| This is no longer valid. |
[11 Sep 2004|08:17pm] |
I, sadly, am discontinuing my writing on here. But fear not! I have returned gloriously and majestically on blogspot! For the new and improved blog, please feel free to enter in your web browsers address bar: bradusaf.blogspot.com
To all who read on here, thank you and I bid you welcome on the other site!
-Brad
Again:
bradusaf.blogspot.com
|
|
| Double Standard |
[19 Aug 2004|06:29pm] |
|
Have you heard of the book called Unfit For Command? This is a book written by John O'Neill (a long time Kerry adversary and fellow Swift Boat Operator) with information and stories compiled by 254 fellow Swift Boat operators. The basis for the book: Kerry has been lying to everyone for over 30 years about his war record. Now keep in mind, the veterans that contributed to this book all knew Kerry. They dealt with the guy on a daily basis. In other words, this book tries, and very succesfully I might add, to debunk what he's been saying over the past months. Well his story changes every week, but that's another story.
The book was released this week, to virtually NO press attention whatsoever. NONE! Was O'Neill interviewed by the Today Show, Tim Russert, Dan Rather? NO. What happened with Richard Clarkes book? Tons and tons of press from the mainstream media, before the book was even released. Why are the Swift Boat Veterans not getting the attention they deserve? Do they not get to voice their opinion about a guy who they feel is unfit for command? Why does the left get a free ride from the media on their books and movies based on lies and deception? I guess free speech is only granted to whoever wants to bash George Bush. It's incredible.
After the ads (that were sponsored by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, not Bush) were aired two weeks ago, nothing was shown by the media and Kerry never responded. I guess they had the same dumbfounded look and response he had on 9-11: "Nobody could think." The second plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., and the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m. By Kerry's own words, he and his fellow senators sat there for forty minutes, realizing 'nobody could think.' Now why does Michael Moore get off saying that Bush acted to slowly (7 minutes vs. 40 minutes). Clearly by his standards, he should be loving Bush. Double Standards.
Now just this morning in a speech to a group in Boston. Kerry went on the offensive, and boy did he... This guy went ballistic on Bush about the Swift Boat book!
George Bush didn't write the book! George Bush has never said one ill thing about Kerry's service record!
In quote:
"Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on the issues now facing our country."
-Marc Racicot in a letter to the Kerry campaign in Feb. 2004
"That charge leveled by Senator Kerry is absolutely and completely false...The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The president has referred to John Kerry's service as noble service.''
- Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt, Aug. 19
So here's what Kerry said this morning about the ads: "But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work... Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'''
Ok so here's where the double standard and hypocrisy once again rear their ugly little heads. Whoopi Goldberg spoke at an official John Kerry campaign fundraiser; words Kerry himself said represented the “heart and soul of America.” Here's the link for a story on it. http://jskelly.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournalEntry?moduleId=15843&entryId=28502
We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush
- Michael Moore at the Oscars 2003
"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."
- Al Gore
Has Kerry condemned any of these outrageous attacks on our President? NO! Why? because he believes it all. He's willing to idly sit by and watch our Nation come under attack and do nothing for 40 minutes. He's willing to sit by and laugh when comedians attack George Bush at one of his official rallies. But it's not OK to let an independent group that has nothing to do with the President speak freely and tell what they have to say. Why the double standards Mr. Kerry? Are you so afraid of this group that you are willing to throw arrows at Bush who had nothing to do with the ads? I think he's scared. He wants you to believe him and his two other people he flies around for his stump speeches, but when the truth comes out, he can't handle it. 254 Swift Boat Veterans can't be wrong.
|
|
| Commenting on Comments |
[05 Jul 2004|04:53pm] |
|
Thanks for the input. I don't know why I bother putting up with all the holes in your statements because you apparently have an affinity for logic and reality.
You: [A]cting pursuant to the Constitution and [the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
—President Bush, in a letter to congress outlining the legal justification for commencing war against Iraq, March 18, 2003
Comment: The quote that you use is talking about any international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; not Iraq.
You: "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11”
Dick Cheney on Iraq “Meet the Press”
Comment: The geographic base he is talking about is the entire Middle East. I don't know if you realized it or not, but the terrorists weren't just al Qaeda from Afghanistan, they are all groups from Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. You name it, the groups are out there and they're geographic base is the Middle East.
You: "The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."
-Bush, “Mission Accomplished” speech
Comment: Do I really need to say anything about this? Iraq is a stepping stone in the war on TERROR, not just al Qaeda.
You: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein,"
-George Bush, State of the Union 2003
Comment: Could you imagine them next time on another plane armed with something given to them by Saddam? You gotta remember that Saddam didn't condemn the attacks, he laughed about it, heartily too I might add.
|
|
| WMDs |
[05 Jul 2004|04:12pm] |
|
And they're at it again.
"A year after the war began, Americans are questioning why the administration went to war in Iraq when Iraq was not an imminent threat, when it had no nuclear weapons, no persuasive links to al Qaeda, no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons."--Edward M. Kennedy, April 5, 2004
"There were no weapons of mass destruction."--Howard Dean, April 4, 2004
Sen. Kennedy and Governor Dean speak as Democrats. They speak as opponents of the war in Iraq. But on the issue of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities--the tyrant's development, possession, and threatened use of chemical, biological, and nuclear arms--they also speak as standard-bearers of the conventional wisdom. Over the last several months, ever since David Kay stepped down as head of the Iraq Survey Group and told us that "we were almost all wrong" about Saddam's arsenal, what was once a universally accepted truth (Saddam had weapons of mass destruction) became an apparently self-evident fiction (Saddam had no such weapons). It seems the whole world now agrees that Saddam rid his country of weapons stockpiles shortly after the first Gulf War ended in 1991. With respect to weapons of mass destruction, at least, there was really nothing to worry about.
But what if that judgment, too, is wrong? Just as wrong, in fact, as was the assumption that Iraqi WMD would be found quickly and easily? John Kerry, interestingly, has been cautious. As recently as April 27 he commented, "Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons? You may."
The truth is Kennedy is right, at least in one regard: There are many questions that deserve answers. Here are a few I would like to pose--both to those who, like Kennedy and Dean, are so certain Saddam was weaponless in March 2003.
*Where did the sarin come from? Last week the Pentagon reported that two U.S. servicemen were hospitalized in Baghdad for exposure to nerve agents. The soldiers were part of an American convoy that came across an unmarked 155 millimeter shell lying on the side of a Baghdad street. When the soldiers attempted to disarm the makeshift bomb, it exploded, spilling out part of its poisonous contents. The shell later tested positive for sarin, the poison developed by the Nazis and used by Saddam against the Kurds in Halabjah in 1988.
The shell in question appears to have been made prior to the first Gulf War. The terrorists who planted the bomb may not have known it contained the deadly poison. But the claim always was that Saddam had not fully relinquished or done away with his pre-Gulf War arsenal. And if the terrorists didn't know the bomb contained sarin, because the casing had no distinctive markings, doesn't that suggest an effort at deception? Doesn't it also suggest that there could have been--and could be--many more of these shells around?
The New York Times wasn't worried: "No one can be certain" whether the bomb "did really contain sarin," it editorialized. Besides, "finding some residual weapons that had escaped a large-scale destruction program would be no great surprise--and if the chemicals had degraded, no major threat." But it now seems the bomb did contain sarin. And we do not know that there are only a few such "residual" weapons. Do we?
* How did Jordanian terrorists apparently obtain chemical weapons? Last month the Jordanians thwarted a terrorist attack in Amman. A terrorist cell linked to Abu Musab al Zarqawi--previously connected to Saddam--planned to explode trucks carrying 20 tons of poison chemicals outside the headquarters of the Jordanian intelligence service. The Jordanian authorities said the blast could have killed up to 80,000 people and wounded around 160,000. Where did the chemicals come from?
* Who is killing Iraqi weapons scientists? In closed testimony to members of Congress earlier this year, David Kay reported that Saddam Hussein's top scientists have been targeted for assassination. Terrorists and Baathists have killed nine prominent scientists since April 9, 2003. All those killed had worked in one way or another on Baathist weapons programs. All had been questioned by the Iraq Survey Group.
* What has Charles Duelfer discovered? Until January 2004 David Kay led the Iraq Survey Group, the 1,400-member team of scientists charged with discovering easily hidden weapons in a country of 27 million people that's roughly the size of California. In his testimony before Congress, Kay said he believed Saddam had destroyed his weapons stockpiles prior to the American invasion in March 2003. Hans Blix, the former head of the U.N. inspection team, agrees. This helped establish the conventional wisdom that Iraqi weapon stocks would never be found because they never existed.
But the Iraq Survey Group did not end with David Kay's departure. In fact it is still plugging along, now under the leadership of Charles Duelfer, who told Congress in March that "the picture is much more complicated than I anticipated going in." And that it's too soon to reach "full judgments with confidence." Because "we have yet to identify the most critical people in any programmatic effort." What's more, "Many people have yet to be found or questioned, and many of those we have found are not giving us complete answers."
Duelfer has other problems. His team has "recovered millions of documents," but millions were also destroyed in the chaos that engulfed Baghdad following liberation. Also, the documents are "often mixed up." Which means research is "extremely difficult." And Duelfer is understaffed. He especially lacks Arabic speakers. Hence only a "tiny fraction" of the recovered files have been translated. Duelfer is reported to be much less confident than Kay that Saddam had done away with his WMD.
The Bush administration can answer, or can begin to answer, all these questions. But having professed such certainty about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the war, the administration now seems intimidated by the new conventional wisdom that Saddam had done away with his WMD. Yet we do know that Saddam had weapons after the Gulf War in 1991, and of course United Nations inspectors spent much of the next six years destroying some of them, despite repeated efforts at concealment and deception by Saddam. The inspectors never were able to account for all of Saddam's weapons. So the question is, what happened to them? No one has adequately answered that question. Not Kay. Not Blix. Not Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy. Not the Bush administration. Maybe we just got one answer: Some of those weapons are still there in Iraq, and they're being used against our troops.
NEXT: More warheads filled with cyclosarin found in Iraq.
The Associated Press reported on 2 July that Polish troops have acquired 17 shells filled with the deadly nerve agent cyclosarin, a version of sarin that is five times more toxic and five times more persistant (that means it's going to stick around longer if used).
"We were mortified by the information that terrorists were looking for these warheads and offered $5,000 apiece," Gen. Marek Dukaczewski said. "An attack with such weapons would be hard to imagine. All of our activity was accelerated at appropriating these warheads."
"If these warheads, which were still usable, were used on a military base like Camp Babylon, they would have caused unforeseeable damage."
The tests were done by U.S. experts, who were conducting more.
The munitions were found in a bunker in the Polish sector, but Polish officials refused to be more specific.
So the question is, why isn't the press making a big deal out of these findings? This is a major developement!!! These are big weapons that can destroy a lot of people and property. Would this finding help prove that Bush was right? Did Saddam actually have WMDs? The media can't pay attention to these weapons because they have a pre-conceived notion that VX (another, more deadly nerve agent) drips off trees and looks like green jelly. These misconceptions need to be thrown in the trash and need to be replaced with intelligence and logic. I'll throw in some math later that shows exactly how deadly just one canister of sarin is.
NEXT: "Terror Math" that debunks the idea that WMDs are just a political term and used to start wars.
With the use of sarin against our troops in the field and the acquisition of 17 more warheads containing cyclosarin, the idea that Saddam had these weapons and might have been willing to sell them keeps growing. I offer to anyone that might downplay these findings a lesson in Terror Math.
Read down for lesson.
It takes 1 drop (100 mg) of sarin to kill an average person. The artillery shell that was found contained 3 to 4 liters of sarin.
1 drop (mg) equals 0.0001 liters (1/10000 of a liter).
3-4 liters equates to roughly 50,000 drops, enough sarin to kill 50 thousand people.
Obviously, it would be impossible to distribute 50,000 drops of sarin in an effective enough manner to kill tens of thousands of people. (With the exception of an arial spray attack at a stadium; say, the Super Bowl) But consider this:
The artillery shell that was found contained enough sarin that it could be divided up into 16 separate doses.
Each dose could kill 3,000 Americans, the number that died on 9/11.
From that single artillery shell, 16 "new 9/11s” could be attempted.
Many, if not most, would likely fail. But how many would succeed? How many American deaths lay waiting in that one “WMD?” One shell, sixteen “9/11s”. Now ask yourself how many more deaths are waiting in shells that were “overlooked” or “misplaced?”
The terrorists don’t need “stockpiles of WMDs.” To accomplish their goals, a handful of artillery shells is all that is required. For, unlike critics of the war, the terrorists know how to do the math.
NEXT: Funny picture of John Kerry on Yahoo! News
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry grimaces after missing a clay pigeon while trap shooting at the Gunslick Trap Club in Holmen, Wisconsin, July 3, 2004. Kerry shouldered a borrowed 12-gauge shotgun and picked off 17 out of 25 clay 'birds.' Photo by Allen Fredrickson/Reuters "
Kerry's actually a pretty good shot. I'll give him that. Good job, because that's better than what I can hit... hehe.
|
|
| Happy Fourth of July! |
[04 Jul 2004|12:53pm] |
|
Here's the comic, BC, from today's newspapers. Take from it what you will. God Bless America
|
|
| Straight from the Post |
[30 Jun 2004|08:30am] |
|
Here's an update straight from the New York Post that I totally agree with.
Why Chirac doesn't want US to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"In the face of unceasing French attacks on American foreign policy, President Bush has struck back in a way that is deeply embarrassing to France's President Chirac.
Good for Dubya.
In Turkey for a NATO summit, Bush yesterday highlighted France's low-rent efforts to keep Turkey out of the European Union by all but demanding the inclusion in the E.U. of the powerful Muslim democracy.
"America believes that, as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," Bush told an Istanbul audience, adding that its entry would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim World and the West," because Turkey is "part of both."
Furthermore, allowing Turkey to join "would show that the E.U. is not the exclusive club of a single religion"
France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.
France is also uncomfortable about greater E.U. expansion because each new country in the union dilutes French power — and thus France's ability to use the confederation to increase its global clout.
Chirac had the cheek on Monday to publicly warn Bush not to get involved in E.U. matters. So Bush snapped back — correctly, both on the merits and politically:
* On the merits, because Turkey needs to be admitted to the E.U.
It is a secular democracy in a part of the world where neither secularism nor democracy is easily found. Despite Ankara's dissembling in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it's important that the West do what it can to sustain Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's legacy — for the good of the Turks, the Middle East and the West.
* And politically, because France is clearly intensifying its attempts to wreck U.S. political and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
France consistently has derailed NATO involvement in Iraq. And though the NATO allies agreed Monday to help the new Baghdad government train troops and police, Chirac later said he opposed a formal NATO presence in Iraq.
NATO may slightly beef up its woefully inadequate contingent in Afghanistan to help safeguard the elections planned for September, but Chirac has now blocked a U.S. bid to send NATO's new "Response Force" there. (Unlike most forces wielded by America's militarily feeble NATO allies, the NRF would actually have some effective teeth.)
All of this is meant to serve a larger Chirac purpose: He actively wants things to go wrong for America in both Iraq and Afghanistan — regardless of the cost to the people who live in both countries — because that could tip this fall's presidential election to Democratic hopeful John Kerry.
The junior senator from Massachusetts is more attractive to Paris than the incumbent president because Bush is on to Chirac's game.
Never mind the War on Terror: The French political establishment is fighting a war against what it sees as Anglo-Saxon political, economic and cultural domination.
France believes it can use its influence within international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union to reverse more than a century of French decline.
If Kerry understands this, he has given no sign of it. But if he and his supporters are naive enough to believe that the French would suddenly become more accommodating to a Kerry administration, they are courting a rude shock.
Nothing will change the French policy of working to undermine American and British efforts in Iraq or elsewhere — because France loathes and fears America and Britain.
It's that simple."
So face it, France never liked us, and never will- so why should we suck up to them if they're only going to keep trying to undermine us?
|
|
| War on terror |
[20 Jun 2004|02:26am] |
|
I guess you all don't come to grips with reality that Bush never said Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cohorts for 9-11. That is something that's been spun by the left. Even in the quote that you came up with, you agree with me that Bush never said that Iraq played a role in 9-11. So I don't know what the big deal is... The reason we went to war with Iraq during the war on terrorism is because Iraq was a terror-friendly nation. Saddam hated us. Al Qaeda hates us. Al Qaeda was present in Iraq, even though they weren't eating brunch with Saddam. What you all don't seem to be understanding is that the war on terror is not just against Al Qaeda, it is against all terrorists in the world. Take the blinders off of just Al Qaeda and realize that there are other terrorist organizations throughout the world. Iraq was just a stepping stone in a hostile area. Being someone who ignores the principles of war, I wouldn't expect you to realize that war is sometimes necessary when you can't deal with people at a round table. But I guess it's not ok to have yet another friendly government on your side.
Saddam would not negotiate with the world, and he spit in world's face for 12 years... It was time to take him out before someone from Al Qaeda decided to come up and offer him money for one of his weapons so they could use it on us or someone else. I don't know about you, but I would rather get rid of that threat before it is imposed on us again.
For someone who needs cold hard facts, face reality and wake up and realize what this battle has accomplished in the war on terror. We got rid of a hostile regime that had used WMDs in the past, still had bio-warfare labs in production, tortured and maimed it's own civilian population, and payed suicide bomber's familys for missions in Israel.
I've seen fact in your statements, but then again, they all reiterate what I've been saying, so thank you.
|
|
| One more reason why I don't like the media. |
[18 Jun 2004|03:54pm] |
|
As you know, I don't really like our sensationalist media and here is one more reason why I don't. They twist and distort the facts to support their leftist views. Read on.
The 9/11 Commission has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.
- The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."
- The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."
- The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."
- And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."
- Granted, being a liberal leaning paper, the Fort Worth Star Telegram was a little more honest: "Iraq played no role in Sept. 11"
BUT if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was not a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.
The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan.
Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more. Next, the Al Qaeda big shot, who was wanted by the USA, traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah. A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot. Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda.
In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.
Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.
I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true.
So, faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday:
“The reason that I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”
Did you all get that? I'll repeat it again. "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”
So, what we have heard from the media is a perversion of the truth. Some in the press used the Commission's report, which is accurate by the way, to suggest Bush misled the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda.
I sincerely wish that the media will stop distorting the truth to the public and be fair and honest. And also, why is FOX News the only carrier actually paying attention to the Oil For Food scandel investigation, which, this week was intensified by Kofi Annan????
I'm signing off before I get too pissed.
|
|
| Is there anybody out there. |
[16 Jun 2004|10:11pm] |
|
If anyone feels like it, respond to anything I'm writing, even if it's just a "Yo." I'd like to know who's reading my journal.
|
|
| No optimism. |
[04 Jun 2004|04:10am] |
|
I have yet to see any optimism from John Kerry. There are absolutely no words that come out of his mouth that would make me want to vote for him. If you Neo-libs wanted a good candidate; you would have voted for Edwards. John Kerry is not your candidate. He is nothing but a sack of crap that votes for the betterment of himself and no one else. He doesn't care about the common man and he will never care about the common man even if he is elected. I've heard Neo-libs talking about the election and every single one of them preach "Anyone but Bush." Is there one piece of commitment and promise from the Democratic Party? No. Not one single bit. Even if you look in the sensalionist media, there is still nothing. Here's a word to the Democrats. Get a clue and get a promise, because right now, there is nothing for America, or the world, within your party. Grow up and get a plan. You are nothing at all, and I'm tired of hearing your false accusations and false accusations about this President and America. You should remember the past and look toward the future.
|
|
| Bush bashing at its lowest. |
[23 May 2004|09:37pm] |
|
If anyone has seen a beheading before, you would allready know that it is not a pretty site. Normally what happens if that the inflictor uses a sword or a large knife and swiftly slices through the victim's neck, inflicting an almost instant death and almost painless death. Not so in the case of Nick Berg, the young American who was murdered by monsters earlier this month. This man was not given the "normal" method of getting his head knocked off. Instead the tormentors took a regular knife and actually SAWED THROUGH HIS NECK SLOWLY. They took their time sawing through his neck while he was screaming and repeatedly yelled "God is good, God is great." After the beheading, they picked up his severed head and paraded it around in front of the video camera proudly.
I know what the next thing you people are going to accuse me of is equating these monsters with the normal religion of Islam. I am not doing that. These people are not normal followers of the Islamic faith, but are extremists who take things waaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. Ok enough of that.
My friend showed me part of a speech that Nick Berg's father, Michael Berg, wrote in support for the Stop The War Coalition's demonstration, End the Torture - Bring the Troops Home Now. In London, none the less. I will paste a few lines and respond accordingly.
"People ask me why I focus on putting the blame for my son's tragic and atrocious end on the Bush administration. They ask: 'Don't you blame the five men who killed him?' I have answered that I blame them no more or less than the Bush administration"
How do you equate the Bush administration to the sick twisted minds of these terrorists? You need to stop putting blame on the administration that had nothing to do with the beheading of your son and put the blame on the vile terrorists who actually killed him. George Bush didn't kill Nick Berg, the terrorists did.
"I am sure, knowing my son, that somewhere during their association with him these men became aware of what an extraordinary man my son was."
I am sure, knowing these terrorists, that they didn't in the slightest bit become aware of what an extraordinary man Nick Berg was. If they became even the slightest bit aware (which by the way would never have happened), they would have suddenly decided that fighting against Freedom and the lives innocent people around was unmistakebly wrong and unforgivable and they would have killed themselves instead of an innocent civilian who was there to help them.
"I take comfort that when they did the awful thing they did, they weren't quite as in to it as they might have been. I am sure that they came to admire him. I am sure that the one who wielded the knife felt Nick's breath on his hand and knew that he had a real human being there. I am sure that the others looked into my son's eyes and got at least a glimmer of what the rest of the world sees. And I am sure that these murderers, for just a brief moment, did not like what they were doing."
They weren't quite as in to it as they might have been??????? Are you kidding me!? These people were praising Allah and were PARADING his head around in front of a camera for the entire world to see. I'm glad you could see their remorse and guilt through their masked faces. I need to get some of those glasses, because... that would be cool. I'm also glad that they came to admire him. I'm glad that they admired him so much, they decided to help him out by giving him a slow and painful death by sawing through his neck with a knife. That's admirable right there. I would sure hate to see the merciless and cruel terrorists that hate us. I'm sure the others looked into his son's eyes (through their cowardly masks) and for a brief moment, and did not like what they were doing. That statement makes me want to vomit even more than I did when I actually saw the video.
I wish people would open the blinders that are apparently over their eyes and see the world and people in it for what it is and who they are. These terrorists absolutely hate us Americans and all freedom loving societies and they will do anything to destroy our way of life. How do we stop these people (if you will call them that) according to one guy, "I say we should have done then what we never did before: stop speaking to the people we labelled our enemies and start listening to them."
I will stop speaking and start listening to these terrorists when they stop hating us. I can't believe that people are crazy enough to believe this idea. You have a sworn enemy, you are winning the war, then you just out of the blue give up and listen to their failing demands. How freakin stupid are you then? You might as well just go ahead and bend over for them. If you people don't remember, the events on 9-11 were unprovoked and were carried out in the hopes that our society would crumble. They don't want us to listen, they want us to die. Again if you think I'm not separating your run of the mill peaceful Muslim or any other middle eastern person and lumping them in the extremists and terrorists, you're wrong. These terrorists need to be stopped and if you think that by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan the world's troubles will be solved, you are gravely mistaken, you have been fooled by the Great Deceiver, and we have lost.
I will leave you all tonight with a quote from Nick Berg's father. The only quote that I agree with him on, and one that symbolizes what we are trying to do over there: "Nick was not in the military, but he had the discipline and dedication of a soldier. Nick Berg was in Iraq to help the people without any expectation of personal gain. He was only one man, but through his death he has become many. The truly unselfish spirit of giving your all to do what you know in your own heart is right even when you know it may be dangerous; this spirit has spread among the people who knew Nick, and that group has spread and is spreading all over the world."
|
|
| Confusing |
[16 May 2004|12:47am] |
|
Ok as you all know, I have no problem with gays getting married. That's their choice and I shouldn't have a say in the choices in their life. As we all also know, John Kerry stands for a lot of different things, at the same time; gay marriage being one of them.
He has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples. Kerry has taken several positions on the issue: Kerry disagrees with fellow Democrats Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt on recognition of Civil Unions. He voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Kerry has opposed President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage but said in February that he favors such a ban in Massachusetts.
Can you just make up your mind on these issues Kerry? Please just give us a yes or no answer (and then stick with it). That's the beautiful thing about our current President. He says one thing, and he sticks with it. A good leader doesn't change his mind constantly. He picks a route and follows it. You can't keep swerving on a road wildly and not expect to wind up in a ditch.
|
|
| Chain mail, but good mail. |
[12 May 2004|10:21pm] |
|
This was sent to me by my mom, and even though it is a chain letter, I think it bears mentioning.
As some of you may know, one of my sons serves in the military. He is still stateside, here in California. He called me yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming people were to him, and his troops, everywhere he goes, telling me how people shake their hands, and thank them for being willing to serve, and fight, for not only our own freedoms but so that others may have them also.
But he also told me about an incident in the grocery store he stopped at yesterday, on his way home from the base. He said that ahead of several people in front of him stood a woman dressed in a burkha. He said when she got to the cashier she loudly remarked about the US flag lapel pin the cashier wore on her smock.
The cashier reached up and touched the pin, and said proudly, "yes, I always wear it."
The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she was Iraqi.
A gentleman standing behind my son stepped forward, putting his arm around my son's shoulders, and nodding towards my son, said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman: "Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this young man have fought and died so that you could stand here, in MY country and accuse a check-out cashier of bombing your Countrymen. It is my belief that had you been this outspoken in YOUR OWN country we wouldn't need to be there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak out so loudly and clearly I'll gladly pay your way back to Iraq so you can straighten out the mess you are obviously here to avoid."
Not much else I have to say, but please remember the servicemen and women that fight for you.
|
|
| Compassion |
[07 May 2004|03:28pm] |
|
I just ran across this story from the Cincinnati Enquirer. As we all know, our President is a very compassionate man, a great father and a great husband. Please read this story and take from it what you will.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/loc_moment06.html
"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."
|
|
| Radio Talk Show Hosts Prank Call Castro |
[28 Apr 2004|10:25am] |
This just came in on the wire about and hour and a half ago. Most of this post is cut and pasted off of Yahoo and Reuters.
MIAMI - Two Miami radio hosts who duped Cuban President Fidel Castro with a prank call are soliciting pennies from their fans to pay a $4,000 fine proposed by U.S. regulators because of the on-air stunt.
Talk radio host Enrique Santos said the fine made no sense, so he and co-host Joe Ferrero will pay it with 400,000 cents, delivered in person to the Federal Communications Commission in Washington.
"We prank-called a head of state in a country that is considered hostile to the United States. He's a violator of human rights and they're fining us $4,000," Santos said on Tuesday. "We just find it absurd."
On June 17 they phoned Cuba's foreign relations ministry and pretended to be aides to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an admirer of Castro. They said Chavez needed to speak urgently to Castro because he had lost a suitcase full of sensitive documents during a recent trip both leaders made to Argentina.
The call was transferred through several government officials and when Castro came on the line, the pranksters used recorded snippets from a Chavez speech to make it seem the Venezuelan leader was calling -- phrases like "Fidel," and "How are you?"
After getting Castro to agree to hunt for the suitcase, they called him a killer and told him he was on a Miami radio show. Castro replied with a string of curses and hung up. The call was broadcast five times over two days, to the delight of Miami's Castro-loathing Cuban exiles.
If you guys want to donate some pennies, because I know I will be, you can get in touch with these guys in the following manners:
DJ's email is enrique@elvacilon.net
Phone number is (305) 446-9595
Website is http://www.elzol.com
WXDJ
1001 PONCE DE LEON BLVD
CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-3319
Does anyone else see the inherent comedy abounding here?????
|
|
| Pat Tillman |
[26 Apr 2004|01:19am] |
|
As you all know, Thursday night, Spc. Pat Tillman was killed in an ambush near the Pakistani border in Afghanistan. As I watched a tribute to this soldier, I literally wept. Here at home we take for granted the sacrifices our soldiers make for us. Pat Tillman was a defensive tackle for the Arizona Cardinals and was on his way to achieving great fame and recognition as a football player. Then came September 11. He felt compelled in himself to do something for his country. So what did he do? He turned down a multi-million dollar deal with the Cardinals to join the Army. Why on earth would he do that, you might ask. Many people, myself included, felt an extreme sadness, conviction and anger that was a result of 9-11. When the planes hit the two towers, I knew in a heartbeat I was going join the Air Force. What some people don't understand is that this is what we want to do, and we are extremely proud of it. We joined up for a reason: To serve our country while in crisis and to make absolutely sure that this tragedy never happens again. I've had people ask me why I joined if I knew I was going to go to war, or ask if I want to go to war. This is what I tell them: "I joined the military for a lot of reasons, but the main reason is to give something back for all I have gotten from this great country." There is nothing more honorable than to know that somewhere and somehow I am making a difference for the future. Whether it's standing up in front of 60 people and teaching how the proper inspection procedures of a gas mask that may someday save their lives, or fly into a war zone and destroy terrorism. People ask me if I'm scared to be deployed or if I'm afraid to die. This is what I tell them: "This is what I signed up for. I want to help out and keep the fire burning. I'm not going to run away or die for my country, but if dying is asked of me, you better believe I will go to the end knowing that I served each and every one of you and I'll be happy." I hope you all get a sense of service is now. It's not running away in fear, it's believing in a cause and a reason and giving yourself for the greater good. RIP Pat Tillman, a great American and brother in arms, we miss you buddy. I love you all.
|
|
| This is kinda long |
[12 Apr 2004|08:45pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 calm |
] |
I still can't believe that you people think John Kerry is going to be the savior of all mankind. I'll give you a little history lesson, as it seems you forgot it. US involvement in the war was a gradual process, with combat personnel arriving in 1950. Military involvement increased over the years under successive U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican (including Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon), despite warnings by the US military leadership against a major ground war in Asia. There was never a formal declaration of war but there were a series of presidential decisions that increased the number of "military advisers" to the region. One of the first occurred on July 27, 1964 when 5,000 additional US military advisers were ordered sent to South Vietnam which brought the total number of US forces in Vietnam to 21,000. One of the justifications of getting involved in Vietnam was what was known as the Domino Effect, a theory created by both liberals and conservatives. It asserted that if one country were taken over by Communists, neighboring countries would fall like dominos, in a form of imperialist expansion. In this case, the problem was seen that if we allowed Vietnam to fall under Communist domination, that one by one, all the nation-states of the region would also fall under communism. That was the same idea that was started just after WWII, when communism was giving rise in the USSR. Afghanistan fell, China fell, and many other European and Asian countries fell to this plague. The fear was that if the Domino Effect were widespread, the whole world would fall prey to this evil, America eventually succumbing to the effects. Thus, the policy of containment was adopted.
To say that Kerry never blamed individual soldiers of these atrocities is true, to an extent. John Kerry reported to Congress that U.S. soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." Now if I'm not mistaken, those are pretty grave accusations that warrant Geneva Conventions investigations. Now when he was asked whether he would name names, he wouldn't, because he was given this info from third parties that he only heard about it from. Again, with the naming of names… I totally agree with the fact that you have to do what you have to do to survive in war. In the case of the Vietnam War, women and children were sometimes armed and sometimes not, and in those cases, something had to be done. If you want to go the pacifist route and blame the war crimes on the persons who started the war, then the ones to blame for the war crimes in Vietnam were the creators of communism. Had the evil idea of communism not spread into the region, we wouldn't have had to go into it like we thought we had to. It is truly horrible that our soldiers died, but at least they did so in an attempt to rid the world of evil.
In a recent interview on Meet The Press, Pres. Bush was asked if he agreed with the war. He sided with history and common sense when he said that the war had been run by politicians and not military leaders (one of the reasons he gave full control of the war on terror to the military) because our leaders:
1. Really didn't want to go into Vietnam.
2. Had their hands tied behind their backs when they were there by the Washington politicians, who demanded their approval before certain campaigns.
That was why it was a failure; it was a just cause, but had horrible execution.
When I say that he brought "aid and comfort to the enemy," I'll cite a couple specific examples of his aid and comfort (and no I didn't go overboard with that, because it's true):
1. April 1971, VVAW demonstration - Washington, D.C. - Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.
2. Kerry was a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty," a supposed "people's" declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war. One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.
3. POWs that returned after the war was over cited that one of the methods of torture was that the captors would torment them with news of the anti-war movement and how brutally people like Kerry and Fonda painted them, John McCain was one of them. After he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."
"They used Senator Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report. While he was languishing in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Kerry was telling the Fulbright committee that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.
"All through this period," wrote McCain, his captors were "bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us."
I say he aided Fonda because she was one of the more prominent members of VVAW, the same organization that Kerry ended up being the spokesmen for. Here are some examples of things she said to demoralize our soldiers:
1. In July 1972 Jane travels to North Vietnam and tours the area for 2 weeks. During July 1972 she made six broadcasts over Radio Hanoi. From the one on July 14, 1972 she said: (Addressing herself to the men on the aircraft carriers in the area) "Use of these bombs or condoning the use of these bombs makes one a war criminal." When addressing herself to the pilots of the American planes she continued with; "Examine the reasons given to justify the murder you are being paid to commit." Upon her return to the U.S. she then addressed cheering students; "I bring greetings from our Vietnamese brothers and sisters."
2. When the POWs returned she added "I think that one of the only ways that we are going to redeem ourselves as a country for what we have done there is not to hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars.... History will judge them severely." The attacks continued for four months and was not simply popping off as she told Barbara Walters in her efforts at rehabilitating herself on 20/20.
To be even loosely affiliated with someone is the same thing as working with someone. I work with people I hardly know and I don't associate with them personally outside of work, but I am associated with them because of our ties professionally. I could guarantee you that if one of them were to kill someone, people would come to me and everyone else they associated with to try to figure out why they did it. I could guarantee that if you hung out with potheads in high school (even if you didn't smoke weed) you would be considered a pothead with the rest of them. That's what we like to call guilty by association. John Kerry, whether or not he rubbed shoulders and went on dinner dates with her, was associated with Jane Fonda, the same woman who went overseas and belittled our soldiers to their faces.
Anyone can tell you that public opinion shapes everything. You can't tell me that the soldiers in Vietnam weren't listening to and watching the events unfold on US soil and that it didn't taint their image of what was going on in Vietnam. That is something you DON'T do in a situation where our soldiers lives are at stake. We need to know that our country is behind us, not hearing about how terrible we are. I know tons of Vietnam Vets (remember I used to work in a VFW Hall) and they all said the same thing. They said that when they heard that their country (the radical hippie portion, you're so called majority of the nation) was against this war and the soldiers in it, they were disillusioned. They lost the will to fight and that undermined our ability to win the war, because you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him cross it. I can name a few Vietnam Vets who aren't too proud of what John Kerry did. Just ask John McCain when he got back. He held Kerry in so little respect that it took decades to gain a mutual friendship, because he felt John Kerry betrayed him. Granted they are friends now and put the past behind them, Kerry helped ruin a life. So tell me that nothing John Kerry or Jane Fonda said ever affected the men or the outcome of the war.
No you aren't a traitor for having an opinion and a voice to oppose the war in Iraq that the majority of the country supported. You also never went in front of Congress and testified of "atrocities" committed by our troops while they were dying. Don't think I'm calling you a traitor because you opposed this war. But just because you believe this war was unjustified, doesn't mean it was. I'll remind you of a few other things you may have forgotten (for an excellent article written stating why the war is a good thing go here http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/iraq.pdf but I'll paraphrase a few of the points for you):
1. The United States never needed approval of the UN Security Council to go forward with the liberation. The UN is not a functioning world government. The only thing that the UN is good for is humanitarian relief and maybe peacekeeping, even though they proved faulty of that in Kosovo, among many other places. If the Security Council couldn't even stand behind it's own demands for compliance, then how are we to take them seriously when they say that we should hold off? We also didn't need approval from other countries (France) to go forward with this war. I said it from the beginning that France had ulterior motives for not wanting us to go oust Saddam. In the 1980s, France had given Iraq a nuclear reactor so that he could "peaceably" develop nuclear energy. Thank God Israel was able to see through this charade when they launched a pre-emptive strike to rid Saddam of his nuclear capability, who knows what might have happened to Kuwait and the entire region once Saddam got his hands on nuclear warhead. The ties the French had with Saddam were recently revealed in the Oil for Food (http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~jherring/war/saddamsbillions.pdf) program that involved massive bribes from Saddam to French officials. The bottom line is, France was getting a sweet deal on oil on Iraq's oil, so of course they know that if we ousted Saddam, their $$$ would get cut off. The French opposition to the war was about oil; France was getting hooked up.
2. Saddam's brutality is legendary. Qusay Hussein supervised killings that involved throwing people feet first (if they were unlucky) into shredders as a means of death. He gassed over ten thousand of his own people in the northern Kurdish area. He used the same agents in the Iran-Iraq war killing hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi soldiers. He used various Blister and Nerve agents. The agents mainly used were mustard agents and sarin nerve gas. These are some of the most brutal and deadly chemical agents known to man. Over 50,000 people died from chem. warfare agents. This man (if you'll even call him that) was a reckless tyrant and he was overdue for a regime change. For a pictorial example of what these agents can do, click here:
a. http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/deh/images/er_wmd6.jpg
b. http://cbw.sipri.se/images/intro/mustard-c.jpg
3. Yes innocent people may die. That's what happens in a war, innocent people die. Are you to tell me that we should have avoided all wars on the basis that "innocent people may die?" True, it is a tragedy that innocent people lost their lives, but how many people have been saved? To quote the article: "The question is always: what is the alternative?…They die of hunger and disease, and from Saddam[s] famous torture chambers. They also suffer life-long debilitating disfigurement, rape, humiliation, and simple day-to-day fear. War often leads to civilian deaths, but war is sadly necessary. The landing at Normandy in World War II led to civilian deaths. But would you say to Anne Frank: 'Sorry, but we can't risk innocent lives, so we aren't coming, and don't forget to write when you get to Bergen-Belsen'? She did not survive, but the war ensured many others did."
4. Iraq has been viewed as a long time and long avoided threat due to the massive amounts of failed UN Resolutions. He also was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty of 1997. The thing you have to remember was that if he hadn't been a reckless dictator and actually complied with the UN Resolutions, we wouldn't have had a need to go in there. By giving a half hearted compliance saying "we stopped all production of chemical and biological weapons" gives us more than enough reason to believe that he had indeed possessed the weapons. The guy admitted he had them, because he was "eliminating" the weapons without giving us proof that he got rid of them.
So the question is, "Are you glad that we overthrew the Tyrant Saddam Hussein who committed acts of genocide, gassed his neighbors and spit in the UN and the US's face while lounging in one of his numerous multi-million dollar palaces while his people were worrying if their relatives were going to be murdered the next day?"
I'm glad you are glad that we overthrew the Taliban and are continuing to cripple al-qaeda. You are wrong though when you say the one thing John Kerry would not have done was invade Iraq. Before the war and even before 9-11, John Kerry was extremely vocal (to his credit) about the dangers that Saddam Hussein posed. In an interview on Meet the Press in 2003 and at various assemblies, he clearly stated the dangers that Saddam possessed and gave numerous reasons why we should invade Iraq.
1. "[W]e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)
2. "If You Don't Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Now he's changing his story and saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. He also says that he won't believe anything unless he has been given irrefutable evidence to support it. So if that was the case, then why was he so vocal about getting rid of Saddam? He voted to send our troops over there to liberate Iraq and now has he turned his back on our soldiers and voted against numerous weapons systems (including the all important Patriot Missile Battery), and the 87 Billion dollars to help support our troops, including increased health insurance for Guard and Reserve troops, and increased combat pay, not to mention an even higher raise for us each year. You said that the President cut combat pay, but that never happened because it was increased in the same package that John Kerry voted against. I know for a fact that George Bush won't ever turn his back on the military. Now as for John Kerry…
Now as far as winning the war with Clinton's military… Again, you are partially correct. Bill Clinton, if I remember well, and I do, gutted the active duty US military by almost half. YOU DON'T DO THAT, even in peacetime. I'll use Carswell AFB as an example. Carswell AFB was an active duty Air Force base that was an integral part of the US military as a B-52 base until Clinton shut it down. First-stage closure activities were initiated in 1992, the base ceased operations on September 30, 1993. Clinton gutted the active duty military so much that in this war we had to rely on our Guard and Reserve troops (according to your DNC Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, we Guardsmen are not real military) more than ever. You say you're angry with Bush for sending my friends and me, but I can guarantee that if Clinton hadn't cut the active duty force so much, so few of our Guard and Reserve troops wouldn't have to go. The military loves George Bush. They absolutely hated Bill Clinton. Talk to any military member and they will tell you the exact same thing: Clinton gutted the military and many people lost their jobs. George Bush has done more for our military force than Bill Clinton EVER did or would do.
We changed the policy on terrorism from containment to pre-emption because containment doesn't work on terrorism. It worked on communism because it was a nation state that we were against, not a group hiding out in caves or traveling between host nations. Terrorist organizations are constantly planning on attacking us and the rest of the world because they hate democracy. They don't just hate us, they hate democracy and liberty, the ideals that this great country was founded on, and they won't stop until we are all dead. Containment doesn't work because Clinton's idea was to let them attack us, and respond with half-hearted measures. Clinton wouldn't even go after Bin Laden, even after the Sudanese offered him to us on a silver platter! He instead tried to give him to the Saudis, because we didn't have a "legal" reason to get him. If you want to know the real failure, look towards the almighty Bill Clinton. Pre-emption works because we can't wait for the terrorists to come to us; we can't afford another 9-11. If an organization is known to have made plans to attack us, they have the means and the capability; don't we have a right to protect ourselves? A good leader knows that threats exist and that they must be dealt with to ensure the freedoms and liberties of mankind. Clinton wasn't a good leader because he never dealt seriously with the attacks on the WTC in 1993, Bin Laden, numerous embassies, and Khobar Towers (which killed 19 of my Air Force brothers).
To summarize the above six pages of fact, the war in Vietnam was justified; the war in Iraq was justified. Not one, single piece of rhetoric that you or any other liberal throws at me is going to change my mind on anything that I stated above. The proof that I have just given is based on historical fact and common sense. Yes it is a tragedy that over 600 American lives have been given in this war against terror, but I can tell you that the families of those lost are so damn proud of their sons and daughters and are proud of this President and the fact that someone was finally able to stand up against terror and fear and say "We are not going to back down from you." If I have to go and die someday for my country, I will at least die knowing that I made a difference and served you and everyone in the United States of America.
|
|
| Interesting |
[01 Apr 2004|10:43pm] |
In his cynical endorsement of John Kerry on Thursday, former presidential candidate Howard Dean said, "The real issue is this: Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America? A group of people who never served a day in their life, or a guy who has served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star?"
Actually, the question one should ask is: "Who would you rather have defending the United States: A man who as commander-in-chief kicked the Taliban and Sadddam Hussein out of power while capturing or killing more than half of al Qaeda's leaders, or a guy who slandered his former Vietnam brothers and gave aid and comfort to the enemy by sucking up to Jane Fonda while undermining the U.S.'s ability to win the war?"
|
|
| Sick |
[25 Mar 2004|11:12am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 crappy |
] |
I woke up so nauseaus and I feel that my stomach is twisting around in my neck. I don't know why, but I have been so nervous ever since I woke up this morning. It's probably that thing I had to eat last night. I dunno. Anyways today is full of studying for a Bio Lab practical. I swear that class is trying to kill me. Literally, I woke up one night and the lab book was sitting on my chest with a hot poker in it's book hand about to burn me in the eye. But I foiled that plot. WOO!
I'm sick, I'm out, I gotta study. My mind is on everything else in the world right now so this is going to be hard.
-Brad
|
|
| Who has Kerry's support? |
[17 Mar 2004|12:57pm] |
Update HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY!!! I bestow upon thee honorary Irish heritage!!
John Kerry has recently stated that he has the support of foreign leaders who wish that Bush will be ousted in this upcoming election. Who are these leaders? Kerry refuses to name these "leaders" but insists that he has their support on many levels. Now when asked by journalists and people in town hall meetings, he changes his story to say that he knows "people around the world at different levels." But once again, he refuses to name names. That only leads to speculation as to whether these people are foreign leaders as in presidents, or leaders of plumbing unions (nothing against the plumbers union). Considering he hasn't made an official trip to Europe since he starting running, he couldn't have met with these people personally, so he could have "met" with them on the phone or via email. So who are these people? They must reside in his extremely imaginative mind of wonders and magic (the same place that his economic policies reside).
Now when he was politely asked about whether or not he'd name these "people" at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, he got angered, turned green, and starting throwing chairs around while yelling. Ok, fine maybe I'm exaggerating that part, but he DID tell the guy who asked him the question that it wasn't any of his business and then retorted by asking HIM the absurd question of whether or not he is a registered Republican or Democrat and who he voted for last time around. That is none of HIS BUSINESS!!! That it one of the things that we pride ourselves in in this country is a secret ballot. The beauty of it all is that you don't have to tell anybody who you voted for. Now you might say that Kerry doesn't have to names of his support because it's none of our business, but I say it IS our business. In an election of this magnitude and importance, it is absolutely vital for the American people (and the world) to know who is supporting who. I don't want to support a Republican or Democrat that has the funding and moral backing of a group like the KKK or ACLU (who defend the monsters in NAMBLA).
So in summation:
Full disclosure by politicians is necessary, and with that said, John Kerry has given me yet again, one more reason not to trust him or believe anything he says.
Have a good day!
-Brad
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
clubthaseals's journal
