NORKS

I wish I could write like Ann Coulter.

Once again she sets the TRUTH free!

Clinton's new glow job

By Ann Coulter

With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them -- although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals. The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security.

Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.

At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.

Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.

In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."

Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.

Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.

Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.

The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.

If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."

At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."

And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."

So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"

But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann, not someone who might know people who read newspapers.

Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."

Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.

As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."

To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.

When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."

Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmah Cahtaw is pictured with former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.

Madeleine is NOT-SO-BRIGHT

Former Secretary of State, under Bill Clinton (Well, he does have a history with fat, ugly chicks), Madeleine Albright criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying Monday it had encouraged Iran and North Korea to push ahead with their nuclear programs.

Ms. Not-So-Bright is performing the Dummycrat art of revisionist history. Let's take a stroll down memory lane to 1994.

President Clinton had reached an agreement with the North Koreans, brokered by Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter. The deal consisted of: The Clinton administration promising North Korea 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually and $4 billion to construct a pair of nuclear reactors for electricity; in exchange, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

In October 2002, the North Koreans admitted that immediately after signing the 1994 "Agreed Framework", they had set to work building nuclear weapons. U.S. Intelligence believes this began between 1998 and 2000.

Yet another clear case of the Clinton administration diddling and the Bush administration stuck cleaning up their mess!

Ms. Not-So-bright is shown with Kim Jong-Il during her October 2000 visit to North Korea, becoming the highest-level American official ever to travel to the country.

NoKo Nukes Blame Game

Here's a MAJOR clue as to where the blame squarely lies on North Korea having nuclear capabilities.

New Mexico Governor and 2008 Dummycrat Presidential wannabe Bill Richardson on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360...."We shouldn't concentrate on the blame game. (Emphasis mine) The reality is, had we not had the agreed framework with North Korea on nuclear weapons, they would maybe have 50 nuclear weapons today. For eight years they didn't enrich uranium. But, you know, this finger-pointing is just absurd. Let's focus on a major crisis which is occurring in the Korean Peninsula. They're detonating nuclear weapons. They're shooting missiles. And there's no diplomacy. You cannot have a successful effort without a carrot- and-stick policy".

Richardson, along with Clinton's CLUELESS Secretary of State (pictured toasting with Kim Jong-Il in October 2000, celebrating NoKo's 6th year of nuke development?), dealt extensively with North Korea when he was Clinton's U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary.

The Flip before the Flop?

Pardon me if I feel we've been down this road before.

Former Vice President Walter Mondale joined the list of people supporting a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile.

Mondale said Friday that the United States should tell North Korea to dismantle the missile - and if it doesn't "we are going to take it out."

He said the missile would be easy to hit and "I think it would end the nuclear long-range dreams of this dangerous country," said Mondale, who's also a former U.S. ambassador to Japan, in the interview.

Mondale, 78, said North Korea already has nuclear weapons and its ambition to develop a long-range missile is "one of the most dangerous developments in recent history."

It's so dangerous, he said, because of the nation's isolation from the international community and its unpredictable leader, Kim Jong Il.

"It is the danger of our time," he said. "Here's this bizarre, hermit kingdom over there with a paranoid leader getting ready to test a missile system that can hit us."

Former President Clinton's defense secretary, William Perry, and Ashton Perry, former assistant defense secretary, advocated such a pre-emptive strike in The Washington Post.

I'm just waiting for the Clinton's, Albright and Teddy to join in with the same spiel. Just like they fretted about Saddam Hussein's WMD before President Bush took him out, only to blame Bush afterwards. I'm sure the King of the flip-flop, John Kerry, can't be far behind.

"Fritz" Mondale is pictured getting his clock cleaned by President Reagan during their second debate in 1984.

Carter's a PILL

PILL:

something repugnant or unpleasant that must be accepted or endured.

a disagreeable or tiresome person.



I should laugh when the most inept President in modern times, Jimmy Carter, has the gall to criticize someone else.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

Jimmy you jackass! And the scientific community is united in that fact.

The Carter record of complete failure speaks for itself...

Domestically Americans suffered double digit inflation (12%), double digit interest rates (21%), plus the "malaise" of an energy policy that saw long lines at gas stations.

Internationally his policies allowed for Iran to become an Islamic (terrorist) nation, with one of their first acts the storming of our embassy and the taking hostage of 52 Americans for 444 days.

He allowed Communism to spread to Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique and Nicaragua.

His reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was to harm American farmers by placing an embargo on wheat sales to Russia. He also wouldn't allow America to take part in the 1980 Summer Olympics.

Sadly he's been allowed to continue to meddle in foreign affairs.

He brokered a deal with North Korea, for the Clinton administration, that had us sending them 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually and $4 billion to construct a pair of nuclear reactors for electricity; in exchange, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program, which they never did.

I like what Dan Gillerman, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, said last year...

"I think that President Carter's appearances, op-eds, and speeches are an embarrassment. I think that they are an embarrassment to the great institution of the presidency. I mean, President Carter wasn't that great of a president to start with ... I really don't know what has happened to him over the last few years."

So just remember Jimmy, when you point a finger at someone, there's four pointing back at you.

Oh Please!

If you say you'll meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others...

You are supporting engagement with terrorists
and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Cuba, Iran and North Korea are considered State Sponsors of Terrorism.

If you don't agree that makes you a

Bolton in '08

John R. Bolton is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

He was appointed by President Bush after Senate Dummycrats twice filibustered a vote on his confirmation.

Mr. Bolton's recess appointment expires this fall, but the Senate has scheduled a debate this week on extending Mr. Bolton's appointment through the end of the Bush administration.

Dummycrats will again try to deny the right man for the right job.

On CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday, Senator Christopher J. Dodd(CT) was asked whether he could now support Mr. Bolton's nomination.

"No, this is going to be a bruising fight. I regret this. I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this. The problems still persist. ... Many ambassadors at the U.N. feel that he hasn't done a good job there. He has polarized the situation."

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr.(DE), "Instead of wasting time and playing politics, the administration should nominate someone else to take Mr. Bolton's place."

Here's what Biden had to say to Bolton in 2001....“My problem with you over the years is that you’ve been too competent. I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

Here's where I fell in love with Mr. Bolton....In a 2002 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Bolton was asked about what seemed to be mixed signals from the Bush administration on North Korea. He grabbed a book from a shelf and laid it on the table. Its title: The End of North Korea. “That,” he told the interviewer, “is our policy.”

We need more people like John R. Bolton and less like Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards and Tom Harkin

Real Hosers

Today's Washington Times Inside the Beltway column mentions two polls.

A Gallup poll that shows 83% of a survey group said that they are either extremely or very proud of being an American.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll reports that 24 percent of Dummycrats said they would leave the United States permanently and live in another country if given the opportunity.

These are the same losers that were going to move to Canada if George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004.

I have three questions...1) Why didn't you? 2) What's stopping you? 3) How can I help?

As I recall the Ragister's RekHA Basu spouted some such nonsense about fleeing the country. I even sent her a couple of e-mails(11/3/04 & 11/12/04) to help facilitate her move. She didn't respond. On 11/3/04 I sent her an article, "Unhappy Democrats Need to Wait to Get Into Canada". The gist was that Dummycrats could face delays of up to a year to move to Canada. I included this personal message, "Better get started! Hope this helps, have a safe trip!". On 11/12/04 I sent this...

News you can use

rbasu@dmreg.com

I hope this helps in your relocation

James B. Davis offers help for disgruntled Americans who are contemplating moving to Canada or beyond because they can't stomach four more years of President Bush.
Mr. Davis is founder of Help.Them.Leave.com, a 501(c)3 organization that offers relocation assistance for "disenfranchised" citizens at absolutely no cost.
"In return for your irrevocable renunciation of your United States citizenship, and a sworn statement that you will never return, we will provide free one-way transportation to one of our politically matched, recommended countries on one of the jets we have chartered to provide this service," the organization states. It goes so far as to carefully match relocation countries to political leanings:
•Leftists: France, Germany, Italy or Spain
•Socialists: Canada, Denmark, England, Finland, Norway or Sweden
•Communists: Cuba or North Korea


















Flags pictured are Canada, France, Cuba and North Korea

Dummycrats ARE Weak on Defense

A DETAILED Editorial at Investors.com

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

Dummycrats sticker is available at cafepress.com/allrightgear

Take that Fiberal Moonbats

From CanadaFreePress.com

What the Left Never Will Understand About the War on Terror

by J.B. Williams

The first thing liberals fail to understand is that war is a serious business. If you are not prepared to take a side, you had better not stand in the middle of the battle field. Sit it out and remain silent, because the minute you speak, you have taken a side, whether you meant to or not, and if you speak against your own, you have chosen the wrong side. This error in judgment among liberals has earned them the current title of un-American or even Al Qaeda sympathizer.

Wrong from the start, the left actually thinks that the war on international terrorism is all about one man, one terror network, one event, one country and one day. How many liberals have you heard ask the question, "What about Bin Laden?" or, "What did Iraq do to us?" or, refer to Iraq as the "wrong war" in the "wrong place", a "departure from the war on terror" - a war which in their feeble minds, exists only in Afghanistan.

This notion is akin to suggesting that WWII was only about Pearl Harbor. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was just a calling card, an invitation to engage in a much bigger (world) problem. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was not our first invitation to engage in what was fast becoming a world-wide threat. Like Pearl Harbor, it was an invitation we couldn't afford to leave unanswered.

We received an invitation to the war on terror as far back as 1979 in Tehran. We received several more invitations throughout the 80's and 90's. We were invited in no uncertain terms in 1993, when Bin Laden first attempted to level the World Trade Towers. We were invited again in 1995 by Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia and yet again by Bin Laden in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We received yet another open invitation to join the war against international terrorism in October of 2000 with the bombing of the USS Cole, again, courtesy of Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, much of the free world was already engaged. We declined to answer any of these invitations...

We were not just patient in ignoring these invitations - we were cowardly and short sighted. Only when the invitation reached the massive intensity of 9/11, with nearly 3000 innocent American men, women and children dead, our financial center, defense center and government center under attack all at once, were we ready to accept these invitations.

A year before 9/11, the FBI had identified the New York Al Qaeda cell that would one year later, fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and even the White House, if not for the brave souls on Flight 93. But the Clinton administration looked at the threat as a "criminal" matter. That meant that the FBI and CIA could not share information concerning the New York cell and without proper warrants based on indisputable evidence, they did nothing...

One year later, that cell killed almost 3000 American citizens with apparent ease and liberals still contend today, that the war on terror is a "criminal" matter. They insist that the terrorists have civil rights and that our courts, filled with frivolous law suits, is the place to deal with this threat.

Despite numerous attacks and arrests all over the world, liberals still think that the war on international terrorism is limited to one man, Bin Laden, one network, Al Qaeda and one event, 9/11. Had we thought the same after Pearl Harbor, we would have leveled Japan and come home. Most of Europe would be speaking German and every Jew on earth would be baked to extinction. Most of the world would be living under communist rule and America would not be America today.

Yet the leftists in control of the once great Democratic Party fail to see reality. When they search for the enemy, they only see Bush. When they plot their military strategy, they only see defeat. When you ask them about terrorists, they think you are talking about American soldiers and when you ask for their victory plans, retreat is their answer. The retreat plan was tried in Vietnam and we are still trying to justify that decision today.

Prior to the Clinton administration, dangerous regimes like that in North Korea, Syria, China and Iran, had the desire but not the means to strike terror world-wide. By the time the Clinton's left office, both China and North Korea had long range nuclear warheads, Iran and Syria were working on it. But liberals will tell you that Bush made America less safe, answering the invitation and taking the fight to the enemy on their soil. Has there been another successful attack in the US that I am unaware of? Not that it can't still happen. That's really the point. It can still happen and if we don't get more serious about winning this war, it will.

The Hussein regime in Iraq had terrorized its citizens and neighbors throughout the 90's, broken every UN resolution ever written and played cat and mouse with UN inspectors until Hussein finally got bold enough to just toss them from Iraq, telling both Clinton and the UN to shove it. But according to leftists, they had Hussein "contained". Doing UN paper work I guess?

Today, as we head into the 2006 mid-term elections, liberals remind us that they have changed their collective minds about none of this. They still think the world wide war against international terrorism is about one man, one terror network, one country, one event and one day. They still believe it is a criminal matter for our police and our courts and they still insist that America, more specifically Bush and our military, are the real terrorists. They still believe that Bush lied, that Iranian, Syrian and Arabian terrorists killing innocent Iraqi citizens are just "civil insurgents" and that the central front in the war on terror, is a departure from the war on terror.

Now if you can sleep well at night with your families' lives in the hands of people like this, God Bless! Knock yourself out at election time. Vote yourself more money from the federal trough of socialist handouts and let the chips fall where they may on national security.

But if on the other hand, like me, you have something to lose, something worth fighting for, someone to pass this country on to in one piece, then pay attention...

Clearly, liberals don't get it. They don't like Bush's war because they can't begin to comprehend the very real world wide threat that Bush decided to confront on September 12, 2001. They don't get it because unlike the rest of us, they see more wrong than right with America and therefore, nothing worthy of defense. They won't fight because they don't know how and that limits their thinking to faux diplomacy via the most corrupt institution on earth, the United Nations.

They fear Bush more than Bin Laden. They trust those European nations that profited by keeping the most brutal regime on earth in business while holding the UN and US hostage as the international terror threat gathered global strength and reach. They trust the UN more than the US and firmly believe that we can negotiate peace with Muslim extremists willing to strap bombs on the chests of their grade school children and send them into a pizza parlor.

In short, liberals don't know anything at all about real American values or principles today and they know even less about what it takes to protect and preserve those principles and values for future generations. Therefore, the idea that they can be entrusted with upholding, protecting, defending and preserving the very principles that they spend every day attacking, is insane. But if insanity is your thing...go for it!

NO! They just don't get it... any of it - and apparently, no matter the mountain of evidence before them, they never will.

Those they have trained to be federal dependents will vote for them no matter what. Those who can't tell the difference between an American soldier and a real terrorist will vote for them too. Those who can't read a butterfly ballot will vote for them. So will those just released from prison and even those without a pulse.

People who believe that Americas "bubble of supremacy" needs to be "burst", like billionaire socialist and currency wrecker George Soros will fund them, as will Hollywood limousine liberals, New England ketchup queens and tree dwelling former draft-dodgers in the North West.

And that's why the rest of us better show up on Election Day...

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: JBW@JB-Williams.com

It just got PERSONAL

I've vacationed on Maui every year since 1994, pictured is the pool of the complex where I stay.

I've also stayed on Kauai, Oahu and the Big Island.

I was not happy when I read this.

N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet.

I was on Kauai, in 1983, when the Russians shot down the Korean Airliner 007 with Americans on board. President Reagan was at his ranch in California and I recall thinking if it escalated and the Russians wanted to send Reagan a message, they could lob a missile into paradise.

Peace Out

My friend Cal sent the Ragister a letter regarding the "rapping peace activist" and I felt obligated to share it.

I though it very revealing that Jan Hill mentions how"There was a lot of anger behind it".
"It" being her anti-Bush "rap" song. It certainly was not a "peacerap".
It isn't until the ninth verse that the word peace is used.
The first eight verses are filled with the usual rancor, hatred, half-truths and innuendo all so-called

peace-loving liberals spew at President Bush.

It is so easy and safe for Ms.Hill and her social worker friends to be so demeaning and passionately spiteful at our President over the military action in Iraq.
If this"middle-aged momma with babies to save" truly wantsto help save babies she might possibly aim her vitriol atthe terrorist's in Iraq and Iran who routinely use very young children as suicide bombers to kill, not only American soldiers, but, more often now, the Sunni, Kurds and Shiites

of their own nation who disagree with their brand of fanatical Islam. I suggest these "truth tellers" try passing off their "peace anthem" in North Korea, Syria or even Venezuela.
Ms. Hills much repeated epithet, Emperor, fits the leaders of those nations, not the leader of this country.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

Let's see if they print it.

Personally

It's how I take threats to my piece of paradise.

Nearly three years ago North Korea tried to target Hawaii with a missile.

Kim Jong-Il and crew are calling us out again...

Report: NKorea may fire missile toward Hawaii

It says a lot when the Secretary of Defense orders additional protections for the island chain.

Since this is the way I annually ward off an Iowa winter, 2010 is already booked, I'll be none to happy if Lil' Kim messes that up and the scientific community is united in that fact.

It should be of comfort to the locals to know that The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system has intercepted targets in all six tests, since 2005.

A little less comforting, the Aegis system has been successful in 18 out of 22 attempts.

Empty Suit Rhetoric

Otherwise known as Barry's BS and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Obambi says the country is less secure because of the Iraq invasion and that it has "emboldened al-Qaida, the Taliban, Iran and North Korea".

In what way?

This country hasn't been attacked in 6 1/2 years.

Back to Barry...

"Here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country -- a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions."

Tough talk from a man who thinks he can call "the president of Canada" about a trade deal.

Junior's Wailing

The subtitle of this post could be -- Shit my Socialist Senator says and the scientific community is united in that fact.

It was quite a quote-a-bull week for CommieTommie Harkin.

In celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act's 22nd anniversary, Harkin told the press he is working with business, government and non-profit groups in an effort to add 1 million people with disabilities to the nation’s labor force by 2015, which would be a 20 percent increase.

I contacted the Senator to inquire as to how many people with disabilities are on his staff and how many more he'll be hiring, but I have yet to hear back from Harkin.

My gut tells me it'll be similar to how Harkin handles Equal Pay for women.

Harkin harps on the issue, but in reality he's been found to pay men 23.2% more than the women in his office.

Tofu Tom also talked about Meatless Mondays, telling the press -- “I don’t eat as much meat as I used to. I grew up eating meat three times a day. You know, we just don’t eat that way anymore. We used to. I still consume my fair share, but not as much as I used to, I can tell you that.”

That either signals the end of his annual Steak Fry, or Tom's just chewing his cud.

Speaking on sequestration, which mandates cuts in federal spending, Harkin is warning against making deeper cuts in non-defense spending to spare the defense industry. Some cuts make sense, such as reducing funding for the F-22 stealth fighter, which he called a “Cold War relic.”

That must be why Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (Dummycrat) is deploying one F-22 squadron to Japan's Kadena Air Base--in the backyard of China and North Korea.

The permanent basing of the super-stealthy, super-fast fighter jet comes as the Obama administration is shifting America's national security and foreign policy focus to the Asia-Pacific region. China for years has been developing advanced radars and anti-aircraft weapons. Sending in Raptors during any conflict with China would constitute Washington's best hope at evading those radars and destroying them, the anti-aircraft systems, and other targets ahead of a broader military campaign.

Harkin also wants revenue increases.

Sometimes Harkin calls them revenue enhancements, but revenue increases are tax increases.

Someplace else CommieTommie wants a tax increase is subjecting income above $110,100 to the payroll tax, bringing more money into the Social Security System.

It's all part of his scheme to solve the retirement crisis.

Harkin hopes to implement a privately operated hybrid pension plan that would be overseen by a group composed of employee, retiree and employer representatives. People who do not have access to a retirement fund would have universal access to the system, and would pay into it through an automatic payroll deduction from their paychecks into a larger pool along with other active employees and retirees. A person could choose to change their contribution level or opt out of the program entirely.

HUH?

Rules?

"North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles."

This from the man who hires fools who can't be bothered to follow the rules and the scientific community is united in that fact.

"This provocation underscores the need for action, not just ... in the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons."

"Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something."

Coming from a man who steals others words.

"The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Very Bush-esque for a man who gave a speech in 2002.

Gird Your Loins!

Talk to me

Barry brags about his willingness to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea and others.

As a matter of fact he's like to quote JFK ...

"...we shall never negotiate out of fear, and we shall never fear to negotiate."

In a CNN debate Barry boasted...

"I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference."

He certainly comes across as disingenuous, and the scientific community is united in that fact, when Reuters has him failing to criticize Jimmy Carter's upcoming meeting with Hamas ...

"I know that I've said consistently that I would not meet with Hamas."

And...

" ... I don't think conversations with them would be fruitful."

I'm sure it has nothing to do with a perceived lack of support for Israel.

Or, the fact Jimmy Carter is a Superdelegate.

New Mexican with old ways

In an interview with the Ragister, Bill Richardson...

laid out his foreign policy stance on Iran Wednesday, calling for a carrot-and-stick approach that would permit peaceful development of nuclear energy while forbidding nuclear weapons.

...I believe what is needed is tough diplomacy, potential international sanctions...

I can't think of one time sanctions have ever worked and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Interestingly, Richardson doesn't have a problem with Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear energy, but why doesn't the former Energy Secretary support increased nuclear power output for America?

Here's his bottom line on the energy issue...

Americans need energy to get to work, we need heat and electricity in our homes, schools and workplaces. We are hurt by unpredictable energy price cycles, and by our nation's energy policy failures. The way out of the cycle is to create competition, to support energy productivity, new technologies and alternative fuels.

Nuclear power would greatly reduce our need for foreign oil and other fossil fuels.

It works in old Europe, like France and Sweden, it'll work here too.

Condi

Not only does she take on Bubba, but she shows up Miss Perky too!

The Secretary of State told a meeting of the New York Post editors & reporters that "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that. What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years."

She also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

In an interview for '60 Minutes' Rice tells Couric....

"I'm a true believer in the process of democratization as a way to overcome old wounds. And I believe that if we don't do that, then people who have had their differences, people who have resolved their differences by violence or by repression, are never going to find a way to live peacefully together."

"Is it really priority number one in terms of philosophically and pragmatically for the United States to be spreading democracy around the world?" Couric asks.

"Well, first of all, the United States is not spreading democracy. The United States is standing with those who want a democratic future," Rice explains.

She rejects the notion that the U.S. is a bully, imposing its values on the world.

"What's wrong with assistance so that people can have their full and complete right to the very liberties and freedoms that we enjoy?" Rice asks.

"To quote my daughter, 'Who made us the boss of them?'" Couric remarks.

"Well, it's not the matter of being the boss of them. It's speaking for people who are voiceless," Rice says.

"You have said that your goal was, quote, 'To leave the world not just safer but better.' Right now Iraq doesn't seem safer," Couric remarks. "Iran and North Korea have not fallen into line. Do you honestly believe that the world is safer now?"

"The world is safer because we're finally confronting these terrorists. We're finally confronting this challenge," Rice says. "And so I think we are safer. We're not yet safe. And I know that I'm not going to see the final outcome of the Middle East that we described as democratic and prosperous and, in that way, truly stable. But all that I can do on my watch is to try to lay a foundation so that that will become the Middle East of the future. And I think we've done a great deal to begin to lay that foundation."

Couric quotes her daughter!?!

Who does she think she is Jimmah Carter talking nuclear proliferation with AMY?!?!