Friday, October 31, 2003
Note to all readers: If the page looks truncated when you first arrive here, hit the “Refresh” button at the top of your browser.
(0) comments
(0) comments
I mean, seriously: make up your mind. Is Dominique De Villain engaged in some advanced Gallic suck-ass, back-and-fill strategy? If so, who put him up to it?
As in all things artistic... the French talent for craven sycophantic crawling is unchallenged.
Here's The Word:
When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded: "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation."
Catastrophic? How about catatonic? Caterwauling? Cacophonous cringing?
The French are on the run, and they know it. Most of Europe is laughing at them. And they know that, too.
Once again Charles de Gaul's bastard stepchildren find themselves on the wrong side of history, and are, once again, trying to crawl back over the line unnoticed.
De Villain should quit the quaaludes while he's ahead.
(0) comments
As in all things artistic... the French talent for craven sycophantic crawling is unchallenged.
Here's The Word:
When asked whether he could envision the United States pulling out of Iraq, de Villepin responded: "Obviously, a pullout from Iraq today would be catastrophic and would absolutely not correspond to the demands of the situation."
Catastrophic? How about catatonic? Caterwauling? Cacophonous cringing?
The French are on the run, and they know it. Most of Europe is laughing at them. And they know that, too.
Once again Charles de Gaul's bastard stepchildren find themselves on the wrong side of history, and are, once again, trying to crawl back over the line unnoticed.
De Villain should quit the quaaludes while he's ahead.
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Confessions of a loon
Okay, I'll admit it: I subscribe to something called "Daily Confessions." Every morning there arrives in my inbox an e-mail with two (selected by the site moderator) submitted "confessions." Each confession in an anonymous comment or story relating some private thought, iniquitous deed, or some other content that the writer feels motivated to shout from the street-corner... anonymously.
Some are funny. Many are stupid. A few can be quite disgusting. Then, once in a while, a gem comes along. To wit:
California Terminated
http://dailyconfession.com/display.asp?CID=53772
I confess that after milling it over for a week now, the thought of Arnold as Governor of California as driven me into a wildly spiraling plunge into a deep and dark abyss that has swallowed me whole.
Help.
I confess I chuckled sadistically at the thought of this Lefty spinning deeper into mental instability.
Life can be sweet!
(0) comments
Okay, I'll admit it: I subscribe to something called "Daily Confessions." Every morning there arrives in my inbox an e-mail with two (selected by the site moderator) submitted "confessions." Each confession in an anonymous comment or story relating some private thought, iniquitous deed, or some other content that the writer feels motivated to shout from the street-corner... anonymously.
Some are funny. Many are stupid. A few can be quite disgusting. Then, once in a while, a gem comes along. To wit:
California Terminated
http://dailyconfession.com/display.asp?CID=53772
I confess that after milling it over for a week now, the thought of Arnold as Governor of California as driven me into a wildly spiraling plunge into a deep and dark abyss that has swallowed me whole.
Help.
I confess I chuckled sadistically at the thought of this Lefty spinning deeper into mental instability.
Life can be sweet!
(0) comments
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Suicidal Insanity
Perhaps I'm missing the subtle point of some sublimely intricate reasoning, but it occurs to me that The Left has gone completely insane. Suicidally so.
To my mind it seems almost axiomatic that those who benefit the most from a society, and a civilization, would tend to be those most sensitive to threats against that beneficent social structure. I would expect them to be among the first to raise the alarm and urge quick and curative action.
Au contraire!
Serpent Head's political advisory group, Democracy Corps(e), has released a new poll of Democrat Primary/Caucus likely voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Amongst other interesting tidbits (America is heading in the wrong direction: 86.6%) was a ranking of concerns over various issues. The respondents were asked to state which of these was the most worrisome.
I pulled the data and popped it into a trusty MS Excel file... summed and averaged the results... and sorted 'em by how "worried" the dems were about each issue.
Guess which was dead last in Iowa? Which was below The Environment (4%)? Below Crime and Illegal Drugs (2%) ? Below Moral Values (now THAT'S surprising!) (3%). Even below None of These and Don't Know/Refused (2% each)?
Which one was stated by only 1% of these fine, upstanding citizens in Iowa as their most worrying concern?
Fighting Terrorism.
(New Hampshire and South Carolina were twice as concerned about fighting terrorism: 2% each -- The average was a whopping 1.7%)
I don't get it. I mean it. I just don't. These people are the most Democrat of the Democrats. They're the protestors and artisans, the professors and professional victims of our society. In other words, they're the people for whom most of the rest of us would have little use were it not for the refinements of society and the collective protection that is civilization. When things get heavy they're the first to get jettisoned. Without civilization there is no purpose for these people.
So why the hell aren't they concerned about an obvious and ongoing threat to civilization?
Was this
and this
and this
some kind of illusion concocted by the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy©?
Were these guys Halliburton employees?
Do they not see? Or have they already surrendered?
How very, very French of them.
(0) comments
Perhaps I'm missing the subtle point of some sublimely intricate reasoning, but it occurs to me that The Left has gone completely insane. Suicidally so.
To my mind it seems almost axiomatic that those who benefit the most from a society, and a civilization, would tend to be those most sensitive to threats against that beneficent social structure. I would expect them to be among the first to raise the alarm and urge quick and curative action.
Au contraire!
Serpent Head's political advisory group, Democracy Corps(e), has released a new poll of Democrat Primary/Caucus likely voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Amongst other interesting tidbits (America is heading in the wrong direction: 86.6%) was a ranking of concerns over various issues. The respondents were asked to state which of these was the most worrisome.
I pulled the data and popped it into a trusty MS Excel file... summed and averaged the results... and sorted 'em by how "worried" the dems were about each issue.
Guess which was dead last in Iowa? Which was below The Environment (4%)? Below Crime and Illegal Drugs (2%) ? Below Moral Values (now THAT'S surprising!) (3%). Even below None of These and Don't Know/Refused (2% each)?
Which one was stated by only 1% of these fine, upstanding citizens in Iowa as their most worrying concern?
Fighting Terrorism.
(New Hampshire and South Carolina were twice as concerned about fighting terrorism: 2% each -- The average was a whopping 1.7%)
I don't get it. I mean it. I just don't. These people are the most Democrat of the Democrats. They're the protestors and artisans, the professors and professional victims of our society. In other words, they're the people for whom most of the rest of us would have little use were it not for the refinements of society and the collective protection that is civilization. When things get heavy they're the first to get jettisoned. Without civilization there is no purpose for these people.
So why the hell aren't they concerned about an obvious and ongoing threat to civilization?
Was this
and this
and this
some kind of illusion concocted by the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy©?
Were these guys Halliburton employees?
Do they not see? Or have they already surrendered?
How very, very French of them.
(0) comments
Our New Enemy II
Well, not only have the Palestinian people shown themselves to be supporters of brutal and inhuman terrorism (see below), they've now begun to be active military combatants in Iraq.
From our friends at The Telegraph:
"Elsewhere in the refugee camp there was clear evidence that Palestinians are joining the resistance against the American forces in Iraq. Near the Al-Wasim mosque, a poster paid tribute to Thaer Abdullah Rahman, formerly of the camp, who was killed in Iraq two months ago."
And...
"Wajeeh Maoud, the mosque's muezzin, who calls worshippers to prayer, said that many Palestinians were going into Iraq and some had been killed there."
Fine with me. As long as we understand that this is the case. And act accordingly.
The Palestinians have shown clear and convincing intent to support terrorism against civilians. They have taken up arms against the United States across three international borders (Israel-Lebanon, Lebanon-Syria, Syria-Iraq). This action on their part qualifies them as international terrorists; the qualification President Bush used as one of the principal features of our enemy in this war on terrorism.
Therefore, the Palestinian terrorists have now leapt into the big league. In some ways, the Palestinian terrorists may be even more dangerous than the folks we've been actively fighting so far. They (the Palestinian forces) have the broad popular support of their civilian base. And that support gives them a legitimacy that is unique among the various paramilitary organizations we've targeted: they are doing exactly what the Palestinian people want them to do -- kill civilians in vast quantities and (probably) kill Americans as well.
Sure, it's manifestly clear that the Palestinians are little more than irritating, gnat-like, impotent wankers. But that description could have been accurately applied to the average Middle Eastern/Islamic terrorist three years ago. And look what that got us.
I want you to look at something: This (hat tip to Allah, via LGF). And I want you to think about what it means, both for now and for the future.
To quote Michael Ledeen: Faster, please.
(0) comments
Well, not only have the Palestinian people shown themselves to be supporters of brutal and inhuman terrorism (see below), they've now begun to be active military combatants in Iraq.
From our friends at The Telegraph:
"Elsewhere in the refugee camp there was clear evidence that Palestinians are joining the resistance against the American forces in Iraq. Near the Al-Wasim mosque, a poster paid tribute to Thaer Abdullah Rahman, formerly of the camp, who was killed in Iraq two months ago."
And...
"Wajeeh Maoud, the mosque's muezzin, who calls worshippers to prayer, said that many Palestinians were going into Iraq and some had been killed there."
Fine with me. As long as we understand that this is the case. And act accordingly.
The Palestinians have shown clear and convincing intent to support terrorism against civilians. They have taken up arms against the United States across three international borders (Israel-Lebanon, Lebanon-Syria, Syria-Iraq). This action on their part qualifies them as international terrorists; the qualification President Bush used as one of the principal features of our enemy in this war on terrorism.
Therefore, the Palestinian terrorists have now leapt into the big league. In some ways, the Palestinian terrorists may be even more dangerous than the folks we've been actively fighting so far. They (the Palestinian forces) have the broad popular support of their civilian base. And that support gives them a legitimacy that is unique among the various paramilitary organizations we've targeted: they are doing exactly what the Palestinian people want them to do -- kill civilians in vast quantities and (probably) kill Americans as well.
Sure, it's manifestly clear that the Palestinians are little more than irritating, gnat-like, impotent wankers. But that description could have been accurately applied to the average Middle Eastern/Islamic terrorist three years ago. And look what that got us.
I want you to look at something: This (hat tip to Allah, via LGF). And I want you to think about what it means, both for now and for the future.
To quote Michael Ledeen: Faster, please.
(0) comments
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Face it: The Palestinians living on the West Bank are, by and large, a mass of evil, hate-filled, anti-American, knuckle-dragging dirtbags.
I saw them dancing on the streets as Manhattan Island burned. That was explained away as the actions of a few, misguided or pressured extremists. I even entered a short debate on the subject, wherein the idea was offered (by another) that those men, women and kids cavorting joyously in the streets were there as a result of Hamas (and other) thugs forcing them to act happy.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Now we have the recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) which shows that 75% of Palestinian respondents "support the suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant two weeks ago in which 21 people, including four children, were killed".
Of course, we get some temporizing from the pollster (who was, perhaps, shocked at the barbarity of his sample). He tells us to consider that the respondents may not have understood the question:
"Ayoub Mustafa, one of the pollsters, told Reuters the number may have been artificially high because respondents were not told in the question that all the 21 dead were civilians."
Paaleeaase. The PCPSR designed the question. And the fact that the 21 who were brutally murdered, much less the dozens who where maimed and dismembered, were civilians was the whole point of the exercise. Yeah, sure, sometimes when the Paleostinian terrorists crawl out of their holes to attack Israelis they take on IDF regulars, but the vast majority of their operations are specifically against civilians, with the explicit intent to murder civilians.
Besides, it was a restaurant.
To expect that the Palesimian "street" doesn't know this is laughable. To expect us to believe that the respondents don't know this is to expect of us naivete on the scale of State Department cubicle-dwellers.
So, as I said, it's time to face it. The Palestinian population has chosen its side, its method of forwarding its interests, and its place in history. And I do mean history.
They have also chosen their enemies. One of which is the United States.
To my mind, the debate on where the Palestinians stand, with us or against us, is now over. Perhaps it time for us to stop sending charitable scholarships over there, and time to start sending something more to the point.
(0) comments
I saw them dancing on the streets as Manhattan Island burned. That was explained away as the actions of a few, misguided or pressured extremists. I even entered a short debate on the subject, wherein the idea was offered (by another) that those men, women and kids cavorting joyously in the streets were there as a result of Hamas (and other) thugs forcing them to act happy.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
Now we have the recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) which shows that 75% of Palestinian respondents "support the suicide bombing at an Israeli restaurant two weeks ago in which 21 people, including four children, were killed".
Of course, we get some temporizing from the pollster (who was, perhaps, shocked at the barbarity of his sample). He tells us to consider that the respondents may not have understood the question:
"Ayoub Mustafa, one of the pollsters, told Reuters the number may have been artificially high because respondents were not told in the question that all the 21 dead were civilians."
Paaleeaase. The PCPSR designed the question. And the fact that the 21 who were brutally murdered, much less the dozens who where maimed and dismembered, were civilians was the whole point of the exercise. Yeah, sure, sometimes when the Paleostinian terrorists crawl out of their holes to attack Israelis they take on IDF regulars, but the vast majority of their operations are specifically against civilians, with the explicit intent to murder civilians.
Besides, it was a restaurant.
To expect that the Palesimian "street" doesn't know this is laughable. To expect us to believe that the respondents don't know this is to expect of us naivete on the scale of State Department cubicle-dwellers.
So, as I said, it's time to face it. The Palestinian population has chosen its side, its method of forwarding its interests, and its place in history. And I do mean history.
They have also chosen their enemies. One of which is the United States.
To my mind, the debate on where the Palestinians stand, with us or against us, is now over. Perhaps it time for us to stop sending charitable scholarships over there, and time to start sending something more to the point.
(0) comments
Friday, October 17, 2003
Today's MMW (Moderate Muslim Watch or,How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Learned to Love The Bomb)
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia was showing his goods the other day, laying the smackdown on those rascally Jews.
Let's turn up the radio and listen to what this Moderate Muslim© has to say about the Scourge of the Planet from his perspective of the Religion of Peace©®:
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," [I wonder who he means? Who's the proxy-ee?]
"They get others to fight and die for them." [Again, I wonder who are the "others"?]
And, finally (snicker): "For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before," ... "If we had paused to think, then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory."
To be fair, he purports to advocate nonviolent economic means to achieve his "final victory" over the Jews. Then again, he trots out the same racial stereotypes and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that form the basis of the standardized justification for Islamic terrorism.
So sure, his [stated] methods are different from the run-of-the-mill Islamofascists, but his foundational logic is the same. This reduces the whole argument to differences between methodologies. Left standing is the belief that the Jews are an evil, manipulative and insidious cabal, which is, of course, the same belief that runs through Islamic human-bomb factories [Wahabi schools] throughout the world.
(0) comments
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia was showing his goods the other day, laying the smackdown on those rascally Jews.
Let's turn up the radio and listen to what this Moderate Muslim© has to say about the Scourge of the Planet from his perspective of the Religion of Peace©®:
"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," [I wonder who he means? Who's the proxy-ee?]
"They get others to fight and die for them." [Again, I wonder who are the "others"?]
And, finally (snicker): "For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before," ... "If we had paused to think, then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory."
To be fair, he purports to advocate nonviolent economic means to achieve his "final victory" over the Jews. Then again, he trots out the same racial stereotypes and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that form the basis of the standardized justification for Islamic terrorism.
So sure, his [stated] methods are different from the run-of-the-mill Islamofascists, but his foundational logic is the same. This reduces the whole argument to differences between methodologies. Left standing is the belief that the Jews are an evil, manipulative and insidious cabal, which is, of course, the same belief that runs through Islamic human-bomb factories [Wahabi schools] throughout the world.
(0) comments
On second thought, I don’t think I’ll respond. I think my original point still stands.
(0) comments
(0) comments
Monday, October 13, 2003
The 700 Club responds:
We received your message regarding Pat Robertson's comments about the State Department. Pat is not able to personally respond to all the letters, notes, and calls he receives daily. However, he cares very much that you receive a reply, and we are pleased to respond to you for him.
If you read author and journalist Joel Mowbray's book entitled, "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security" you will see in chapter 11 that Mowbray explains, "After Ronald Reagan took over the White House in 1981 many conservatives focused on the need to reform state. During a meeting of the 'kitchen cabinet'-Reagan supporters that had not yet been placed in administration jobs--the new secretary of state asked the attendees for advice in reforming state. When they went around the table every person gave the same basic answer, 'Gut it.'".
Robertson was referring to that statement and the overall tenure of Mowbray's book, when he shared with Mowbray his overall impression of the book and posed the question on the October 2, 2003 broadcast of "The 700 Club". Robertson was not implying or suggesting that someone should literally blow up the State Department. Anybody that saw the video could see that Robertson was humorously characterizing what Mowbray had said in his book.
We hope you will continue to watch "The 700 Club" and enjoy the programs. God bless you.
The Christian Broadcasting Network
Website - www.cbn.com
I'll respond later.
(0) comments
We received your message regarding Pat Robertson's comments about the State Department. Pat is not able to personally respond to all the letters, notes, and calls he receives daily. However, he cares very much that you receive a reply, and we are pleased to respond to you for him.
If you read author and journalist Joel Mowbray's book entitled, "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security" you will see in chapter 11 that Mowbray explains, "After Ronald Reagan took over the White House in 1981 many conservatives focused on the need to reform state. During a meeting of the 'kitchen cabinet'-Reagan supporters that had not yet been placed in administration jobs--the new secretary of state asked the attendees for advice in reforming state. When they went around the table every person gave the same basic answer, 'Gut it.'".
Robertson was referring to that statement and the overall tenure of Mowbray's book, when he shared with Mowbray his overall impression of the book and posed the question on the October 2, 2003 broadcast of "The 700 Club". Robertson was not implying or suggesting that someone should literally blow up the State Department. Anybody that saw the video could see that Robertson was humorously characterizing what Mowbray had said in his book.
We hope you will continue to watch "The 700 Club" and enjoy the programs. God bless you.
The Christian Broadcasting Network
Website - www.cbn.com
I'll respond later.
(0) comments
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Pat Roberson stepped into it deeply this time. I wish he’d be more careful.
Unfortunately, this appears to be yet another example of how the conservative movement isn’t ready for prime time. Somebody ought to tell these guys that we’re not backbenchers anymore. We’re actually part of the discussion now, and should not act like the loony Left, throwing extremism around like it’s a substitute for reasoned argument.
To wit:
Open Letter to Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson needs to be careful
Dear Sir,
I know that the United States Department of State is taking inordinate glee in responding to “your” statements regarding Joel Mowbray’s comment about placing a nuclear weapon in its (the State Department’s) headquarters. I read the quote, and it’s clear that you are not stating a similar desire but merely quoting Mowbray’s stated wish. But please! You are an experienced political mover and shaker, having been a presidential candidate and political commentator for decades.
You ought to have known better.
Maybe you have missed the fact that American conservatism is maturing. I remember the early days, the days when we didn’t have a significant voice in the world; the days when outrageous comments were only received by those few people who took the effort to seek out commentary by our spokesmen. We tended to overlook such over-the-top statements as the fevered evidence of reasonable despair resulting from wrong-headed and alarmingly naïve policy.
But with the advent of our emergence in mainstream society and media we are now open to the mischaracterizations and distortions of the (increasingly embattled) Left, and we should take care to keep the hyperbole to a minimum, lest we provide the Left (and its supporters and enablers in the State Department) with fodder for their anti-American cannons.
Basically, by making the mistake you did, you’ve furthered the efforts to remove Christian political commentary from legitimate debate.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s rarely a week when I don’t get the urge to drop-kick Colon Powell down Pennsylvania Avenue for his head-in-the-clouds optimistic visions of the United Nations, France, Germany and Yasser Arafat (et al). But talking of nuking the State Department is talking of murdering thousands of American civil servants, destroying public property and causing other ancillary damage to the United States. We ought not to be saying things like this. That’s one of the things that separates us from our foe.
As for Mr. Mowbray; if he did, indeed, say that in his book then he should be firmly backhanded for such a stupid comment, not lauded by America’s leading Christian conservative. We live in the United States of America, where we hold elections and expect our elected officials to remonstrate peaceably with our political opponents… not blow them up. We are not the Taliban.
We are involved in a war on terror and the states that support it. In play are such issues as nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. We’ve already taken approximately 3,400 casualties in this war, and that number will continue to rise. Using a reference to nuclear weapons as a rhetorical device to express justifiable angst against a dangerously foolish State Department is not only itself foolish, but is also dangerously close to the kind of extremist thought that we are, in part, fighting.
Such statements should not be passively reported. They should be roundly denounced and repudiated with vigor.
If you are a leader in our efforts to consolidate support behind President Bush, and you wish to further our mutual cause of proactive self-defense, then you have a responsibility to advance our efforts in a measured and respectable manner. And you have a responsibility to quell the unhinged rants of those amongst us who let their worry and anger push them beyond acceptable American discourse.
We are Americans. The negligence and foolhardy policies of the State Department are being exposed. We are getting the message out. We’re making the argument. Let’s do it in a way that preserves our dignity, rationality and propriety.
Regards,
(0) comments
Unfortunately, this appears to be yet another example of how the conservative movement isn’t ready for prime time. Somebody ought to tell these guys that we’re not backbenchers anymore. We’re actually part of the discussion now, and should not act like the loony Left, throwing extremism around like it’s a substitute for reasoned argument.
To wit:
Open Letter to Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson needs to be careful
Dear Sir,
I know that the United States Department of State is taking inordinate glee in responding to “your” statements regarding Joel Mowbray’s comment about placing a nuclear weapon in its (the State Department’s) headquarters. I read the quote, and it’s clear that you are not stating a similar desire but merely quoting Mowbray’s stated wish. But please! You are an experienced political mover and shaker, having been a presidential candidate and political commentator for decades.
You ought to have known better.
Maybe you have missed the fact that American conservatism is maturing. I remember the early days, the days when we didn’t have a significant voice in the world; the days when outrageous comments were only received by those few people who took the effort to seek out commentary by our spokesmen. We tended to overlook such over-the-top statements as the fevered evidence of reasonable despair resulting from wrong-headed and alarmingly naïve policy.
But with the advent of our emergence in mainstream society and media we are now open to the mischaracterizations and distortions of the (increasingly embattled) Left, and we should take care to keep the hyperbole to a minimum, lest we provide the Left (and its supporters and enablers in the State Department) with fodder for their anti-American cannons.
Basically, by making the mistake you did, you’ve furthered the efforts to remove Christian political commentary from legitimate debate.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s rarely a week when I don’t get the urge to drop-kick Colon Powell down Pennsylvania Avenue for his head-in-the-clouds optimistic visions of the United Nations, France, Germany and Yasser Arafat (et al). But talking of nuking the State Department is talking of murdering thousands of American civil servants, destroying public property and causing other ancillary damage to the United States. We ought not to be saying things like this. That’s one of the things that separates us from our foe.
As for Mr. Mowbray; if he did, indeed, say that in his book then he should be firmly backhanded for such a stupid comment, not lauded by America’s leading Christian conservative. We live in the United States of America, where we hold elections and expect our elected officials to remonstrate peaceably with our political opponents… not blow them up. We are not the Taliban.
We are involved in a war on terror and the states that support it. In play are such issues as nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. We’ve already taken approximately 3,400 casualties in this war, and that number will continue to rise. Using a reference to nuclear weapons as a rhetorical device to express justifiable angst against a dangerously foolish State Department is not only itself foolish, but is also dangerously close to the kind of extremist thought that we are, in part, fighting.
Such statements should not be passively reported. They should be roundly denounced and repudiated with vigor.
If you are a leader in our efforts to consolidate support behind President Bush, and you wish to further our mutual cause of proactive self-defense, then you have a responsibility to advance our efforts in a measured and respectable manner. And you have a responsibility to quell the unhinged rants of those amongst us who let their worry and anger push them beyond acceptable American discourse.
We are Americans. The negligence and foolhardy policies of the State Department are being exposed. We are getting the message out. We’re making the argument. Let’s do it in a way that preserves our dignity, rationality and propriety.
Regards,
(0) comments
