Going It Alone, huh?

Stupid Liberal Distortion:
George Bush has a “go it alone” foreign policy in Iraq. We have a phony coalition.

Snappy Patriotic Reality:
President Bush built a solid wartime coalition against Saddam Husayn: the UK, Poland, and Australia fought with us. Dozens of Middle East, Asian and European allies allowed US ships, aircraft and support units to operate from their territories against Saddam’s Iraq. In the real world – not John Kerry’s world – this counts as crucial support. We can’t fight effectively in Iraq or Afghanistan without access to foreign bases, airspace, or sometimes cooperative aid arrangements.

Moreover, listening to liberal lies, most Americans don’t know that NATO forces were deployed to protect Turkey and Kuwait during the Iraq war. While these units did not fight with us in Iraq, they helped to protect the bases from which we and our allies launched our operations.

Multinational naval forces also continued to patrol the waters of the Persian Gulf with the US Navy, yet another defensive contribution to the overall Iraq war effort.

If we’re so alone in Iraq, who are all these foreign workers and soldiers being kidnapped and killed by terrorists?

President Bush brought the UN back into Iraq IMMEDIATELY after the war ended in May 2003. The UN re-established a headquarters, but in August 2003 terrorists bombed the building. The UN – which John Kerry relies on so much – turned tail and ran. A UN investigation blamed itself – not the US – for faulty security.

This year, the US asked two special UN teams to establish a presence in Iraq to help establish a transitional government and plan for elections next year. This was accomplished.

President Bush led the way in garnering UN support by successfully passing several UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) on Iraq, including UNSCR 1511 which endorsed the US-led multinational forces currently in Iraq and UNSCR 1441 which authorized the use of force if Saddam did not disarm. Not quite how John Kerry tells it, is it?

There are troops from about 30 countries helping us in Iraq today.

These include the first ever overseas deployment of Japanese combat forces since World War II and the first deployment of South Korean troops bolstering US policy outside of Asia – two major accomplishments by President Bush that will aid us in future multilateral operations.

NATO provides logistics and other support for the Polish multilateral command in Iraq today.

NATO is now providing training for Iraqi forces along with Jordan and the UAE. NATO would have started sooner but the French blocked our efforts for months.

At least 17 countries were part of the former US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq

Kuwait has been providing free fuel for US forces in the region.

Some 70 nations and international organizations attended the October 2003 donors conference organized by President Bush's team, pledging tens of billions of dollars for Iraqi aid and reconstruction.

LIBERALS CAN'T HELP BUT LIE ABOUT WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS DOING ABROAD, AND WHAT WE'VE ACHIEVED SINCE 9-11. What the liberals really hate is that President Bush has backbone and promised that in the post 9-11 world, as our President, he reserves the RIGHT to preemptively strike enemies who threaten to attack our homeland, our citizens, our vital strategic interests abroad, and our allies (See his West Point speech, June 2002). President Bush believes this is his most solemn duty.

This does not mean we are actually acting alone, as Kerry likes to claim. The facts above are proof. However, if we know another 9-11 is in the offing, President Bush will not wait for the UN to deliberate and decide while our enemies launch their attacks.

The American people have to vote this November. Do we want liberals running our military and intelligence abilities into the ground as they did in the 1990s? Do we want our President to protect us, but only on the say so of the UN and the French, as the liberals prefer? Must we meet a "global test" as John kerry stated? And who defines that test? Russia? France? Cuba?

Or do we reserve the right to act IF NECESSARY to strike first before thousands or perhaps millions of us are killed? Do we want a resolute President; one with backbone, or not?

Saddam's Links to Terrorism - and Al Qaeda

Stupid Liberal Distortion:
We found no evidence linking Saddam to terrorism – or no links to Al Qaeda.

Snappy Patriotic Reality:
Saddam had numerous high-level contacts with Al Qaeda. Saddam’s agents provided some training for Al Qaeda; for example, in document forgery. Moreover, Saddam and Bin Laden reached an understanding that Al Qaeda would not target Iraq as it had Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Morocco for example, as both had a common enemy in America.

The terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi ran a terror training camp in Afghanistan and was linked to Al Qaeda. He fled our forces there and set up his network in Iraq, where Saddam gave him shelter and medical treatment.

This is the same terrorist that has beheaded Americans and killed hundreds – mostly civilians – with car bombs since the war.

Before the Iraq war, Zarqawi plotted and directed the October 2002 assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan from his safe-haven in Saddam’s Iraq.

One wonders why Kerry and his liberal media allies, ignore this pre-war Saddam/Zarqawi-Al Qaeda linkage.

Saddam had an agent with a terrorist group training with poisons – including ricin and cyanide – in northern Iraq. Zarqawi was linked to that group. Saddam’s regime admitted to the UN it tested and manufactured ricin.

In January 2003, seven terrorists making ricin were arrested in London.

In February and March 2003, 10 terrorists apparently planning cyanide attacks were arrested in Italy. Others were arrested in France and Spain.

In late March 2003, President Bush put the terrorist’s poison lab in Iraq out of business by going to war against Saddam.

Iraqi agents attempted to commit terrorist attacks in Europe and Asia during the first Gulf War but fortunately did not succeed. Saddam’s operatives, working from Iraqi embassies, continued to be involved with terrorist groups after the first Gulf War.

Saddam was paying suicide bombers attacking Israel. Americans were killed and wounded in several of those attacks.

Saddam had long supported the Abu Nidal Organization, the deadliest global terrorist group before the rise of Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Saddam sheltered ANO’s leader, who had killed Americans, until right before the war.

Saddam waged a campaign of assassination and terror bombings against UN personnel, relief workers, and foreign journalists in northern Iraq during the 1990s. Dozens were killed and wounded. The UN did nothing about it.

Saddam’s agents plotted to assassinate – by a car bomb - former President Bush and Kuwaiti leaders in 1993.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20124.pdf

- 9/11 commission report, chapter 2, pp. 61, 66

WMDs In Iraq

Stupid Liberal Distortion:
There was no WMD in Iraq.

Snappy Patriotic Reality:
We did not find the stockpiled weapons that France, Russia, Germany, the UN, the Clinton administration, AND President Bush believed Saddam had hidden.

We did find hidden laboratory equipment, documents, and biological organisms that Saddam could have used to make biological or chemical weapons in a few weeks or months.

We did find new missile programs that Saddam was pursuing, as well as whole factories dedicated to manufacturing banned missile fuels. We destroyed dozens of prohibited missiles, warheads, missile launchers, launch support vehicles, as well as hundreds of pieces of production and testing equipment.

We did find a handful of banned chemical artillery shells just in the last 4 months – and our troops may yet discover more among the millions of tons of ammunition hidden or scattered around Iraq by Saddam’s forces.

Because President Bush finally removed Saddam from power for 13 years of violating UN sanctions, we have captured many of Saddam’s scientists. They admitted to hiding banned equipment, documents and WMD activities from the UN. Under arrest, they are no longer able to work on weapons in secret.

We found tons of documents related to Saddam’s secret weapons purchases and programs – all of which he hidden from UN inspectors.

We also found evidence that Saddam’s regime destroyed documents and equipment in order to prevent us from discovering the full truth about his WMD programs. Thus, unfortunately, as he had done for 13 years against UN inspections, Saddam may have succeeded in hiding the truth one last time. Unfortunately, rather than holding a brutal dictator responsible, liberals would rather accuse our own President of lying to the world.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

North Korea

Stupid Liberal Distortion:
Clinton's bilateral engagement with North Korea -giving the dictatorship oil and aid it wanted - stopped its nuclear weapons programs. Because of Bush's policies, North Korea has nuclear weapons.

Snappy Patriotic Reality:
Publicly available US estimates show that the Clinton bilateral approach to North Korea which John Kerry claims he'll use was never 100% verifiable - i.e., all nuclear activity could not be tracked as Kerry asserted.

Such estimates show that North Korea probably had already assembled its first nuclear weapons around the time President Bush first took office. Obviously, that difficult and time consuming effort was on-going by North Korea even as Clinton bragged he had stopped its weapons program.

Why is it liberals are so much more comfortable lying about our own President than expressing outrage that a brutal, dangerous and unstable dictatorship would have lied to America in order to advance its nuclear weapons programs?

http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2001/ddci_speech_04172001.html

PM Allawi says to congress........

that there are three messages for America.

#1 is that Iraq and America are winning the war, and that he is very troubled by the negative coverage he sees by the media in America, it is absolutley not like that over there.

#2 thank you to America.

#3 talks about the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, and that they were not safe. Iraq is better off and world is better off and thank you again.

Surprisingly, this made the evening news.

Not surprisingly, it was tempered by John Kerry informing us it was all lies. Well, I guess he'd know (about lies, that is).

OK, everyone, let's see a show of hands. How many of you think Allawi's speech would be seen as evidence of success in Iraq during a Democratic administration?

How many more anti-American statements do you liberal morons need before you realize what a disaster it would be to elect John Kerry?

Open your eyes, and your ears!!!

FSU Rebounds

OK, maybe we can keep Rix around a bit longer. Providing, of course, we continue to keep getting great rushing totals, and play UAB every week.

Go Noles.

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

Perhaps those who are unable to understand the basic difference between the two might appreciate this simplistic but all too accurate comparison:

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20.00 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and took $20.00. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now perhaps you understand the difference.

Physicians vs. Gun Owners

Interesting...

Physicians:
a. The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services)

Now think about this:

Guns:
a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

(Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.)

Lance Armstrong

CNN is reporting that Lance Armstrong may be stripped of his 6th Tour de France title.

In a random check for banned substances, 3 were found in Armstrong's hotel room.

The 3 substances banned by the French that were found in his hotel room were as follows:

(1) Toothpaste
(2) Deodorant
(3) Soap

The French officials also found several other items which they had never seen before, including a testicle and a backbone...

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?

What with elections coming up, we should all decide.

Question:
How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans and Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or Oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:

BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click....(sounds of
reloading). BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips??"

I'm So Confused

Here's a set of thoughts comparing the overseas messes of the past decade or so and placing them in a somewhat clearer, but still confusing, light.

Let me see if I've got these straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jump suit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found in Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam in custody - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing!

Your Humble Blogger Is Back

Good news!! I'm finally back blogging again. I know you've missed me terribly.

I've had a busy month, so that's my excuse. The wife and I have been busy with home improvement projects: putting up a new utility shed, having an inground pool put in, and, most importantly, treating a sick kitty. Our beloved cat, Aja, fractured his hip somehow (he won't tell us what happened), and he had surgery last Wednesday. He's coming along nicely, helped tremendously by my wife, who's spoiling him rotten.

Anyway, I've got plenty of goodies to post, so stop in often.

rr

Ronald Reagan Passes Away

It's a sad day in America, as we've lost a great man: former President Ronald Reagan.

The 40th President, he was often thought of as the face of the new Conservative. To paraphrase Ted Kennedy, in his eulogy to his slain brother Robert in 1968: Ronald Reagan need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. His legacy needs no enlargement: The ending of the Cold War, restoring faith in the United States, re-establishing the United States as the superpower it remains to this day, turning around a moribund economy, and other accomplishments to numerous to mention.

I'd like to offer my condolences to his family. They'll be in my prayers, and I hope they'll be in yours.

rr

The Three Stooges (the Next Generation)

Say hello to the Law Firm of Dickum, Dunkum, and Taxum. Click on the image for the full-size version.

Those Mean, Nasty Republican Attack Dogs

It never ceases to amaze me. Liberals attack the President with the vitriol normally reserved for child molesters, and they see nothing wrong with it. And in almost every case, their comments are treated by the mainstream media as the gospel truth.

However, if a Conservative responds to these attacks, they're called "Republican Attack Dogs" or "Mean-Spirited" by liberals and the media, and they fail to see their idiotic double standard. And let's not forget two of the other liberal mantras: "I'm only exercising my First Amendment rights", and "I'm being accused of being unpatriotic by voicing my opposition to the President". It would appear only Liberals have First Amendment rights; an opinion in support of this administration and against the liberal bilge water being thrown out (and up) equals a partisan attack and nothing more.

Case in point: Check out this Editorial from the May 23rd St. Petersburg Times. This typical liberal garbage was spewed forth by Philip Gailey, the paper's Editor of Editorials. The first sentence tells you all you need to know about his liberal bias. (Emphasis added by your humble blog author.)

Partisan War of Words Rages in Washington

It takes courage to speak the truth in Washington these days. Just ask House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a critic of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, or Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who refuses to go along with another round of Bush tax cuts. Both were set upon last week by rabid Republican attack dogs who questioned Pelosi's patriotism and insulted McCain's heroic military service to his country.

If you've got the stomach for it, Click Here to read the rest of this drivel.

Armed Forces Day

"The heritage of freedom must be guarded as carefully in peace as it was in war. Faith, not suspicion, must be the key to our relationships. Sacrifice, not selfishness, must be the eternal price of liberty. Vigilance, not appeasement, is the byword of living freedoms." --General Omar N. Bradley, Armed Forced Day, 1950.

Saturday, 15 May, is Armed Forces Day -- that day first set aside in 1949 by President Harry Truman to recognize the unification of the Armed Forces under the Department of Defense and to acknowledge the extraordinary dedication of Americans in uniform standing
ready in harm's way at home and around the world. In the words of President Dwight Eisenhower, "It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world." To all our fellow Patriots in uniform, we offer our heartfelt gratitude for your sacrifice and prayers for your safety.

Please take a moment to thank our men and women in uniform! Sign an Open Letter in Support of America's Armed Forces. Link to --

http://PatriotPetitions.US/USMIL

(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to:
sign-USMIL@PatriotPetitions.US

Comments, Anyone?

I've just enabled comments, so I'm curious to see how they work.

rr

Where's Black Jack Pershing When We Need Him?

I haven't heard any Iraqi officials apologizing for killing Americans and dragging them through the streets and burning them and then hanging them from bridges.

Who thinks Black Jack Pershing had the right idea? Click on the image for the full-size version.

Forgive Us Father, For We Have Sinned

All I can say to this is Amen. This column was written by Bobby Eberle, President and CEO of GOPUSA, a news, information, and commentary company. I only wish I could express it as well as he.

rr

This past week was the week of apologies. Since the pictures were first aired showing abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Arab nations have been expressing outrage, and those in the media have been clamoring for anyone in the Bush administration to wear sack cloth and beg forgiveness. Despite the fact that Middle East experts, time and time again, have gone on radio and television programs and explained that citizens of the Arab states, and especially individuals of radical, Islamic terrorist groups, see these apologies as signs of weakness, the media elite continue to demand apologies whenever situations go awry. These apologies do little to ease feelings in the Middle East and lead to anger back home, especially when the words "I'm sorry" seem drawn out by a forced hand.

Click here to read the full column.

Can You Say Hypocrite?

Let me get this straight. Thousands of people in Istanbul today were protesting our treatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's certainly wrong for our military to mistreat any prisoners, I don't remember any protest marches happening when Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. Or when our people were killed and dragged through the streets. Give me a f***ing break!

rr