|
|
|
The Conservative’s Quick Curative Coup
I’ve been thinking back to October 2006. It already seems like a lifetime ago. The Democrat’s October Surprise, Mark Foley, was dominating every twenty-four hour news cycle. Republicans recoiled in horror, Democrats drooled with insidious delight, Independents…. well Independents do what they always do and jumped onto what they perceived to be the winning bandwagon. In the end, the conservatives stayed home on Election Day and taught those pesky RINOs a lesson. And the lesson was… I’m not sure, but there was a lesson somewhere. Now, I’m hearing much the same rhetoric from conservatives; that perhaps America hasn’t learned its lesson yet. That lesson being… I’m still not sure, but even fellow VAV contributor, Zero Ponsdorf, recently posited in his post a concern America was in the beginning stages of an unavoidable collapse. Zero sets up his thesis with:
Whew! Don’t get me started. C’mon, Bush v. Gore? Bush v. Kerry? Where was the choice? I did what I felt had to be done: I voted for Bush twice, yet now all I have for my effort is this strange dichotomy of emotions known by almost anyone who has ever experienced a divorce. You know - one moment a wistful melancholy that pervades your senses allowing you to remember your ex (or president) with fondness, then after you sober up, you can’t for the life of you remember what you ever saw in that bitch (sonofabitch or president.) In fact you can’t believe you were ever married and spent evenings propagating the species with this subhuman slime. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on July 9, 2007 at 10:00 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Independence Day Comes Early for Scooter
On a day when President Bush was otherwise busy gazing into Putin’s eyes still searching for a soul, he delivered a commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence with the same boldness and passion as a kiss from your sister. “I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.” Wow George! How about the entire The president had an opportunity to take bold action and give Libby the full pardon he deserved. Instead, Bush gave the very least he could, to a patriot who has given total dedication and loyalty to the president and his administration. In an article from March 8, 2007 at Ann Coulter wrote, “Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers. Bush has got to pardon Libby.”
Perhaps Bush is just weary from being such an easy punching bag for the Democrats for six and a half years. He looks as tired and worn down as his old man did near the end of just one term. I fear the president is punch drunk, and as such, is no longer capable of coherent thought. I know I am weary of this president. I have an answer to this problem in my next post; till then. |
In this case, not only does the President appear to be a gutless appeaser, I would have to amend that to stupid gutless appeaser. With approval ratings below freezing, Bush still appears to be afraid of losing some political capital that has been squandered and disbursed long ago. Even if there were a dime’s worth of this mystery capital left, did the President believe the Democrats would be any less excessive in their criticism of his commutation of sentence than they might have been over a full pardon? I don’t think so. John Conyers, Harry Reid and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasted no time in vilifying the president’s decision to thwart their persecution of Libby. I’m sure the piling on will continue today. So, if you know you’re going to be pummeled, why not fire your best shot? Why this half-hearted effort?|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on July 3, 2007 at 11:21 AM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
Brace Yourself: Here They Come Again
Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds While the American people are congratulating themselves for their victory over the Bush-Kennedy-McCain National Suicide Act of 2007, a new and tougher fight is on the horizon. According to The Politico, Harry Reid, along with Mad Jack Murtha and his leader, Nancy Pelosi, plan to set a new deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. They have already concluded that the surge, which went operational only last week, has failed. We have lost the war and have no choice but to bug out and leave Iraq to its fate. The Politico article begins like this:
Nancy's choice of deadline date could not be more appropriate--April Fool's Day. Veterans' groups, loyal military families and others who continue to support the war effort face a daunting task, made harder by the recent defections of important Republican senators and the lamentable loss of prestige incurred by amnesty diehards such as President Bush and Senator McCain. We have to whip up a firestorm of phone calls, e-mails, faxes, and face-to-face encounters with wavering pols. Above all, we will need to counter the Copperhead hordes, who will be out in full cry from now until September. Not a pleasant prospect, now that Summer is here, but it is now or never. |
|
Contributed by 72nd TCS on June 29, 2007 at 02:02 AM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
CH!CKEN SH!T
The Gray Dog’s Note: The following is inspired by a flurry of links I found in my email today, courtesy of Rurik, and today’s post, at one of my favorite BLOGS, I am not pretentious enough to believe I am an authority on all matters military. I certainly have no expertise or specific knowledge which would allow me to formulate judgments about our top command structure as it pertains to such characteristics as leadership, strategic thinking or performance. I can only offer my less than expert opinions based upon anecdotal reporting and my less than perfect ability to gauge character based upon observing someone on a television screen. Having never let personal limitations prevent me from opining in the past, I am loathe to begin now, so here goes: FIRE ROBERT GATES NOW!! How in the hell can we expect this man to prosecute a global war on terror if he doesn’t have the stomach to mix it up with Carl Levin. Of course I’m referring to Gate’s feckless decision to withdraw Peter Pace’s re-nomination for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs last week because Sen. Levin, D-MI, threatened that the confirmation process for Pace would be contentious. What an absolute crock. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Gates asked Levin for his pick to replace Pace. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on June 20, 2007 at 07:03 PM in , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
A Charlie Brown President
“From the AP: SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea on Friday warned it may strengthen its "self-defense deterrent," a term it usually uses to refer to its nuclear program, despite news that millions in frozen funds the country had sought as a condition to disarm was en route to its accounts.” Kim Jong-il is just the latest in a long succession of World leaders and Domestic Democrats to play the role of Lucy Van Pelt opposite the hapless, but lovable Charlie Brown as portrayed by a real-life hapless president. It really doesn’t matter who does it or how many times it occurs, it’s just natural to laugh each time someone snatches the football up at the last second. Poor After donning my “Sore/Loserman 2000” t-shirt this morning, I poured a steaming cup ‘o’ Joe into my mug and spent an hour or so, ruminating and pondering just why I had voted for Bush on two occasions. I’m sorry, but the only conclusion I could arrive at was, “if God had wanted man to vote, He would have given us candidates.” |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on June 17, 2007 at 05:31 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Victory? What Victory?
The Jewish World Review has picked up the latest issue of Professor Daniel Pipes' newsletter--normally available to subscribers only. Find it . His column deals with a burning question, namely--
The lead sentence hints strongly that Israel is on its own in confronting the near-term prospect of the Iranian Holocaust Bomb.
If this unnamed administration source is anywhere near the Sec Def or Condi level, it would seem that the primary emphasis has shifted from victory in the Middle East to withdrawal. Has the message to Iran evolved from "Make nice, not nukes" to "Pretty please, just let us go quietly?" Wiser heads than mine are needed to decrypt that sibylline utterance. Even so, it is safe to conclude that the White House appetite for pre-emption has subsided to somewhere below the level of wishful thinking. The main body of the Pipes offering concentrates on summarizing and analyzing a think-piece by a pair of MIT scholars who examine Israel's capabilities in depth. Can the Israelis actually do it? The short answer is "Yes," provided the government can steel themselves to face the kind of outcry that followed their attack on the Osirak reactor. Their argument is well worth reading. At the end, Dr. Pipes speculates on feasibility, and sees a fly in the ointment, a daunting question that planners of such an operation must face and somehow resolve. In the author's words, without serious comment here--
Is he kidding, or what? Your call. |
|
Contributed by 72nd TCS on June 13, 2007 at 07:59 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Evil Requires No Master; Just a Few Willing Accomplices.
The Gray Dog’s Note: I’m writing this to follow up on issues raised and responded to from my last post, My discussion of evil is strictly confined to mere mortal men. I will leave any spiritual discussion of evil to theologians and others more competent than I to offer judgments. In my last article I discussed a couple of loosely defined demographic groups I hastily labeled “them” and “us.” Even without a detailed description, I don’t think anyone was mislead or mistaken as to the fact that I was simply identifying two groups of mere mortals whose major differences were rooted in moral, political and philosophical opposition. I, The Gray Dog and most of my cohorts, both bipeds and quadrupeds, are part of the group referred to as “us.” Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and all other crustaceans and slithering reptiles belong to the group known as “them.” However, a number of respondents to my article in private emails and phone calls, referred to a more mystical group known simply as “They.” Unlike “us” and “them,” “They” appear to possess prescience and omnipotence close to a ten rating on the TDS (True Deity Scale,) therefore affording “They” the honor of capitalization. In my article, I expressed anguish over feelings of frustration, helplessness and betrayal. Responses to my rant ranged from “So, you’re having a bad day?” to “’They’, have been planning and plotting this for years! ‘We’ are so glad you have finally awakened.” I think “we” may be the subject of yet another post, but back to “They” for now. Now, as a BLOGGER, Forum Administrator and all around well heeled eDog, I find myself on a lot of strange email lists. One of the real odd-balls is a tax-evading, self-proclaimed Libertarian of a Conservative persuasion, who agrees with Rosie O’Donnell that Bush blew up the World Trade Center. Hat-Tip to my buddy Bill Faith for getting me on that list. How ya’ doin’ Harry? Continue reading "" |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on June 11, 2007 at 10:15 PM in , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
There Is No Us in U.S.
The Gray Dog’s Note: At least one or two people have noticed I have not written much in the past few months. I have tried to. I have started and stopped dozens of times. I’m not sure there is a point in it any longer. I’m not sure how often I will continue to post at my BLOG or any other. I feel the need to take some form of direct action instead of writing to a handful of readers. I’m just not sure what that activity may be. Any suggestions? I thought that participating in GOE in March would provide a much needed outlet. In that regard, I was both wrong and disappointed. But, that’s another story. No, what follows is a bedtime story for the 21st Century. Sweet Dreams. Did you ever have nightmares as a child? You know, perhaps some beastly nocturnal visage that would scare the bejeebers out of you? Or perhaps you were simply falling helplessly through air waiting for the inevitable impact. Awakening with a scream that prompted a late night bedside visit from your mom, sleep would not come easy for the rest of the night. Between the ages of three and six, I was plagued by a recurring nightmare in which I was being abducted by a stranger I never saw. This nameless, faceless creature would always approach from behind, whisking me into the air, away from the comfort and security of my bed and begin walking through my family’s small basement apartment toward the front door. As we passed by my parents I would cry out but the sound would stick in my throat. The more I tried unsuccessfully to scream the more panicked I became. My mother would look in my direction and smile. The dream always ended with our passing through the front door as my parents seemingly unaware or unconcerned that I was gone, went about their business. Then I would awaken with a start. Sweaty, rapid pulse, panicked. After a short while, the panic would subside, but the feelings of despair, frustration and hopelessness would linger throughout the day. Nearly five decades have passed since that disturbing nighttime phantasm was conjuring unimaginable horror in a six year old boy. It was merely a childhood apparition to simply outgrow and be forgotten. Yet, fifty years later, it has returned. No longer content to simply manifest itself as an occasional nocturnal disturbance, that old familiar sense of despair has crept back into my life to become my constant companion. Hopelessness has replaced optimism as a way of life and a pervasive sense of dread enshrouds me as I wander aimlessly through a surreality that finds me rapidly vacillating between morbid despondency and irrational rage. Remnants of that childhood nightmare began to resurface last October, as Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were convicted and sentenced to prison for simply doing their job as border patrol agents. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on June 9, 2007 at 11:43 AM in , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
N.Z. Bear Makes Monkeys of the MSM
Glenn Reynolds has earned a hearty "Thank you" from the public in , in which he links to a remarkable achievement by N.Z. Bear. The latter has broken out the monstrous draft immigration bill--over 300 pages--in a form that makes it readily available to any citizen who has access to the internet. He provides a table of contents, listing topics by subsections, complete with links to every subsection and to individual pages. The beauty of it is that the right-hand sidebar has space for comments. The visitor can read existing comments and append commentary ad lib. At the present writing, one sees only a handful of comments, led off by a link to a scathing example from . That must change, and swiftly. Let your imagination run wild for a moment. The Senate Majority Leader wants to ram the bill through in the absence of any serious debate. It is unlikely that other senators will let him get away with that. If not, the public has an unparalleled opportunity--and a unique challenge--to be heard. Picture it: a few days into the debate, the blogosphere dumps on every senator's desk a copy of N.Z. Bear's version, marked up by us The Great Unwashed, acting as a committee of the whole, and bearing hundreds or possibly thousands of heartfelt critiques. The Bear's achievement in making this possible is unprecedented, even world-changing. We must buckle down to it, citizens. It's a patriotic duty. First, go , to benefit from N.Z. Bear's guidance on how to get the most from his effort. Then, go to read the bill and mark it up. Absent that effort on our part, we'll have only ourselves to blame when the D.C. sausage factory serves up a rotten, stinking mess. |
|
Contributed by 72nd TCS on May 21, 2007 at 02:57 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Too Darn Dumb to Win?
It hurts to say this. Harry Reid may be wrong when he says we have lost the war, but he's very nearly right. We are on the verge of losing it. Not for any of the reasons cited by war opponents. We are losing quite simply because the PR efforts of this administration, from the White House through the State Department and Pentagon all the way down to the bottom--the CIA I mean--are hopelessly inept. Consider first President Bush, who consistently blows it. The latest example is the statement he issued to accompany his veto of the Dems' "slow bleed" Supplemental Appropriations Bill. He had a wonderful opportunity to really lay into them. He had a golden chance to hold them up to the public scorn and ridicule that they richly deserve. Instead, he settled for a brief, smirking, namby-pamby statement to the effect that the Dem bill was a "recipe for chaos and confusion." I have a message for you, Mr. President: The typical mouth-breathing couch potato [i.e. the typical American citizen] sees and knows nothing about the war we are in except chaos and confusion. Whose fault is that, Mr. President? Yours. You consistently fail to identify the real enemy, a worldwide resurgence of expansionist Islamic jihadism that began in Lebanon in the early 80's after three hundred years of somnolence. You have failed utterly the test of wartime leadership--to alert the public to the mortal danger that confronts them. Just yesterday, the Bush administration stumbled into stifling the last, best hope of mobilizing public support. Bill Faith has the full story . No need for me to elaborate. Read it and weep. |
|
Contributed by 72nd TCS on May 2, 2007 at 07:30 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Happy Days Are Here...
NOTE: About 72nd TCS Among those on the inside of both blogs, it is no secret that "72nd TCS" is the screen name in Veteran-American Voices, for short, of former Old War Dog John Werntz. Bill Faith has generously offered to John the opportunity to cross-post [subject to Bill's prior approval] on OWD. The grizzled old mutt, 72nd TCS, is proud and happy to hang around on the fringes of the pack. He greets his former mates with a cheery yip, and looks forward to sniffing out friendships among the recent arrivals. That said... I very nearly choked on this one. From of 3-31, the story bears the title "Army's War Funds Can Last Through July, Report Says" and is written by Carl Hulse and Thom Shanker. Please relax and read on. I am not about to launch into my standard rant: "Thank you, NYT, for telling the Dems exactly how long they need to stall, plus informing the Sunni insurgents and Al-Q jihadists how long they have to hold out in order to win big." The reporters are doing their job--informing the public about the probable consequences of a presidential veto of the supplemental military appropriations bill now headed into a House-Senate conference. Parenthetically, I note that the editors of the Washington Post appear not to have deemed the prospect of imminent exhaustion of funds to support the troops to be at all newsworthy. No trace on the front page, nor in the editorials. "Ho hum, lookee here, Georgetown basketball is going great guns." The reporters discuss those consequences at some length, and the prospects may be bright for political opponents of President Bush, who seem to be rubbing their hands in glee, anticipating an American defeat that will be heard 'round the world. But they are exceedingly gloomy for any level-headed patriot who awaits with dread a country sickened by an epidemic of Carterite malaise that, comparatively, would make the post-Vietnam trauma look like robust health. The return to these shores of defense forces, justifiably convinced that they have been robbed of the victory they earned by their magnificent efforts, does not inspire complacency. Some relevant passages from the Hulse-Shanker article follow.
Actually, the July target is a best-case scenario. It rests upon congressional approval of various gimmicks of budget sleight-of-hand, shifting funds between accounts and skimping on important purchases and maintenance expenditures to free up additional money. Strictly speaking, existing funds will run out by June 1.
Meanwhile, the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, is still stuck on stupid,taking partisan shots at Bush:
Hagel of Nebraska and Smith of Oregon make it bipartisan? Note that if those two had not defected, the roll-call would have ended in a 49-49 tie, leaving Vice President Cheney to decide the issue. Two brief notes in closing, both dealing with the sad state of DC politics. First, hearing the word "bipartisan" is enough to make the well-informed and even moderately well-heeled citizen fear for the country and clutch wallet and checkbook. Second, the toxic atmosphere chokes us all but our troops -- and the nation's future -- are the main victims. |
|
Contributed by 72nd TCS on March 31, 2007 at 01:18 PM in , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Will He Run Again?
As the shenanigans of selecting leadership positions for House Democrats settles, the media will soon turn all of its attention toward the 2008 Presidential Election. While the usual suspects in each party begin to form exploratory committees, the bloggers and pundits will anoint a new candidate each morning only to depose them by late afternoon. Who has traction? Who energizes the base? Who has the best hair? What I find interesting is the process each party will use to arrive at a final decision. The Republicans will probably be dull as usual. An ex-Speaker, an ex-Mayor and a sitting Senator seem to be the best the GOP has to offer at this time. Not a formula for success. On the other hand, the Democrats have taken a trick from their liberal environmental handbook for 2008. They’re recycling! The loser in 2000, the loser in 2004 and yes even Hillary is a retread. Also, not normally a formula for success, but then again, they just took back Congress with nothing to offer except estrogen replacing testosterone at the Speaker’s position. Given the fact that they so easily won with so little, I think the Republicans might be wise to consider the recycling angle. Factoid: Actually, the Republicans are the masters of recycling. Since 1952, with only one exception, there are three last names that have appeared on each Republican National ticket. Who are they? Bonus question: who were the exceptions? Answer at the end of this post. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 14, 2006 at 07:07 PM in , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
The Greatest of all Evils.
On November 7th, Election Day, there will be three great evils that voters should consider. The first two are well known to the electorate and are usually lumped together, specifying one, implying the other. So, what the hell am I talking about? The lesser of two evils. It would seem that the conservatives have tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I know it grates on me at the polls every election day. Bush spends like a drunken sailor, Frist couldn’t lead a conga line, Foley is a pervert and Hastert should have acted sooner to bust him. Could, should the American electorate expect and deserve better choices? Hell yes! How do we get them? By opting for the greater of two evils? Hell no! Look at the last paragraph and then think of the opposites. The greater of two evils! Would anyone have been content with President Al Gore on 9/11 or the second coming of JFK to wrap it up in Iraq? Would Tom Daschle or Harry Reid offer you any comfort. Does the thought of Nancy Pelosi, just two heartbeats away from the presidency lift your skirt? What is left is the third evil; the greatest evil of all. Teach those worthless pretend conservatives a lesson; stay home, don’t vote. Throw our country into endless Democratic investigations and hearings, let them set the agenda; roll back tax cuts, withhold funding for the war on terror, impeach W, repeal the Patriot Act, stop NSA eavesdropping on terrorists cells, keep the southern borders open, enter new bi-lateral talks with North Korea and Iran (give them more nuclear technology to make them play nice), turn foreign policy over to France and the U.N., abandon Israel, close down Wall-Mart, raise minimum wages to $20/hr, socialize healthcare, neuter the CIA, prosecute our troops, leave Iraq to Al-Qaeda, publicly fund Air America, resurrect CNN and MSNBC, replace Christmas with Xmas, Easter with spring break, and finally 4th of July with mid-summer holiday. What’s really hysterical about this attitude is that conservatives will do this purportedly to increase their chances of success in keeping the White House in 2008. Guess what idiots? All you’ve done is bring it back full circle. The lesser of two evils. So two years of upheaval, backslide, turmoil and chaos is worth it for what? A chance to vote in 2008 for the lesser of two evils again? Speak out. Visit the forum to chime in. Don’t be shy! |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on November 1, 2006 at 09:45 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
October Surprise.
Down to the wire, the October Surprise was unleashed upon the Democrats yesterday. Surprisingly it wasn’t launched by the Republicans, but instead the liberal’s very own “useful idiot” John Kerry. "You know, education - if you make the most of it - you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq," With that comment the Old War Dogs are pleased to make known their own 11th hour October surprise: The Old War Dogs Forum is now open for membership at This site was to be announced next week, but in light of Kerry’s comment and the importance of next week’s elections we hope you will visit what promises to be an exciting place for discourse on the issues of the day. Participation does require registration, so don’t be shy. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 31, 2006 at 07:57 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
A Tale of Two Two years ago, Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards campaigned with the theme “Two Americas.” It was typical liberal tripe that attempted to evoke a form of class warfare between the evil wealthy corporate Republicans and the poor starving children. And while Edward’s characterization of two Americas was off mark, the core phrase has rung true to throughout America’s history. Tories vs. Patriots, Union vs. Confederacy and White Sox vs. Cubs are but of the few rivalries that have threatened our nation’s existence. Only forty years ago, Malcolm X advocated for the creation of a new black nation by having the U.S. cede to the Black Muslim leadership, five southern states for that purpose. Oh that “X,” what a joker. It was a screwball idea that the X-man in later years publicly recanted, but I have begun to believe the idea of really creating two Americas is not without some charm. After all, since the 2000 presidential election, we have become a nation of “Red” and “Blue” states. So why not make it formal? No civil war would be necessary. Just treat it like a messy divorce. Property Settlement Real and tangible property: Each state shall retain ownership and/or governance of all land, buildings, businesses, military bases and natural resources through the consent of its citizenry, as it exists within each state at the time of this decree. Capital Hill (Blue) The U.S. Constitution (Red) |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 19, 2006 at 08:48 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Fear Factor
It has become cliché to say that armies always fight the last war. That is to say they are unprepared to take on a new enemy with new strategies and objectives. Just over two years ago, like many veterans and other concerned conservatives, I locked on like a laser to focus my efforts and do anything that would lead to the defeat of John Kerry. And while the Swift Boat Vets led the charge, the small voice of The Gray Dog was just one of thousands of small BLOGs that ran their ads, displayed their commercials and waged a smarter more sensitive war against the Democratic nominee. The 2004 War against Kerry was a classic frontal assault against a well known and defined enemy. While many weapons were used, in the end it was brute force that carried the day Today, one month away from the 2006 mid-term elections, we face a new threat that is no less dangerous than the one we defeated two years ago. But unlike two years ago, this enemy has four hundred and thirty-five faces, most of which are unknown to the majority of Americans. Analogous to the War on Terror, there is no clearly defined front to wage a classic battle. Instead, the enemy is widely dispersed throughout the nation, campaigning under the protection of Democratic sleeper cells that have been planted within each congressional district. Republicans, whose intelligence had led them to believe the enemy was merely massing for the scheduled battle on November 7th, were literally caught with their cyber shorts down, as the Democrats launched their “October Surprise Offensive.” With one well timed strike, the liberals were able to personify the entire Republican congressional caucus with the singular image of Mark Foley. In response, Republicans, not content to merely lop off Foley’s head, have kept their sabers sharpened while circling House Speaker Denny Hastert and any other house member to whom they pass blame.
Emboldened by this Democratic success and the Republican’s ineffectual response, Nancy Pelosi, The Botox Bitch of the Beltway, is now, for the first time, openly acknowledging her liberal agenda to be enacted upon her ascension to the Speaker’s throne. Rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts, cutting off military funding, releasing GITMO prisoners, disabling the NSA surveillance program and opening our borders will just be the beginning. Pelosi and her minions will not likely waste much time scheming up charges in an attempt to impeach George W. Bush and at the current rate of Republican self destruction, there may not be many left around to offer resistance. Many of you may be thinking the senate is at risk too. Yes, it is and the possibility of having Majority Leader Reid is hateful to imagine. But we have witnessed over the years how a handful of Democratic senators in the minority can successfully stall all Senate business. Hopefully a few bright Republican senators have learned something from this experience and could keep the Senate stalemated. The House is another matter altogether for it alone controls the funding for the War on Terror and it alone can commence impeachment proceedings. Charles Wrangell has already signaled his intent to bankrupt America’s war effort once he becomes the new Ways and Means Chairman and Nancy Pelosi, power drunk since gaining the party leadership position, will not be satisfied to simply become the first woman Speaker. She will want to make her mark in the most spectacular way possible by bringing down George Bush. I know that most of the military bloggers, OWD included, have spent a great deal of effort to bring down Jack Murtha. He is deserving of all of the attention we have given him. But however despicable he is and however gratifying his defeat would be, Murtha is just one of four hundred thirty-five battles being fought. After all of the assaults that have been leveled at Murtha, other Democrats are more vulnerable and it’s high time we look at the bigger picture. Pelosi’s Eighth District seat in California is not just safe, it’s an absolute lock. Nothing short of a felony conviction or compromising pictures with farm animals will change that. Actually, in San Francisco the pictures might be of benefit to her. The only way to defeat Pelosi will be by keeping her as the minority leader. The only way to do that is to defeat Democratic candidates in every vulnerable district possible. The Republicans must put a face on the Democrats and make this mid-term election a national referendum on Pelosi’s party leadership and agenda. There is not a scarier face to do this with than Nancy Pelosi’s. Republicans have often been accused of using fear and scare tactics to win elections. Is it so wrong to do so when the fear factor is real? |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 7, 2006 at 05:29 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Liberal Democrats: Original timestamp 2006.10.01.13:09. The webmaster is postdating this item to give it more exposure than it might otherwise get after being posted on a slow Sunday afternoon. In an epiphany as monumental as the discovery of the “Rosetta Stone,” I have stumbled upon the common link within liberal logic (alliterative oxymoron intended) that supports their notion, that fighting terrorism is actually propagating more terrorists. Now, of course, I am not accusing the Democrats of actually fighting terrorism, an enterprise for which they are ill-equipped. It just occurred to me that the Libs are practicing psycho-babble methodologies, such as transference, to superimpose the results of their past and current policies upon the Republicans. Convoluted as it may be, I now understand the rationale used by the left to insist that Republicans are increasing the terrorist threat to our nation by fighting it. The liberal left for the past several decades has mastered the art of delivering consequences opposite of their stated goals. The question that needs to be asked is; “Are these failures merely the unintended results of flawed but well intentioned policies, or were the results a strategic success which continues to propagate the victim class; a voting bloc vital to Democratic success?” Liberal Democratic policies to eliminate poverty increase poverty. Starting in the sixties with Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty,’ liberals institutionalized welfare as a birthright instead of the temporary assistance it was originally designed to be. Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) encouraged impoverished single mothers to become baby mills while low cost subsidized housing became their virtual prisons. While clearly a failed policy, it continues to be a program of pacification that breeds not only poverty, but Democrats as well. Let’s face facts. We may all be created equal in the eyes of our Creator, but from the moment of birth additional factors come into play. There will always be those who are brighter, more driven, more skilled or just plain lucky. These are but a few of the determinators that will dictate one’s position in the grand scale of American life. Wishing for, hoping for or expecting a government handout will not elevate anyone from poverty. Education, a desire to succeed and a strong economy will take you farther than any liberal band-aid. Liberal Democratic policies on taxation and revenue ultimately reduce revenue and produce a stagnant economy. Raising taxes on business and wealthy individuals is always foremost on the liberal agenda. Their stated intention is to raise additional revenues for additional social programs. It doesn’t matter that the programs fail or that the short term revenue gains soon disappear as a result of lower personal savings and corporate investments, both essential for economic growth and job creation. It is enough for the liberal constituency to feel good about the noble efforts of their elected Democratic officials. An economic downturn has no effect for those receiving monthly checks from the government. The liberal stand on the taxation of the rich is just a tired effort to “stick it to the Man.” Individuals with any real desire to succeed financially should rather “join the Man” or “be the Man.” But it is not a free ride. Liberal Democratic policies on education produce lower test scores and achievement. Social engineering that started with cross-district bussing of school children to achieve balanced racial integration, and culminated in Affirmative Action programs that were more concerned with quotas than quality, has utterly failed to reverse the trend of lower test scores and achievement for minorities. However, it has created a growing number of indoctrinated voters, who faithfully show up at the polls to give grateful thanks to their Democratic benefactors. Speaking of indoctrination, the consummate bastion of liberal thought, the NEA, has turned the public school system into liberal orientation camps. The ‘Three R’s” have been replaced by bashing Bush, learning the nuance of supporting the troops but not the war, and chanting the Gore mantra of global warming. As our children advance to high school they can receive free condoms in biology class, and a free ride from their counselors to the local abortion clinic. I guess it is fair to say that I support our good teachers, but not their union. I also wonder how many inner-city educators would not want their own children to attend the schools they teach in, yet support the NEA’s resistance to school voucher programs in an effort to protect their jobs. Liberal Democratic energy policies produce pseudo-science and disaster (and less energy.) From the laboratories of liberal academics in search of funds, to the preservationists’ misguided and uninformed concern for the plight of a stray herd of Alaskan caribou, the pseudo-science of man made global warming and the virtual elimination of new oil exploration on or off shore, has led America to the precipice of an energy disaster. Additionally, liberal policies have been successful in ensuring that no new nuclear facilities have been placed online since 1996, while several have been decommissioned. Even a founding whacko of Greenpeace recognizes the folly of his past ways. In an April 16, 2006 article in the Washington Post titled, Patrick Moore writes:
It would appear that Mr. Moore’s use of the threat of Global Warming does have some positive consequences, purely unintended by the liberals. And while it may be amusing to watch liberals utilize their own folly to undermine other liberal policies, the only fuel currently provided by liberal energy policies is the one they use to burn George W. Bush and ‘Big Oil’ executives in effigy. Secular liberal Democratic policies regarding Church and State leave no room for a Church in the State. Fueled by the miscreants at the ACLU, liberal initiatives which challenge all things Christian in the name of separation of church and state have relegated the religion of our founding fathers and a majority of Americans to a seat at the back of the bus. School Christmas concerts, became Holiday concerts, which then became seasonal or winter concerts. Songs about the birth of Christ have been replaced by poetic readings from the Koran. While many Democrats profess to have deep religious beliefs, their level of conviction dwindles submissively in the face of their enlightened outreach to their Muslim brothers and sisters and is conveniently checked at the front desk of abortion clinics. I will make a disclosure that is difficult for a conservative. I am an atheist. It is neither a political cause nor a banner I wear on my sleeve. It is simply a personal philosophical conclusion I arrived at many years ago. However, my morals and attitudes are derived from the Christian principles I was taught as a child. I do not scorn Christians, I envy their faith and I share their outrage when others use atheism as a cause to attack their beliefs and their rights to practice that faith. Attacks on Christianity are attacks on the very fiber and essence of what America was founded upon. Eliminating “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and calling for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court are not the righteous concerns of minority religions seeking equal treatment under the law. Instead they are lightly veiled attempts to erode the values of a moral nation. So, I ask my conservative and Christian friends, would you rather associate with a Christian Liberal Democrat or a Conservative Atheist? Liberal Democratic immigration policies foster more illegal immigration. What part of ‘illegal’ does anyone not understand? This is one area where the liberals do not masquerade. They are blatantly advocating open borders for the very purpose of adding numbers, read voters, to America’s impoverished class. They are not concerned with criminals, terrorists or opportunists that cross, just so long as they can build upon a minority underclass they hope to add to the liberal dole. Their justification that Mexicans come to America to do the jobs Americans won’t do is the most bigoted outrage imaginable. It acknowledges the liberal eagerness to exploit virtual slaves solely to increase their power base. The very liberals who purportedly take up the cause of minorities are now advocating the need for a permanent underclass. Of course the liberal solution to this dilemma will be to raise additional taxes from the rest of us so that they can elevate the servile workers from the fields to the welfare roles. This is the liberal version of upward mobility. Liberal Democratic social policies create America’s “New Nobility.” Noblesse Oblige, literally translated means ‘nobility obligates.’ This phrase describes the progressive attitude of the noble class: That the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. Or as defined in the Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary: “the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with rank or birth.” On the surface this is a high-minded philosophy that “once upon a time in a universe far, far away” was in fact a noble ideal. In one brilliant stroke, it is a concept that eased the conscience of the “upper class” while helping to alleviate at some minimal level the stress and difficulties of being in the ‘lower class’. This was well and good in eighteenth century Europe where all people knew their place. For better or worse your position in society was determined at birth. This is the twenty-first century. This is America! We live in a country that believes in the possibility that anyone can achieve his or her own dreams. It is a country that was founded upon the rejection of nobility. Are there people born into wealth in this country? Of course there are, just as there are individuals born into poverty! This has been the reality of all societies throughout all human history. There is no promise of living the American dream, only the potential. The greatness of America is that you are not predestined to remain in the station of your birth. You do have the opportunity to change your lot in life. Or you can humbly submit to the geo-political expertise and largesse of Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn. The Liberal Democratic policy on the War on Terror Lacking a policy on the war leaves liberal Democrats with only obstructionism as a political tool. But, it is that very obstructionism that foretells what the outcome of any stated policy would result in; more terrorists attacks upon America. Liberal Democrats do not want the War on Terror to be the central theme in next month’s mid-term elections. Lacking any policy on terror leaves them vulnerable and exposed as a feckless group of opportunist. Given the track record on all liberal Democrat policies of the past five decades that lead to opposite consequences, unintended or otherwise, leaves me to wonder just what issues they have to campaign on. The record shows that the policies of Liberal Democrats do not serve America. The consequence of liberal leadership (once again alliterative oxymoron intended) leaves no doubt that liberals exist only to serve themselves. On November 7, 2006, Americans will go to the polls to determine which party will lead the next congress. I count myself among the many conservatives who have recently expressed frustration with the current administration’s policies on Iraq and the wider global war. I don’t believe we are doing enough to defeat the fanatical Islamists that want nothing less than our destruction. But, however imperfect this president and this congress may be, I shudder to think of a liberal Democratic alternative. The very thought of a House Speaker Pelosi or a Senate Majority Leader Reid, should be sufficient reason to rally conservatives, Republicans, moderates and even Democrats that care about their children’s future, no, their very existence to vote for the only party that has a policy for defeating America’s greatest threat; The Republican Party. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on October 2, 2006 at 12:18 AM in , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Remembering September 10, 2001
For the next several days, ink splatters on newsprint, pixilated images wafting through the airwaves and burning brightly on millions of computer monitors will commemorate the emotional events of 9/11. As it is my nature to avoid crowds, I choose to focus on the America that existed on September 10, 2001. In looking back, it is difficult to contemplate 9/10 outside the context of 9/11. While researching the headlines from our last days of innocence, I expected to find some significant contrast to the news stories of today. After 9/11 and nearly five years into the Global War on Terrorism, I instinctively felt that America had to be fundamentally changed, more focused, perhaps more mature. But, then again, perhaps not. The following Chicago Tribune headlines from the thirty days leading to September 10th in both 2001 and 2006 tell the story. Immigration 2001 - “Immigration deal ‘must be fair,’ U.S. says White House will target lawbreakers.” While the White House has maintained a ‘fair but tough” stance on illegal immigration, no new laws or enforcement of existing laws appears to be imminent. Meanwhile, illegal aliens have become the envy of many hapless sports franchises, by picking up corporate sponsorship from a major beer distributor. After a rough week crossing through arid deserts and swimming the Rio Grande, “It’s Miller Time.’” President Bush 2001 - “Lawmakers battle Bush over secrecy; Executive privilege debate rages anew.” “Well, the liberals still have not forgiven Bush for ‘stealing’ the 2000 election. Their hatred is so blinding that they still will imperil our national security in an attempt to undermine our chief executive.” Israel 2001 - “Bombs rattle Jerusalem; Palestinians say blasts are reprisal for leader’s death.” “Israel still can do no right. It has no right to defend itself. It has no right to exist.” Osama bin Laden 2001 - “U.S. citizens alerted about possible threat.” Richard Boucher declined to comment on whether the threat came from Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, wanted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy attacks. “I’m waiting for the shrewd investigative reporter to announce that bin Laden has discovered a secret method of traversing the Space/Time continuum. How else does one explain that all headlines continue to report his activities of three to five years ago?” Rumsfeld 2001 - “’Rumsfeld poised to dump 2-war strategy. New Goal: Defeat one enemy, repel a second.” “Strategy or fantasy? Have we defeated an enemy or repelled them? The same questions remain unanswered.” North Korea 2001 - “North Korea proposes to renew talks with South.” “I guess the South decided to talk back.” Iran 2001 - “Iran cracks down again; detains liberal filmmaker.” “Where is the ACLU when you need it? How can anyone worry about nuclear programs at a time like this?” UN/Kofi Annan 2001 - “U.S., Israel abandon UN race summit; Powell denounces ‘hateful language’ in proclamation.” “Still the model of diplomatic efficiency, this anti-Semitic gathering of third world tyrants do nothing more than legally evade millions of dollars in NYC parking fines.” NY Yankees 2001 - 9/10: Yankees lead Boston in the A.L. East by 13 games. “Some things never change.” My research was intended to discover a naïve and narcissistic country five years ago. I am disheartened to admit that I only had to look at today to find it (so who is naive?). It is no wonder that we have not progressed. While we are engaged in a multi-front Global War on Terrorism, Americans at home are unaffected. There are no shortages, rationing, blackouts or shelters. Instead, we are blessed with a strong economy and abundance as we smugly sit in our comfortable living rooms anxiously awaiting a new season of American Idol. Except for the men and women of our military and their families and friends, there is no visible sign that America is in a struggle for its very survival. For most Americans, the biggest battle anticipated this weekend is between Peyton and Eli Manning. Are you ready for some football? While others rightfully remember the atrocities of 9/11, we should be mindful of 9/10. Nothing has really changed. Isn’t it time? |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on September 9, 2006 at 03:08 PM in , , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
What Flag Will Fly?
From Boomer via email
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 22, 2006 at 09:07 AM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
2006.08.21 Presidential Press Conference
Click to read the official White House transcript and watch their video. I'm having a worn out day and haven't studied it closely yet. Clcik for Allah's take. |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 21, 2006 at 05:40 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
RE:
In a post written at , and excerpted at OWD by Bill Faith, the author summarizes that the blogosphere and news media divided neatly into two groups:
Both the author and my OWD colleague align themselves in Camp 1, with Dafydd asserting,” The fact that we are still, today, championing Israel's right to conduct this commando raid while the ceasefire is in effect, that we refuse to characterize it as a violation, speaks volumes about which camp is correct.” Dafydd ends his analysis with the following summary: The United States still backs Israel in its actual warfare against Hezbollah (contrary to those folks in Camp 2, who cannot let go their charming fantasies about almighty Israel) -- and the mainstream media still supports the other side. This old dog would take exception to the “two camp” argument as being an over simplification of past six week’s events, but first, I will state two areas of agreement with the author: 1. Israel did run a feckless and infantile “pseudo-war”. It has been reported that Olmert had initially wanted to enter into Lebanon with a significant ground force, only to accede to intelligence assessments that proved to be grossly incorrect in their estimation of Hezbollah’s missile stockpile as well as their ability to relocate and avoid detection. This occurred not only before Israel’s initial strike, but continued to be their Achilles’ heel throughout the first several weeks. Day after day, reports from the Israeli government predicted that Hezbollah had been pushed far enough north to eliminate the threat to their cities. No sooner would such statements be released when a new volley of Katyusha’s would reign down on Haifa. Unfortunately for the Olmert government, world opinion had rapidly shifted from its initial condemnation of Hezbollah to one that repudiated Israel’s disproportionate response. In hind sight it becomes obvious that Olmert’s initial instincts were correct. But I wonder if his late change in heart was a result of placing too much trust in Aman (Military Intelligence) or if it was the common weakness found in most western democratic leaders who must attempt to balance internal political realities with external strategic goals. In the end, does it matter? Many might say that the reason is unimportant in light of the fact that the result still remains an unsatisfactory standoff that leaves a ticking bomb set to announce the commencement of round two in the very near future. These are the people set to toss the baby out with the bath water. I personally want to believe that Olmert has learned a valuable lesson and will trust his gut and establish a firmer hand when the next round begins. One way to ensure that is to have America provide more than tepid back channel support. George Bush and Condi have given plenty of lip service in support of Israel, but in practice have engaged in the type of nuanced diplomacy one might have expected from a Kerry administration. The fact that a resolution was agreed upon with France, no matter how fleeting their support was, ensured a solution that lacked soundness or enforceability. It has been only a few short years since America acted in defiance of the UN and began an assault on Iraq. What has changed in three years to make us engage this august body as the ultimate arbiter of dispute? America’s support of Israel in this latest conflict is reminiscent of a playground skirmish between a persecuted kid and the school bully. With nervous anticipation, America gathered around the contestants with the rest of its classmates ready to cheer on and “stand behind” their buddy. And while their friend is taking all the punishment, everyone else criticizes the little guy’s tactics and his inability to dispose of the bully. In the end, America and its classmates dutifully report to the principal’s office to await a proper punishment to be dispensed by the higher authority. Yes, I agree with Dafydd and Bill Faith that there is plenty of room for second guessing Israel’s half-hearted response to Hezbollah, but I still maintain that America and George Bush have offered no support of substance. Instead we have smugly sat back and turned allies into surrogates in the War on Terror. This was a bad tactic used by several presidents during the cold war and certainly not something I would have expected from that same man that said “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM in , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Early Onset of a Seven Year Itch.
Author’s Note: Please forgive this old dog as he stumbles across all bounds of conservative decency in an attempt to embrace his feminine side to write this letter. Dear George, There comes a time in most relationships when passions wane; replaced with feelings of restless discontent and yearning. While all love is not lost, those little quirks I once thought to be cute I now recognize as character flaws and the minor imperfections that were easily overlooked have recently begun a slow but steady transformation to hideous warts my eyes can no longer avoid. When you first courted me six years ago, there were other suitors that had my eye, but it didn’t take long before you stood out in the crowd. While most of my friends tried to convince me that you weren’t the right one, I knew that you were special and held great promise. And though it was a rather short engagement, I was so proud that day you took your vow to defend and protect me. You were diligent in your work and soon were able to let us both keep more of our hard earned dollars. I have to admit that in my excitement over the larger paychecks, it didn’t bother me at first that you were running up the credit cards. I just believed in you. But more than at anytime in our relationship, it was that dark day in our first year when our home was invaded. I was devastated and in despair, while you remained calm; taking quick and decisive action. I was never so proud. Even my old friends that didn’t approve of our relationship were now beginning to have a change of heart. I felt vindicated in my choice of you as a partner. Over the next few years, there were plenty of rough times, but I was happy to face them with you. In fact I have never felt more exhilarated as I did in the months leading to our fourth anniversary. I was more than willing to share in your battles and defeat all of those that threatened our happiness. When we renewed our vows, it was just as thrilling as the first time. But now it is eighteen months since that happy occasion and I find myself questioning our union. I keep asking myself, “is it just me?” But the fact is George, the problem is you! You are not the man I first knew and there doesn’t seem to be a satisfactory explanation. And do you want to know what really hurts? More and more of my friends are badmouthing you and I feel ashamed that there are times I agree with them. Where did we go wrong? I know you work long hours and it had taken a toll on you. But even the little things you neglect are beginning to get to me. How many times do I have to ask you to put up a fence around the yard? The damn neighbors keep stomping through the flower bed and leaving trash all over the place. And the credit cards! It appears that as soon as you max one out, you get two more and start over again. That small raise you got for us isn’t enough to make the minimum payment on all of them. And if you aren’t careful, even that extra money you got for us might be taken back soon. Now, please don’t take this the wrong way, because I still believe that you’re faithful. But I am getting concerned with all of the time you’ve been spending with that Condi woman at work. Ever since you gave her that promotion you seem to be less concerned about doing your job correctly and more concerned with how you look. It’s not just me saying this George. Most of your old friends are noticing this change as well. You used to be bold, take stands and whether anyone liked what you had to say or not most people took you at your word. But in these past weeks you have really let me and your friends down. You don’t have enough friends left George to keep disappointing the few that have stuck with you. Although this is not an ultimatum, there are a few things you need to attend to if you expect any peace and contentment at home. First, do something about the next door neighbors tramping through our yard all the time. I don’t feel like I can even leave our own house some days. Secondly, cut up the credit cards and don’t apply for any more. I know we can’t pay them off all at once, but quit adding to the problem. And as far as those neighbors across the street, you’re wasting your time calling city hall. They won’t do anything, and most of that gang is in cahoots with the neighbors anyway. I think these are people you’re just going to have to deal with directly. You know, like you did before. I could threaten to leave you, but I think you know me too well to believe that I could. Besides, I’m really not interested in finding someone new at this time. I just want the old George back. You know; the tough guy who was willing to go to bat for his friends and protect me. I know you have it in you. Come back George, please. With affection, P.S. Dump that broad at work and get the damned fence up now! |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 19, 2006 at 12:01 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
The Heat is On.
It was an undercard bout that promised to produce the leading Mideast contender for the title, but instead turned into a spectacle only Vince McMahon could have produced. The long anticipated battle between Ehud “Star of David” Olmert and Hassan “Jihadi” Nasrallah delivered little excitement in the early moments of their heavyweight duel, before a sellout crowd at the Ariel Sharon – Teva Pharmaceutical Center. But as typical with any WWF event, this battle between the two Mideast hopefuls became more interesting as other WWF members arrived at ringside, turning this confrontaion into a wild Texas style tag team death match. Upon learning the match was in progress, George “Screamin’ Eagle” Bush arrived at the arena on short notice only to discover Bashar “My father was the president too” Assad and Mahmoud “Big Blast” Ahmadinejad were already in Jihadi’s corner distracting referee Kofi “The Corrupt” Annan, while Nasrallah was eye-gouging Olmert in the opposite corner. Olmert was expected to make short work of Nasrallah before his home town fans. However, a number of season ticket holders were quick to scalp their seats and head south once the match was announced. As latecomers to the event arrived, the crowd became more hostile to “Star of David” causing him to appear dazed and confused at times. As Screamin’ Eagle crossed the ring to protest Nasrallah’s fouls to Annan, ringside seats were being filled by the likes of Vladimir “Still KGB” Putin and Jacques “Waterloo” Chirac. Further back in the crowd, seated together were “Condi” and John “Lightning” Bolton. While Jihadi continued his illegal assaults on our champion, the crowd’s attention remained distracted by the sideshow going on in Jihadi’s corner. As Screamin Eagle engaged in the customary hair pulling and nose yanking tactics with President Too and Big Blast, the Star in frustration lobbed a couple of folding chairs toward his opponent’s corner that landed in a crowd of innocent spectators. In a sudden development of spine that defied all evolutionary theory, Kofi the Corrupt, immediately stopped all action in the ring to issue a stern warning to Olmert. KGB and Waterloo immediately leapt to their feet to lead the cheering crowd as President Too and Big Blast advanced menacingly towards Screamin’ Eagle. As action resumed, Eagle returned to Star’s corner signaling Condi and Lightning to begin mingling with the crowd. The death match continued, with the referee calling all observable fouls on Olmert while looking toward President Too and Big Blast for instructions. Jihadi continued his assaults unabated. In the mean time, Condi, Lightning, KGB and Waterloo made their way to the beer concession for a nacho and brew. At the final rest period before the final round, Star’s corner was visited by Bebe “The Opposer” Netanyahu, who clearly was delivering an inspirational pep talk to our beleaguered hero. President Too and Blast were frantically fanning Jihadi with a “Gold and Green” flag urgently beckoning the warrior to hold on, with assurances that help was on the way. Olmert searched the crowd for Eagle, who had retired to the back of the arena. There he was, enjoying a non-alcoholic brew and conspiring with KGB and Waterloo to put in the fix for this match. As the final bell rang, the Star bolted from his corner with lightning speed and precision moves. Jihadi, was stunned as Olmert leap-frogged over him, leaving him to wonder if there was anywhere to run. President Too and Big Blast stood idle, unsure of their next move. A few muffled cheers emerged from the crowd, “Ol - mert, Ol – mert, Ol – mert”. Finally, this was what the crowd had come to witness. Jihadi knew he had been weakened and overpowered. In this moment of weakness, Allah smiled. A barrage of white towels poured down from the arena. President Too and Big Blast ran into the ring and hefted Jihadi onto their shoulders screaming “Allah Ak-bar, we are victorious.” Star returned to his corner, humiliated by the crowd’s booing. Eagle, Condi, Lightning, KGB and Waterloo slinked quietly to their waiting limousines, while Kofi the Corrupt wrapped several of the white towels around his head and ducked out though a side entrance. The governing council of the WWF failed to announce a winner, giving way to speculation that a rematch is soon in the offing. While agents work fervently to iron out details, a pay-per-view event has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2006 on Al-Jazeera. CBS has announced they will be awarded broadcast rights within the U.S. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 17, 2006 at 12:01 PM in , , , , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Bush Refuses to Back GOP Candidate over Lieberman
Hat tip: ***
*** : Nedrenaline. " |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Re: Peace in Our Time.
Don’t be too quick to judge the Olmert government if it should accept the UN bartered ceasefire. Israel has been stuck in the rut of southern Lebanon before with their troops, tanks and armored vehicles getting picked off like fish in a barrel. Now six years later with a stronger, better armed and more entrenched enemy, it may be a reality that the vaunted IDF just isn’t capable of taking on this task by itself. America kept them on leash for six decades and acts surprised that they aren’t ready to run now that they are no longer tethered. I would ask, “Where are Israel’s allies?” Oh, I forget they only have one. The best that Israel's staunchest ally has to offer is tepid back channel support, while pushing to take the lead in brokering a deal. It seems Bush is more concerned with making a good appearance at the UN instead of providing real support to an ally in need. Before 9/11, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist group. As another dog, ‘Zero Ponsdorf' posted, “the saying ‘next year in Israel’ will turn into ‘next year, next door’.” I totally agree with that sentiment, but stop short of blaming Olmert and the Israelis. Bush’s apparent unwillingness to assist Israel in keeping the heat on Hezbollah now, flies in the face of his statements that it is “better to fight terrorist ‘over there’ than at home.” Unfortunately for Olmert and the Israelis, “over there” is home. Bush’s platitudes of how we “stand behind Israel” can be taken quite literally. It is Israeli cities that are being assaulted by incoming missiles, while America stands a good distance behind. I have heard too many Democrats opine that the U.S. must remain neutral in this conflict so that we can be an honest broker for peace. Who in their right mind believes that anything resembling peace can occur if we leave these fanged devils to regroup, rearm and retrench again and again? How and why should we remain neutral? Hezbollah is our enemy too. I fear that this diatribe may start to sound like the opposition’s “blame America first” mantra, but it was George W. Bush who called for a Global War on Terror. It took a lot of arm twisting, coercion and outright bribes to assemble our small “coalition of the willing”. He, more than anyone, should understand the difficulty of going it alone. Now that we have a willing participant engaged with a common enemy, it seems that the best aid we have to offer is just more “Shock and Shucks.” There may be more going on behind the scenes than most of us are aware. But I for one am not ready to criticize the Olmert government. Yet! |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on August 12, 2006 at 10:28 AM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Another Reason For Republicans To Vote This November
Ed Morrissey:
*** Ryan Sager comments . |
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 7, 2006 at 09:48 AM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Ambassador: James Joyner at OTB:
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on August 5, 2006 at 09:16 AM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
It’s Time to Walk the Walk
“Walk softly and carry a big stick.” - - Theodore Roosevelt “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” - - George S. Patton While America would appear to possess the biggest stick in the neighborhood, she seems to be hopelessly lost in search of the perfect plan. Republicans have held the majority of both congressional houses and the presidency for over five and a half years, yet, save for George Bush’s initiatives in Afghanistan and Iraq, have seemed reluctant or incapable of leading. While the Democrats are still not able to set policy, they have been incredibly successful at dictating the political agenda while keeping the Republicans in a defensive posture. “Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.” - - George S. Patton Where is the Commander-in-Chief that declared the Global War on Terror? Where is the president that said if you were not with us, then you were against us? Were the weekly liberal rags right when they said the era of ‘cowboy diplomacy’ was over? America abroad, like the Republicans at home seems more concerned about winning the public relations battles and maintaining politically correct appearance. The problem is that no matter how hard they try, these are battles that can’t be won. More importantly they are battles that don’t matter. While we use phrases such as restraint, measured response and sustainable cease fire, we continue to get beat up in the in the court of public and world opinion. No matter what we say or how restrained we act, the liberals at home and the world at large will see us as arrogant bullies. When will America get wise and stop fighting the useless battles and get serious about winning the ones that truly pose a threat to our very existence? “Israel is the most important battle in the war on terror” - - Bebe Netanyahu. July 31, 2006, the Rush Limbaugh Show. While Israel does the dirty work of fighting Hezbollah with Katyusha missiles reigning down on their homeland, the best America offers is to slow down an inevitable diplomatic cease fire. Where is our big stick? This is not a suggestion that we commit American troops to yet another front in this war, but at the very least they deserve an overt statement of support and a promise of whatever aid and cover we can provide. The rest of the world already knows where we stand, yet we seem afraid to say it out loud lest we offend some Islam Mullah. How can America expect to maintain a coalition of the willing, if we are unwilling to stand with our only mid-eastern ally? “Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory.” - - George S. Patton America has stopped waging war with victory in mind. Now we want to “win the peace” or “achieve a political objective”. We no longer fight nations but combatants. We seem more concerned about minimizing “collateral damage” than vanquishing a hated enemy. If President Bush were truly concerned with public opinion at home, “Shock and Awe” would have been more substantive than a made for TV spectacle of flashes and bangs. Then we could have mopped up the remaining resistance within weeks and returned home. Instead we got “Shock and Shucks, sorry about that.” While the rest of the world would have scorned us no less than they do now, Americans would have rejoiced in the victory and the return of our soldiers, while the escalating bravado of other Islamic-Fascist would have been stifled. Tough words are not enough! They require an attitude and policy that says we will back them up. And while historians will judge the unfulfilled promise of a past American president, his following words seem well worth adapting in our current struggle: "Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." - - John F. Kennedy. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on July 31, 2006 at 09:32 PM in , , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
New York Post: 'No Alternative'
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on July 29, 2006 at 12:27 PM in , | | | |
|
|
|
America; Game, Set and Match!
Americans love defining moments. Fort Sumter, Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and 9/11 are each distinct events that mark the beginning or end of notable epochs. And while these events satisfy our penchant for clear beginnings and tidy endings, they do little to account for the decades or centuries of grievances that led to the start of any war or the undetermined years of instability that follows one. It is the overwhelming desire to have closure that America declared itself to be the victor of the Cold War. After all, Reagan defined the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire, used our economic force to raise the ante in the Arms race, then sat back and watched as the Soviet system collapsed under its own weight. Soon after the Berlin Wall fell, America and the rest of the world were eager to declare the Cold War over. Ever the good sport, America and Reagan even allowed Gorbachev to relish in false adoration as a great and noble facilitator of events to which in truth he was simply a hapless bystander. Eastern buffer states enter NATO, the G7 becomes the G8 and the world lives on in peace. So what did America win in the Cold War? A stable Russian democracy? An equal and trusted partner in the War on Terror? An economically dependable trading partner? A stabilizing force in the Mid-East or North Korea? Unfortunately, our victory has resulted in a despotic Russian government that have dead Tsars rejoicing in their tombs, a country that leaves its economy to the Russian Mafia and other black market profiteers, and possesses a massive, largely unguarded and unaccounted for nuclear arsenal. Russian President Vladimir Putin dons stylish western European suits in an attempt to look respectable while maintaining obstructionist’s policies regarding Iran, North Korea and now the Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanese conflict. The Soviet Union simply has devolved into a vast array of mobsters, thugs and feudal war lords. While the main stream media occasionally report the duplicity of the Syrian and Iranian government in the current Mideast conflict, I think it is time that George W. Bush look into Putin’s eyes one more time. This is a man with no soul. Putin’s government ignored UN sanctions for years and continued to deal arms to Iraq even during America’s run up to war in 2003. He has continued to provide arms to both Iran and Syria, and remains their chief protectorate and deterrent to an American intervention. Why else must we secretly encourage Israel at a time we should be declaring ourselves their ally? While the Islamic Fascists are largely funded, harbored and endorsed by their Arabic and Asian brethren, they are armed with many weapons that still bear the stamp ‘Made in the CCCP’. Instead of hand wringing over restraint vs. disproportionate use of force, invasion vs. incursion or NATO Peacekeepers vs. UN, we need to openly endorse Israel and assist them in any way possible to stamp out the Hezbollah threat. At the same time we must look carefully back at our rush to claim victory in the Cold War. We did not crush our enemy into submission. We did not accept an enemy’s surrender, nor did we sign a treaty. We just allowed a wounded Russian Bear to retreat to lick its wounds and plan its next move. The faces, names and flags may have changed, but it’s still the same war with the same belligerent foe. |
|
Contributed by The Gray Dog on July 24, 2006 at 09:25 PM in , , | | | |