Thursday, September 14, 2006

Ann Coulter's Latest














If only bin Laden had a stained blue dress

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -- al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" -- staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because -- he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 -- "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing. This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

  • Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

  • CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

  • Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

  • Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

    Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush -- but eight years of Bill Clinton.

    Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

    Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.


  • Thursday, September 06, 2012

    Another Day

    Day 2 of the Dummycrat National Convention and here's what should be known.

    Patty Murray -- told attendees that with a Democratic Senate, President Obama can get results

    Obama has had a Dummycrat Senate his entire term and the scientific community is united in that fact.

    Notably, it has been more than three years since the Democratically held Senate complied with federal law and passed a budget.

    As we pointed out yesterday, the Senate hasn't approved a budget since April 29, 2009.

    Delaware Gov. Jack Markell: "Mitt Romney said he likes to fire people. Barack Obama likes to see people hired."

    That's Mr. 0 and 23 million he's referring too.

    Elizabeth Warren --  People have hearts. They have kids. They get jobs. They get sick. They cry. They dance. They live; they love, and they die.

    WOW, or should I say POW WOW?, where are the jobs under Obama?

    FACT: Obama is still a net job killer

    Bill Clinton -- on Barack Obama - A man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside

    It would be more accurate to say that Obama's burning America down and he's cool with that.

    Chris Matthews on Bill Clinton -- I always figured that if Bill Clinton landed on Mars, he would know how to do it with them, he would know how to reproduce, he would know everything.

    Of that there is no doubt.



    I wonder what CommieTommie thinks of that Mars analogy?

    And Finally...

    Oy! Monica Lewinsky’s rabbi to give benediction after Bill Clinton speaks

    Brilliant!

    Cigar? Cigarette? Tiparillo?

    Thursday, July 06, 2006

    Bush's Decency Highlights Democrats Incivility


    This is an excellent read from a former fiberal.

    By Seth Swirsky

    One of the first things George W. Bush did after his inauguration on January, 2001, was invite Senator Edward M. Kennedy - along with his entire family - to the White House for a special screening of "13 Days," the hagiographic dramatization of Kennedy's brothers John and Robert's handling of the Cuban Missile Crises. Bush, famous for his bipartisan outreach during his eight years as governor of Texas (where he garnered 69 percent of the votes in his 1998 reelection), was beginning his presidency by reaching out again.

    The symbolism could not have been more obvious. With the newly elected "compassionate conservative" hosting the aging lion of liberalism, Bush was keeping a campaign promise to be a "uniter, not a divider" and taking the first step to, as he promised, "return dignity" to the office.
    Soon after, Bush pushed his attempts to unify America beyond symbolism by inviting Kennedy, the quintessential liberal and a longtime advocate of education reform, to the White House again, this time as a full partner in drafting the vital "No Child Left Behind" legislation.
    Two years later, Kennedy repaid the president's generosity of spirit and action by taking the floor of the U.S. Senate to accuse him of being a liar by claiming that Bush had "cooked up the war (against Saddam Hussein's regime) in Texas." While Kennedy had every right to voice his passionate dissent of the war, his incivility toward the president stood in stark contrast to Mr. Bush's high-mindedness. When asked to respond to Senator Kennedy's no-holds-barred, no-proof-required attack, President Bush said, "I don't think we're serving our nation well by allowing the discourse to become so uncivil." The styles could not be more obvious: it was class versus crass.

    It wouldn't be the only time prominent Democrats behaved rudely toward a president who treated them with respect. On June 14, 2004, President and Mrs. Bush invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to the unveiling of their portraits in the East Room of the White House. A few excerpts of the president's welcoming address once again show Bush to be a man with a warm heart and generous spirit:

    "President Clinton and Senator Clinton, welcome home. It's great to see Chelsea. The fact that you survived your teenage years in the White House... speaks to the fact you had a great mom and dad. Thank you all for coming back...We're really glad you're here. As you might know, my father and I have decided to call each other by numbers. He's 41, I'm 43. It's a great pleasure to honor number 42. We're glad you're here, 42...Mr. Rodham did have the joy of seeing his only daughter become America's First Lady. And I know he would not be surprised to see her as she is today, an elected United States Senator, and a woman greatly admired in our country."

    Since that evening, Senator Clinton has repaid the president's kindness towards her and her family by saying, among other mean-spirited things: "I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington" and "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." (The last said on Martin Luther King's birthday, a day that should symbolize a coming together of parties and people of diverse viewpoints).

    The kindness President Bush showed former President Clinton takes on extra meaning when one remembers the cynical words Clinton had for then-governor Bush when Bush was running for President in 2000: "The message of the Bush campaign is just that, I mean: 'How bad could I be? I've been Governor of Texas. My daddy was president. I owned a baseball team.'" Only last year, Clinton went on to abrogate the unwritten rule between ex-presidents of not speaking ill of them, especially when overseas (no less, when we're at war). Clinton told a group of Arab students in Dubai that the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq. Did the ex-president not know that his condemnation of the war, spoken in the heart of the Middle East, could damage the morale of the brave Iraqi people and frontline American troops who risk their lives everyday in the name of democracy? Clinton earned $300,000 for speaking against America's interests that day.

    Despite both Clintons disrespectful comments, President Bush offered a contrast in style few could miss. During his 2006 State of the Union address, he offered nothing but gracious good humor when he said his father's "two favorite people" - Bill Clinton and himself - were turning 60. As laughter filled the Senate chamber, the camera recorded a stone-faced Hillary Clinton. At the very least, a polite smile would have sufficed, allowing Americans to see that their leaders can put politics aside for but a moment.

    But the Democrats aren't able to put politics aside. They're too angry with President Bush for everything from winning the election in 2000 to having the gall to monitor terrorists' phone conversations. Even after the president shared credit with the Democrats on the reduction of crime and the lowering of welfare rolls and teenage pregnancies, the Democrats - in keeping with their "if it's bad for America, it's good for Democrats" theme - applauded enthusiastically only when Bush mentioned the failure of social security reform. Class versus crass.

    The contrast becomes even clearer when one expands the field to include the First Lady and she who would be queen, Theresa Heinz Kerry. Can anyone imagine the dignified Laura Bush telling a newsperson to "shove it" or using the term "scumbags" in a taped interview as Heinz Kerry did during the 2004 campaign? Class versus crass.

    And even as the body of Coretta Scott King lay in state, the Democrats could not resist using her funeral as a way of being uncivil to President Bush. Who can forget the Reverend Joseph Lowery choosing to eclipse what should have been a heartfelt eulogy in order to remind the audience that "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there"? Or, ex-President Jimmy Carter,choosing the reflective occasion to hurl gratuitous remarks in the president's direction? Once again, President Bush took the high road, embracing Lowery and speaking dignified, respectful and healing words about Mrs. King. Class versus crass.

    The president's demeanor, standing as it does in perfect counterpoint to that of his political adversaries, is one of the reasons Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, and, I predict, will continue to do so. Americans prefer nice people, because they recognize that a thriving civilization requires civil people.

    President Bush had it right when he said, "America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another." Now that's class.

    Seth Swirsky is a hit songwriter and best selling author. He can be reached through his site, Seth.com

    Thursday, February 08, 2007

    Billy Martin said it best

    There's an interesting editorial written for today's Wall Street Journal.

    The Journal delve's deeper into the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who for months has been saying about her 2002 vote to authorize military action in Iraq...

    "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

    Per the editorial...

    October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."

    While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

    December 15, 2003.

    ...
    "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote."

    April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

    Interesting!

    Fast forwarding to a couple of weeks ago in Iowa...

    "At the time, I said 'This is not a vote for pre-emptive war.' I said that on the floor of the Senate...He took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it and I regret that deeply... "If we knew then what we know now, there never would have been a vote. I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

    Was HRC lying in 2002, 2003 and 2004?

    Or, for her selfish political purposes, is she lying today?

    Dick Morris, who advised Bill Clinton, had this to say about the Clinton's recently...

    "...Bill lies about sex, Hillary lies about everything."

    He should know and now so does America.

    Which leads me to Billy Martin, "One's a born liar; the other's convicted."

    He was talking about Reggie Jackson and George Steinbrenner, but it's highly accurate here!

    Monday, September 25, 2006

    Ahoy Matey! That's A-Hoy Bill, Not a 'Ho


    In light of the recent controversy involving Bubba, I had to share this e-mail I recently received.

    US Navy welcomes the USS Bill Clinton
    Vancouver, BC -- Headed for Seattle, Washington
    The US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today.

    The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC. The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton "for his foresight in military budget cuts" and his conduct while president. The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F-14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) FA-18 Hornet aircraft which, although they cannot be launched or captured on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence.

    As a standing order there are no firearms allowed on board. The 20 person crew is completely diverse and includes members of all races, creeds, sexes, and sexual orientations. This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and to appease all enemies of the United States.

    An onboard DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find
    America
    offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may sound hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound sincere.

    In times of conflict, the USS William J. Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada. The ship also may be positioned near Democrat Party Headquarters for photo ops and can be used extensively for social experimentation, and whatever other worthless jobs the ex-commander-in-chief and his wife can think of.

    It is rumored that the ship will be the set for the upcoming season of MTV's "The Real World". The ship was renamed and commissioned USS William J. Clinton when someone realized that USS Blowfish was already taken.
    Free cigars for all

    Bill You Ignorant Slut

















    GOP.com has a page set up to counter all of Bubba's claims in his interview on FOX.

    MYTH: President Clinton Said He Was Besieged By "Conservative Republicans" Who Thought He Was "Too Obsessed" With Osama Bin Laden:

    FACT: Conservative Republicans Praised President Clinton For Going After Bin Laden:


    MYTH: President Clinton Said Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Had Nothing "To Do With Black Hawk Down":

    FACT: Experts Agree, Black Hawk Down Was Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda's "First Victory" Against The U.S.:


    MYTH: President Clinton Said No One Knew Of Al Qaeda In 1993:

    FACT: Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Were Well Known By The Time Clinton Was Inaugurated:


    MYTH: President Clinton Said His Foes Wanted To Cut-And-Run From Somalia:

    FACT: Many Republican Leaders Wanted To Finish The Job Done In Somalia, Not Cut-And-Run:


    MYTH: President Clinton Said Al Qaeda Was Not Active In Somalia:

    FACT: President Clinton's Own Adviser Worried Somalia Was Haven For Al Qaeda:


    MYTH: President Clinton Said Richard Clarke Was Nonpartisan And "Loyal" To All Presidents He Worked For:

    FACT: Richard Clarke Had Close Ties Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 2004 Campaign And Was Used By Liberal Groups Trying To Defeat President George W. Bush:



    MYTH: President Clinton Said He Left "Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy" For President Bush:

    FACT: Clinton And Bush Administration Officials Agree "There Was No War Plan ... Turned Over":


    MYTH: President Clinton Said He "Worked Hard" To Go After Bin Laden:

    FACT: Clinton Administration Repeatedly Missed Opportunities To Stop Bin Laden:

    The page goes further in depth to rebut Bubba.

    Chris and I watched the interview yesterday and nothing new, he made an ASS of himself.

    I had seen him lose his temper when I was attending meetings in Denver, prior to Bubba securing the Democratic nomination in 1992, he responded to a rumor that Jesse Jackson was endorsing an opponent and went into the same hysterics.

    To paraphrase Prince....Purple Rage, Purple Rage!

    Here's the link http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6591



    Sunday, May 21, 2006

    Clinton/Gore...Please, No More!


    Global Warming, it's been going on since the end of the last ice age. For me the major source of pollution is the noise and hot air that spews forth when Al Gore & Bill Clinton open their mouths. Here's a sample of stupidity that Clinton said on Saturday....global warming is a greater threat than terrorism and that the United States and other countries must "get off our butts" and do something about it. That explains why he never made a serious effort to rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban. Al Gore was in the south of France at the Cannes Film Festival screening "An Inconvienent Truth," which documents his one-man crusade to raise awareness about global warming. Of course America is to blame for its dependence on fossil fuels. I guess the man, who has a close connection to Occidental Petroleum, is ok with his use of fossil fuels as he jetted from a Los Angeles premiere of his film on Tuesday, to Washington D.C. and another premiere on Wednesday(where he got a big hug from CommieTommie Harkin) and to Cannes Saturday. Clinton is also jetting around the world for speaking engagements. He got off his butt yesterday to be in Austin, Texas. In March, Clinton jetted from Des Moines to Savannah, Georgia in the same day. Who can forget how he kept Air Force One idling on the tarmac in L.A. forcing all other traffic to either idle on the ground or circle overhead...while he got his haircut! It's all part of the Dummycrat philosophy of I know what's best for you. More like do as I say, not as I do.

    Thursday, October 12, 2006

    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.

    Saturday, October 14, 2006

    Billy Boy, Billy Boy


    Charming Billy will be in Des Moines later to WOW the Dummycrats at their Jefferson/Jackson Day Dinner.

    To paraphrase the Ragister, he'll be "In & Out". Arriving just before the event and leaving before it's over.

    They're so proud of Bubba that 3,000 are expected to attend.

    Which reminds me of this exchange Tim Russert had with Missouri Senate wannabe Claire McCaskill Sunday on "Meet the Press".....

    Russert: You're having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?

    McCaskill: I do. I think--I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at--

    Russert: But do you--

    McCaskill: I said at the time, "I think he's been a great leader, but I don't want my daughter near him."

    How does that make sense to anyone with a functioning brain?

    .... "Did she bid you to come in,
    Billy Boy, Billy Boy?
    Did she bid you to come in,
    Charming Billy?
    Yes, she bade me to come in,
    And to kiss her on the chin.
    She's a young thing,
    And cannot leave her mother."

    Saturday, November 17, 2007

    Clinton News Network


    The Communist News Network fits as well and the scientific community is united in that fact.

    The three leading Dummycrat Presidential candidates are shown Pledging their Allegiance to CNN, you can tell because their hands aren't over their hearts.

    Here's how CNN ended the debate from Thursday night.

    Per the Los Angeles Times...

    ...a UNLV student, asked Clinton if she preferred diamonds or pearls.

    ...CNN, which is widely believed among Clinton opponents and others to favor the New York senator's candidacy, admitted that a producer allegedly seeking to end the "debate" on a light note gave the question to the student.

    But wait, it gets more Clintonian...

    ...what in the world was CNN thinking when it booked its post-debate "analysts" with Anderson Cooper?

    ..."analysts": James Carville and David Gergen. That's right, two former aides of Bill Clinton's are supposed to "analyze" the performance of the candidates opposing their friend's wife.

    It's no wonder they've gone from this slogan






    To this















    I rarely watch it, so to me this is CNN

    Monday, March 24, 2008

    Smells like defeat


    I love how the Dummycrats are feasting on each other.

    Nearly every day brings a new story and another opportunity to kiss off the Presidency and the scientific community is united in that fact.

    Iowan Gordon Fischer is the latest to go off the deep end...

    "B. Clinton questions Obama's patriotism. In repsonse (sic), an Obama aide compared B. Clinton to Joe McCarthy. This is patently unfair. To McCarthy.

    OUCH!

    "When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently (sic), the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP. Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

    Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels




    FYI here's FYC




    Thursday, December 04, 2008

    Clinton Redux



















    A majority of voters didn't want a third Bush Presidency, but is a third Clinton Administration the change they believed in?

    I spent $700 million and all I got was the Clinton Cabinet?

    Nacho Funny as Commerce Secretary, that can't be a step up for Mr. Resume.






















    And the scientific community is united in that fact.

    The good news is the seats they're leaving behind become more competitive...

    Obama cabinet pick gives Ariz a Republican gov

    Hell, even Bubba wants a job...

    Bill Clinton: Obama Administration Role Possible

    Who's next, Monica?




    Wednesday, December 13, 2006

    Come Again!?


    This quote from Bill Clinton's former press secretary Mike McCurry made me nearly choke

    ....
    the record and legacy of the Clinton presidency is, dare I use the word, 'stain.' "

    McCurry was spoke to students at his alma mater , Princeton, on Monday.

    "In some ways, he had enormous potential and political gifts. But, they didn't ARISE because of his lack of discipline," McCurry added.

    (Highlight is mine)

    During his speech, McCurry also used the word..."exacerbated".

    It's been said before that Clinton needed to be a little more HANDS ON!

    Like Bill & Monica, this has all been a little too easy.

    I doubt that is what Iowa Dummycrats had in mind when they advised Hillary she
    may need to loosen up if she wants the state to support her Presidential plans.

    (the last sentence was added a few hours later)


    Wednesday, June 21, 2006

    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.

    Sunday, October 01, 2006

    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




    Saturday, October 06, 2007

    Senile Citizen Support


    The Cedar Rancid Gazette reports...

    Former Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern will endorse Hillary Clinton Saturday in Iowa City.

    The 85 year old will announce his support at the People's Republic of Johnson County Dummycrat's annual fall barbecue.

    The Gazette says...

    The endorsement also is a reward for Clinton and her then boyfriend, Bill Clinton, running McGovern's presidential campaign in Texas.

    Paybacks are a bitch and her name is Hellary!

    I can envision Hellary will have the same effect on Dummycrats that George bragged about...

    "I opened the doors of the Democratic Party and 20 million people walked out".

    It was just last fall that McGovern was to meet with...

    more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.
    It appears that worked almost as well as his run against Nixon and the scientific community is united in that fact.

    I got your Image

































    Image means Nothing, Lust Means Everything!

    In an interview with The Guardian, Bubba says...

    If Hillary Clinton wins the US presidency, Bill Clinton will be given the job of repairing America's damaged international reputation.

    Bubba also talked about who has been influencing the media...

    "the most ideological, rightwing element of the Republican party", leading to a national climate in which "three-dimensional reality" has been turned into "two-dimensional cartoons, and then [the rightwing media] try to get people to divide up on the basis of whether you like the cartoon or not ...




















    Not the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy again?

    We haven't met for months.

    Isn't that Hellary's niche?

    I found this in the Urban Dictionary for Image:

    Image-seekers are often quick to label themselves and don't give a caca bar about anything beyond their own skin... Will go into super-bitch mode if contradicted.

    Sounds like the Clinton's!

    Fiberal's too and the scientific community is united in that fact.



    Tuesday, November 06, 2012

    As Is





















    In keeping with Team Obama/Biden's campaign of accusing others of doing what you do, Bill Clinton asked a Philadelphia crowd --

    who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows is not true?

    Said the man that a Judge ruled made “intentionally false” statements.

    And the scientific community is united in that fact.

    It depends on what the meaning of the word IS is.

    Clinton continued, You don’t have to be from Ohio to want your president to tell you the truth.

    He was in Philadelphia.

    It was just last week, in Ohio, Clinton said -- I’m honored to be here in Pennsylvania.

    Dummycrats.

    Saturday, September 09, 2006

    Democrats for truth

    I'm stunned this is out of the Boston Herald, but this is GREAT!




    By Jules Crittenden
    Boston Herald City Editor

    Five years after Sept. 11, the Democrats have suddenly become obsessed with truth. Their version of it.
    Former President Bill Clinton is incensed with the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11," set to run Sunday night, that depicts his administration as cavalier in its disregard for the threats al-Qaeda posed, and too distracted by the Monica Lewinski affair in any case to act decisively. Clinton is concerned a TV dramatization will become the accepted version of history. Democrats in Congress threatened to wage regulatory jihad on ABC, and ABC went back into rewrite.

    Some observers are shocked by the hypocrisy and the chilling effect this kind of behavior can have on the free discussion of ideas in the United States. But I welcome this development.
    For starters, I assume this means that legions of Bush-haters will be showing up at Michael Moore’s house, demanding refund of the $8 each of them spent on his falsehood-studded distort-a-palooza, "Fahrenheit 911." At the time, outright lying and revisionism were being encouraged by the left, so it was reasonable for them to subsidize Moore’s tour de force in the genre. But they are attempting to move beyond that, and we should encourage them.
    More importantly than any hotdog-addicted bomb thrower’s already discredited juvenile fantasy, I assume this means we can expect Democrats to hang up the old "Bush lied" canard. With their newfound interest in truth, they will have to finally admit the following. It is a long list, so please bear with me:
    George Bush was elected president of the United States. Twice.
    All of the world’s major intelligence agencies, probably to include most agents in Saddam Hussein’s own Mukhabarat as well as his own generals, believed Iraq had an active WMD program. He did, as has been recently shown, have existing stockpiles of up to 700 chemical projectiles.
    Iraq attempted to buy uranium in Niger. The outing of Valerie Plame was not a White House plot.
    Saddam was winning the sanctions war. He had throughly corrupted the United Nations food-for-oil program and Europe was pushing to eliminate the crumbling sanctions regime. Had Saddam been allowed to remain in power, the likelihood is that he would have resumed production and development of WMD.
    Oil is perhaps the world’s single most important strategic asset. Allowing control of the world’s greatest reserves to fall into the hands of a megalomaniac like Saddam would be disastrous. In today’s world, "no blood for oil" makes as much sense as "no blood for water."
    If "blood for oil" is a crime, someone needs to talk to the French about their deals with Saddam at the time they were squawking about their humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people. The French would get the oil, Saddam would get all the blood he wanted.
    Saddam’s regime had contact with al-Qaeda, as his own documents attest. His regime had openly trained, financed and harbored terrorists for years. He attempted to assassinate a former United States president.

    The Bush administration used Halliburton for military services under contracts signed by the Clinton administration.
    The Iraqi people welcomed the arrival of the Americans with cheers and invitations to tea. The Iraq and Afghan campaigns have given 50 million people democratically elected governments. The insurgencies there are terrorist actions that do not enjoy the support of the majority of the people.
    The approximately 3,000 American deaths suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 10,000s of thousands of Iraqis killed primarily by insurgent attacks, pale compared to the deaths we could expect on both sides if the United States had to take on a rearmed Saddam. Those soldiers and civilians have died in furtherance of vital American interests.

    While individual abuses have been committed and criminally prosecuted, the United States has not practiced torture, nor, beyond the isolated acts of depraved or highly stressed individuals, has the United States military engaged in war crimes. The deaths of civilians at the hands of the United States military, well below levels ever seen before in modern warfare, have been the result of honest mistakes or cynical use of human shields by our enemies.
    Our enemies are not freedom fighters. They are barbaric murderers, for whom torture, brutal execution and the purposeful murder of innocents are matters of policy.
    They hate us because we exist, free non-Islamic societies that are more successful and powerful than their own. They don’t give a damn what we think or do, or how understanding of them we care to be, as long as we die.
    Political dissent and civil rights are alive and well in the United States. Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry and Michael Moore are free and vocal in their opposition. You, if you choose, can slap a bumper sticker on your car calling for the president’s impeachment. You may call him a murderer or an idiot. You will not end up in Guantanamo.
    Legal authority exists that allows the NSA to tap phone calls made to and from foreign parties. Computerized monitoring of phone traffic within the United States is not phone tapping. Monitoring of the flow of cash around the world makes sense. If the NSA did not do these things, and there was an attack on the United States, the administration’s opponents want to know why.
    The Bush administration has waged a highly effective war against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, capturing or killing large swaths of al-Qaeda’s leadership and rank and file. To date, there has been no successful attack on the American mainland or, outside Middle Eastern combat zones, no major attack on American assets, since Sept. 11, 2001.
    The United Nations is corrupt and ineffective. Relying on the United Nations to resolve any foreign crisis, without close and constant monitoring by responsible powers, is to invite disaster.
    Israel has bent over backward to accommodate the existence and demands of parties that openly seek Israel’s destruction. Israel is the most open and free society in the region, a Jewish state where Arabs can vote, own property and serve in government and the military. We are bound to Israel by deep cultural, political and strategic bonds.


    Lebanon is, most charitably, a state held hostage by terrorists, less charitably, a terrorist state. Israel was entirely justified in its campaign to remove this threat on its northern border, and the blame for Lebanese civilian deaths lies with Hezbollah for using Lebanon as a human shield.
    Iran is a dangerous threat to the entire Middle East and to the world that must be confronted directly and forcefully. Now.
    Finally, despite setbacks, misjudgments and errors, George Bush has been an effective leader, moving forward in America’s interest and making hard decisions despite considerable obstruction and dissent. He enjoys the support of many key foreign allies brave enough to buck complacency and the temptations of short-term mercenary advantage.
    I await the newly truth-obsessed American left’s recognition of these facts. I encourage this remarkable new interest in accuracy by the American left, however petty and misguided it may be in its nascency. If broadly applied -- and once the Democrats get past the desire to muzzle opposing views -- it has the potential to elevate political debate in this country at a critical time when we face determined enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Crittenden has covered crime, science, foreign affairs and military matters in New England, Israel, India, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kuwait and Iraq. He is now a Herald City Editor.

    He can be reached at.... jcrittenden@bostonherald.com