Friday, June 18, 2004
What am I to say? Kill the bastards? Well, at this point the leader of them is already dead. Kill the rest of them? Well, hopefully, we’re working on that.
Unlike the last time (gawd, do we get used to it that easily?) I have made no effort to find the video. I have seen the pictures posted at Drudge. My eyes are harder now. Much like they were when the Columbia blew up. Now I’m colder and more methodical, like the mindset one takes on when killing rats. It’s just one of those things that’s got to be done. Do it. Finish it.
The only disruption to this mindset is when somebody screeches for the rat’s rights.
I think I’m close to closing out on any attempt to analyze this situation. It’s reached the level of pest control and merits no further actual thought. Any obstacles to that reasoning are just those foolish nitwits that don’t think right. Screw ‘em. They, like the Islamofascists, can’t be reasoned with.
The time for high-minded debate has, I think, long since passed. They’re not receptive, and I begin to think that my words are only there to sooth my own soul, to convince me that I did try, after all.
A man. A husband and father. Wife and children pleaded for his life. And what became of it? Only what I read was worse than what I’d seen the “last time.”
(0) comments
Unlike the last time (gawd, do we get used to it that easily?) I have made no effort to find the video. I have seen the pictures posted at Drudge. My eyes are harder now. Much like they were when the Columbia blew up. Now I’m colder and more methodical, like the mindset one takes on when killing rats. It’s just one of those things that’s got to be done. Do it. Finish it.
The only disruption to this mindset is when somebody screeches for the rat’s rights.
I think I’m close to closing out on any attempt to analyze this situation. It’s reached the level of pest control and merits no further actual thought. Any obstacles to that reasoning are just those foolish nitwits that don’t think right. Screw ‘em. They, like the Islamofascists, can’t be reasoned with.
The time for high-minded debate has, I think, long since passed. They’re not receptive, and I begin to think that my words are only there to sooth my own soul, to convince me that I did try, after all.
A man. A husband and father. Wife and children pleaded for his life. And what became of it? Only what I read was worse than what I’d seen the “last time.”
(0) comments
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Excerpts from a 1964 speech by Ronald Reagan entitled A Time For Choosing.
Some things never change. Read it all. Count the times the hairs on the back of your neck rise.
Full text: http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
...
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
...
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
...
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
...
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
...
Replace “Cold War” with “War on Terror,” “Iron Curtain” with “Iron Triangle,” Nikita Khrushchev with Osama bin-Ladin.
It’s not prescience. It’s consistency and realism. The Long View.
(0) comments
Some things never change. Read it all. Count the times the hairs on the back of your neck rise.
Full text: http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
...
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
...
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
...
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
...
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
...
Replace “Cold War” with “War on Terror,” “Iron Curtain” with “Iron Triangle,” Nikita Khrushchev with Osama bin-Ladin.
It’s not prescience. It’s consistency and realism. The Long View.
(0) comments
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Bizarre. Bizarrer. Bizarrest.
Maybe forgiveness isn't such a great thing. I'm lightly tracking the celebrations over in Europe surrounding the 60th anniversary of the "liberation" of Rome and the Normandy invasion. Weird stuff, folks. Really.
Don't get me wrong: I mostly like the Italians. But listening to them chirp about the "liberation" of Rome is a little like listening to O.J. Simpson angrily criticize the wife he killed. You just want to box your own hears to make sure they're working correctly.
For one thing, the Italians elected the Fascist government that we toppled. Mussolini taught Hitler about Fascism. And was his mentor at the beginning. We "liberated" Italy in the same way cops "liberate" a bank robber by knocking him down and cuffing him.
And the French. Ohhh, the French. It's almost to the point where I don't even react with anger anymore about the next asshattery they embarrass themselves with. And the next. And the next. Years ago, when considering the re-writing of history that both the Germans and the Japanese have indulged in about WWII, I thought that it was probably harmless, maybe even necessary, that they do this. Kind of a way to stitch back together their society by "skipping over" a faux pas they really can't deal with in the light of day.
But for France this kind of intentional historical blindness isn't necessary. It's just convenient. This way they get to escape not the guilt for serious and tragic wrongs, they get to escape the one thing you should never ask of a Frenchman: gratitude. That is a cup way too bitter for them.
But weirder still is the current German thinking about WWII. Now they think of their defeat as a "liberation," too.
I think I was wrong to grant Germany the latitude to escape their guilt by massaging history into the shape that better pleased them. They've abused that privilege in order to place themselves in the "victim" category. Frankly, I don't know whether this error of theirs will result in the usual problems such "beneficial" forgetfulness usually leads to. Will they once again tip over into unreasoning authoritarianism? I doubt it. Will they fail to see the next threat coming down the road at them, and thereby not react quickly enough to save themselves?
Well, that's more likely than the authoritarianism. But let's get serious here: the Germans are not the French. They may have a weird longing fondness for socialism, but they're not the limp-wristed, effete cultural pansies the French are. The German thought patterns are more testosterone-driven, not to put too fine a point on it.
Still, to call themselves "victims" of WWII by claiming that they, too, were "liberated," is pretty discouraging.
In times past, Germany learned from Italy. Are they now taking lessons from the French?
(0) comments
Maybe forgiveness isn't such a great thing. I'm lightly tracking the celebrations over in Europe surrounding the 60th anniversary of the "liberation" of Rome and the Normandy invasion. Weird stuff, folks. Really.
Don't get me wrong: I mostly like the Italians. But listening to them chirp about the "liberation" of Rome is a little like listening to O.J. Simpson angrily criticize the wife he killed. You just want to box your own hears to make sure they're working correctly.
For one thing, the Italians elected the Fascist government that we toppled. Mussolini taught Hitler about Fascism. And was his mentor at the beginning. We "liberated" Italy in the same way cops "liberate" a bank robber by knocking him down and cuffing him.
And the French. Ohhh, the French. It's almost to the point where I don't even react with anger anymore about the next asshattery they embarrass themselves with. And the next. And the next. Years ago, when considering the re-writing of history that both the Germans and the Japanese have indulged in about WWII, I thought that it was probably harmless, maybe even necessary, that they do this. Kind of a way to stitch back together their society by "skipping over" a faux pas they really can't deal with in the light of day.
But for France this kind of intentional historical blindness isn't necessary. It's just convenient. This way they get to escape not the guilt for serious and tragic wrongs, they get to escape the one thing you should never ask of a Frenchman: gratitude. That is a cup way too bitter for them.
But weirder still is the current German thinking about WWII. Now they think of their defeat as a "liberation," too.
I think I was wrong to grant Germany the latitude to escape their guilt by massaging history into the shape that better pleased them. They've abused that privilege in order to place themselves in the "victim" category. Frankly, I don't know whether this error of theirs will result in the usual problems such "beneficial" forgetfulness usually leads to. Will they once again tip over into unreasoning authoritarianism? I doubt it. Will they fail to see the next threat coming down the road at them, and thereby not react quickly enough to save themselves?
Well, that's more likely than the authoritarianism. But let's get serious here: the Germans are not the French. They may have a weird longing fondness for socialism, but they're not the limp-wristed, effete cultural pansies the French are. The German thought patterns are more testosterone-driven, not to put too fine a point on it.
Still, to call themselves "victims" of WWII by claiming that they, too, were "liberated," is pretty discouraging.
In times past, Germany learned from Italy. Are they now taking lessons from the French?
(0) comments
Friday, June 04, 2004
Monsieur Kerry, Traître Extraordinaire
Psssst. Come here. Did you know that John Kerry was in Vietnam?
Oh. You did?
Okay, but did you know he's still there?
Thought so.
Check this website out. It's illuminating.
Here's a quote: (Note, do not read this unless you have a handful of blood-pressure medicine handy, or a good stiff drink, or a syringe of black-tar smack, or all three)
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.
This man-thing Kerry is a bastard. And a traitor. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy when he engaged in his lying and anti-American advocacy during our war with Vietnam. And the victorious Communists thank him for this. As well they should.
His support of the enemy's efforts was a direct and substantial boon to them. There is no difference between the morale-killing efforts of Kerry and a shipload of ammunition sent to North Viet Nam. American fighting men died as a result of Kerry's assistance to our enemy. Kerry killed them as surely as if he had pulled the trigger himself.
He's a rat bastard, a liar, a traitor. I will enjoy imagining my ballot to be a Kerry Voodoo Doll this November.
(0) comments
Psssst. Come here. Did you know that John Kerry was in Vietnam?
Oh. You did?
Okay, but did you know he's still there?
Thought so.
Check this website out. It's illuminating.
Here's a quote: (Note, do not read this unless you have a handful of blood-pressure medicine handy, or a good stiff drink, or a syringe of black-tar smack, or all three)
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.
This man-thing Kerry is a bastard. And a traitor. He provided aid and comfort to the enemy when he engaged in his lying and anti-American advocacy during our war with Vietnam. And the victorious Communists thank him for this. As well they should.
His support of the enemy's efforts was a direct and substantial boon to them. There is no difference between the morale-killing efforts of Kerry and a shipload of ammunition sent to North Viet Nam. American fighting men died as a result of Kerry's assistance to our enemy. Kerry killed them as surely as if he had pulled the trigger himself.
He's a rat bastard, a liar, a traitor. I will enjoy imagining my ballot to be a Kerry Voodoo Doll this November.
(0) comments
Message To Our Troops
Troops,
As you may know we are engaged in a war with two major fronts: Where you are, and back here at home. Yours is the military task. Ours the political
There are those here in the States who do wish for your failure, and they work toward that end. They are OUR task, our opponents, and it is up to us to defeat them.
The vast, VAST majority of Americans support you folks. Take heart from that. You may hear the media, but you're not hearing all of us. This is where you're going to have to trust us to take care of our front. Were we to fail it would be to our shame and dishonor, not yours.
We are better prepared, we civilians, this time around. We have better tools, and are far better organized than we have been in times past.
There IS hope. And here's what you need to do: Trust us. We're the ones here who can do this work. Stay focused on your own mission. Trust us to stay focused on ours.
Carry on. We've got your six.
(0) comments
Troops,
As you may know we are engaged in a war with two major fronts: Where you are, and back here at home. Yours is the military task. Ours the political
There are those here in the States who do wish for your failure, and they work toward that end. They are OUR task, our opponents, and it is up to us to defeat them.
The vast, VAST majority of Americans support you folks. Take heart from that. You may hear the media, but you're not hearing all of us. This is where you're going to have to trust us to take care of our front. Were we to fail it would be to our shame and dishonor, not yours.
We are better prepared, we civilians, this time around. We have better tools, and are far better organized than we have been in times past.
There IS hope. And here's what you need to do: Trust us. We're the ones here who can do this work. Stay focused on your own mission. Trust us to stay focused on ours.
Carry on. We've got your six.
(0) comments
Enough, Already
Okay. Official Ashes-And-Sackcloth Period is over. I'm done with feeling bad about the Prison Scandal™.
Sure, PFC England & Co. were pretty bizarre. I'd love to personally bitch-slap the lot of them for handing Splash Kennedy and his flesh-puppet Algore yet one more thing to attack America with. But when George Soros compared the prison photos to 9/11, well that sort of popped the bubble. True to form, The Left went too far. You really only have to wait for them to do that to themselves these days.
Besides, considering the actual prisoners, who they are and what they did to get into that prison in the first place, I really don't give a rat's ass about what was done to them. Not anymore.
PFC England stomped a few of these buggers. So? In my humble opinion she dirtied her own boots when she did that. I heard one soldier report about a guy that he personally sent to that prison. That guy had raped and stabbed several young girls (6, 9 and 12, if I remember correctly), and their mother.
My bucket of sympathy and self-flagellation is officially empty.
(0) comments
Okay. Official Ashes-And-Sackcloth Period is over. I'm done with feeling bad about the Prison Scandal™.
Sure, PFC England & Co. were pretty bizarre. I'd love to personally bitch-slap the lot of them for handing Splash Kennedy and his flesh-puppet Algore yet one more thing to attack America with. But when George Soros compared the prison photos to 9/11, well that sort of popped the bubble. True to form, The Left went too far. You really only have to wait for them to do that to themselves these days.
Besides, considering the actual prisoners, who they are and what they did to get into that prison in the first place, I really don't give a rat's ass about what was done to them. Not anymore.
PFC England stomped a few of these buggers. So? In my humble opinion she dirtied her own boots when she did that. I heard one soldier report about a guy that he personally sent to that prison. That guy had raped and stabbed several young girls (6, 9 and 12, if I remember correctly), and their mother.
My bucket of sympathy and self-flagellation is officially empty.
(0) comments
Getting Ready
Okay, kids, we're getting close. Major Operations have been over for a while. Soon we'll be handing sovereignty back to the locals.
Just as promised.
Obviously this isn't the end. We'll still be there for a while yet. And things will still continue to happen. Remember: there's nothing higher on the terrorist's To-Do list than squelching democracy in Iraq. They know what those of us on the right know: Iraq will be a watershed event. If Iraq succeeds in forming a civil democracy then it spells the beginning of the end for the Wahabi wet dream of Pan-Arabia, Sharia law, stoning women, and Allah-fucking-Akbar.
But, despite that, things are wrapping up. We'll still have unanswered questions (Where the hell are those stockpiles of WMDs?). But the handover will happen.
Things are already calming down there. Have you noticed? Al-Sadr is on the run, his efforts dismissed and distained by Sistani. Fallujah is far quieter of late.
Since we'll be there for an extended period it doesn't make sense to wait until we leave before doing the long-awaited wrap up analysis. That will be forthcoming soon. Lots of research to do on that (what was it that Algore said before the war? Ohhhhh!).
Then the domestic political implications. Those dumb-arsed Dems really made a mistake by shooting too early on this. As the months go on before the election they won't have the drumbeat of American deaths (which they so dearly love) to assist them in propagandizing against Bush, against our country.
And I have to admit: I just love George W. Bush. He's a brilliant political tactician. Amazing, really. By closing down the issue of Iraq he's, yet again, pulling the rug out from under his opponents. Stealing the issue right away. And those morons on the far left don't even see it coming. That is something that I'll never understand.
I think they believe their own ranting about how stupid Bush is. Can they really be that dim? It's like George is doing the ol' rope-a-dope to them, keeping them focused on one thing while distracting them from what's going to smack them in the head three seconds later.
Prediction: I would not be at all surprised if GWB comes up with Osama bin-Ladin or WMDs or Mullah Ohmar, or all three before Election Day.
Even if not, there will be something. We just get to sit back and wait for the punches to be landed. Oh, and we also get to listen to the Dems scream in fury. Heh heh. That is going to be fun.
Also, on the day after the election, I am personally looking forward to listening to NPR. "What!!???" Yes, I remember listening to NPR after the Nicaraguan elections back in the 80's when Violetta Chamorro was elected. Now that was fun. Against all the predictions of the NPR leftists, pining away endlessly for Daniel Ortega, the Sandinistas lost. And NPR erupted with screeches of pain that would make Howard Dean sound positively sedated by comparison.
So, on the day after the election I will be listening to NPR. Sadistic? Yep. I'm a very bad man (heh heh heh).
(0) comments
Okay, kids, we're getting close. Major Operations have been over for a while. Soon we'll be handing sovereignty back to the locals.
Just as promised.
Obviously this isn't the end. We'll still be there for a while yet. And things will still continue to happen. Remember: there's nothing higher on the terrorist's To-Do list than squelching democracy in Iraq. They know what those of us on the right know: Iraq will be a watershed event. If Iraq succeeds in forming a civil democracy then it spells the beginning of the end for the Wahabi wet dream of Pan-Arabia, Sharia law, stoning women, and Allah-fucking-Akbar.
But, despite that, things are wrapping up. We'll still have unanswered questions (Where the hell are those stockpiles of WMDs?). But the handover will happen.
Things are already calming down there. Have you noticed? Al-Sadr is on the run, his efforts dismissed and distained by Sistani. Fallujah is far quieter of late.
Since we'll be there for an extended period it doesn't make sense to wait until we leave before doing the long-awaited wrap up analysis. That will be forthcoming soon. Lots of research to do on that (what was it that Algore said before the war? Ohhhhh!).
Then the domestic political implications. Those dumb-arsed Dems really made a mistake by shooting too early on this. As the months go on before the election they won't have the drumbeat of American deaths (which they so dearly love) to assist them in propagandizing against Bush, against our country.
And I have to admit: I just love George W. Bush. He's a brilliant political tactician. Amazing, really. By closing down the issue of Iraq he's, yet again, pulling the rug out from under his opponents. Stealing the issue right away. And those morons on the far left don't even see it coming. That is something that I'll never understand.
I think they believe their own ranting about how stupid Bush is. Can they really be that dim? It's like George is doing the ol' rope-a-dope to them, keeping them focused on one thing while distracting them from what's going to smack them in the head three seconds later.
Prediction: I would not be at all surprised if GWB comes up with Osama bin-Ladin or WMDs or Mullah Ohmar, or all three before Election Day.
Even if not, there will be something. We just get to sit back and wait for the punches to be landed. Oh, and we also get to listen to the Dems scream in fury. Heh heh. That is going to be fun.
Also, on the day after the election, I am personally looking forward to listening to NPR. "What!!???" Yes, I remember listening to NPR after the Nicaraguan elections back in the 80's when Violetta Chamorro was elected. Now that was fun. Against all the predictions of the NPR leftists, pining away endlessly for Daniel Ortega, the Sandinistas lost. And NPR erupted with screeches of pain that would make Howard Dean sound positively sedated by comparison.
So, on the day after the election I will be listening to NPR. Sadistic? Yep. I'm a very bad man (heh heh heh).
(0) comments
More Creepy Than Thou
"There are things that she could be doing with the kids better than than I, you know? When, it's emotional stuff, especially with my daughter, I am angry with her," Simpson said of his former wife. "I am angry that she found herself hanging out with the group of -- who are these people?" – O.J. Simpson speaking of his late wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson.
What can I say about this guy? It just makes you wanna hit him with something really hard and heavy. You know?
(0) comments
"There are things that she could be doing with the kids better than than I, you know? When, it's emotional stuff, especially with my daughter, I am angry with her," Simpson said of his former wife. "I am angry that she found herself hanging out with the group of -- who are these people?" – O.J. Simpson speaking of his late wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson.
What can I say about this guy? It just makes you wanna hit him with something really hard and heavy. You know?
(0) comments
