkin is one of the most die-hard, transparent, and unapologetic Democrat Party political hacks in the D.C. headquarters of the Democrat Ministry of Propaganda-The Washington Post.

I'll just let his editorial speak for itself (or what the copyright restrictions will allow me to quote-the rest is linked up above in my blog title).

Obstruction of Justice, Continued

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2007; 3:22 PM

During the course of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial for obstruction of justice and perjury, we learned a lot about his bosses.

Incremental discoveries that didn't garner major headlines nevertheless added to what we know -- and can reasonably surmise [What you call reasonable surmising, I call wildly imaginative, biased guessing] -- about Vice President Cheney and President Bush's role in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity, which was revealed during the course of the administration's defense of its decision to go to war in Iraq.

We know, for instance, that Cheney was the first person to tell Libby about Plame's identity. [Wow! An actualstatement of fact. I am impressed.] We know that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity to the New York Times in an attempt to discredit her husband, who had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence. [Liar! You believe that, you know nothing of the sort. We know only that Cheney was concerned about the lies that Joe Wilson was telling the press about his trip and what he did or did not find] We know that Cheney wrote talking points that may have encouraged Libby and others to mention Plame to reporters. [Whoops. Again, this is merely an assumption you are making out of your own biased and jaded imagination…hence the word “may”] We know that Cheney once talked to Bush about Libby's assignment, and got permission from the president for Libby to leak hitherto classified information to the Times. [Yeah, so? We also know that it is completely within the President’s prerogative to do so. Nothing either illegal or questionable about this.]

We don't know why Libby decided to lie to federal investigators about his role in the leak. But it's reasonable to conclude -- or at least strongly suspect -- that he was doing it to protect Cheney, and maybe even Bush. [There you go again Danny boy, reasoning again without the proper equipment. How does your pea-brain reach this conclusion, when Libby knew that he was not the source of the leak and that there was no underlying crime committed about which he would need to lie?]

Now I feel terribly handicapped here with the Post's quotation restriction of only four paragraphs, as this political screed by Froomkin is an astonishing 5 pages filled with half-truths and twisted conclusion made up to sound far more authoritative than they are, but I will make occasional quotes from the rest as I rip his lies to shreds (let the Post sue me if they want, I have nothing for them to take and doing so certainly won't bail them out of their financial woes nor revive their declining readership).

Froomkin asks the question why Fitzgerald was so determined to get the truth from Libby or failing that punish him for obstructing justice. He then goes on to answer his own question using that wonderfully warped imagination of his concluding:

“the most likely scenario is that he suspected that it was Cheney who committed the underlying crime -- that Cheney instructed Libby to out a CIA agent in his no-holds-barred crusade against a critic.”

An interesting, if patently absurd, conclusion considering that Fitzgerald knew who the initial leaker was before he began his headlong pursuit of Scooter Libby and that there was no underlying crime to be investigated. Chalk another one up for the “tremendous intellectual prowess” of Danny the Democrat.
Once more, thanks to our feckless columnist, we see the predilection of Democrats and Liberals to ignore the facts and go straight for the biased assumption.

On second thought, I don't believe it is worth my while to contradict everything Dan Froomkin says from here on out because it is based on the incorrect assumption that there was a crime committed from which members of the Bush administration, and President Bush and Vice President Cheney specifically needed to be protected. Unfortunately for Froomkin, there was no underlying crime, no need for a cover-up, and thus no need for Libby to intentionally decieve the FBI.

Go ahead and read the rest of his "article" if you've got the time to waste. There's not a paragraphs worth of facts or truth in the whole 5 pages...lots of conjecture, just not much reality.

This entire folderol was an obscenity of another prosecutor run amok just like the Duke [NON]Rape Case. If Bush had any remaining courage, which I doubt, he would call Gonzales into his office and instruct him to begin an investigation into Fitzgeralds motives and conduct, then prosecute him for malfeasance.

Libby's only mistake was instead of attempting to be truthful in answering the questions of the FBI investigators, and getting his facts messed up, he should simply have used the "Hillary Clinton defense," by telling the investigators "I don't remember," and "I can't recall" 250 times until they gave up and went away.

Fitzgerald, who let's always remember was a Clinton hold-over ought to be the one facing a 30 month jail term.

Long Live Our American Republic!

Happy Fouth of July!

What do you think?

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