Mood:  chatty

Thoughts on the mid-term election

Conservatives are disappointed but not devastated or disheartened, and you certainly won’t witness a nuclear meltdown by Republicans similar to the one thrown by the unhinged Democrats after the 2000 and 2004 elections. No mass rushing to psychologists for "Post Emection Selection Trauma" treatment, we're not threatening to move to Australia, and unlike Michael Moore in 2004, we're not staying in bed for three days in a catatonic state. By the way, it's also interesting there's a sudden absence of "voter disinfranchisement" and "widespread voter fraud" this time -- the difference? WMD... Whiney Miserable Demented-crats won.

Kerry, Pelosi, Durbin, and Reid will have unfettered access to the podium for the next 2 years; to spew anti American and anti-military rhetoric, coupled with conciliatory practices toward Islamofascists and a fondness for illegal aliens.

Pelosi’s wet dream of ‘investigating’ President Bush over the decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan will succeed like a snowball in hell, but that won’t deter the circus of Democrats from using every available moment to extort visceral hatred and doing as much damage to this country as possible.

This particular crop of Democrats are some of the most mentally and emotionally unstable politicians, ever. Once known as the ‘loyal opposition’, they have morphed into a gang of disloyal collaborators. Their distain for George W. Bush and the war against Islamic despots overrides any possibility of a unified, bi-partisan effort for the defense of the United States.

Domestically, they are elitist poofs who manipulate the unionized working class, the poor, and minorities into believing that in spite of the stark contrast between their lifestyles and their constituents', they really care. (wink,wink)

Now that the children will be running amok in our government and the world stage, we shall see how the “cut and run” strategy, sympathy for terrorists, and lax attitude toward illegals and national security pans out. The upshot is that many socially conservative issues such as tougher illegal immigration laws have passed in several states.

Congratulations to Chavez, Amadinijhad, Bin Laden, the gaggle of European and Canadian radicals, and leftwing Democrats. You received (temporary) advantage, and unfortunately, it will be inflicted on the rest of the country.

The consolation: The moonbats are in the bull’s eye now, and target practice will be a lot of fun.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:27 PM EST

Updated: Thursday, 9 November 2006 3:40 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Demented-crats, They know the way

Time to look at the bright side of democrat victory. Look how great the world will be when they fulfill the promises they have made.

Why just this morning NPR reported EUROPE likes us again because the democrats won. I don’t know about you but that was the most important thing in the whole world. Now we’ll have Europe backing us up and taking care of the tough issues of Iran, North Korea, and worldwide terrorism. What am I thinking. Those won’t exist anymore because now Iran, North Korea, and terrorists will now like us too.

Christopher Reeves will be resurrected and be running marathons soon thanks to democrat research in to embryonic stem cell. Right now Pelosi is passing out microscopes and lab coats to her colleagues.

Fighting between Sunni and Shia will be eliminated with intensive conflict resolution group therapy sessions. Centuries old conflicts are no match for liberal conflict resolution.

NO ONE will have to work ever again. By repealing Bush’s tax cuts and ending the war on terror, federal checks will be guaranteed for all but greedy CEOs. All other expenses will be paid by the money taken from corporate profits now known as a profit tax. Any profit above Pelosi approved margins of say .05% will be redirected to fund the “you can’t do it but democrats can for you” new direction programs.

Global warming will no longer exist. Studies directed and led by Pelosi will discover that thanks to new democrat initiatives global warming is no longer a threat.

The military will be transformed in to the Peace Services led by the newly created department of peace led by Saint Sheehan. Soldiers, sailors Marines, and airmen will be re-educated in intensive conflict resolution (but there won’t be any conflict), baking, recycling sorting, and knitting. Useless arms will be recycled to build bridges across the Rio Grande.

And at long last a final solution will be implemented for the Israel problem. Because of our bewildering constant support of the imperial Zionist regime no one likes us. But with a new direction for America Israel will be swept in to the sea and everyone will love us again.

America’s “Can Do” spirit will be replaced with “It’s Bush’s fault” thus eliminating the uncomfortable condition known as responsibility.

What wonderful programs and initiatives do you see on the horizon.

I just heard that oil is up over a dollar a barrel today. Natural gas is up as well. My guess would be that fear of the democrats destabilizing the mideast even further is causing concern among traders. Onward and wayward.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:03 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Conservatism did not lose

By Michelle Malkin -- Nov. 08, 2006 02:40 AM

I'm hanging it up for the night, er, morning. Unlike Michael Moore in 2004, however, I will not be staying in bed for three days in a catatonic state. I will not need PEST shock therapy. I will not move to Australia.

A moonbat reader e-mailed a taunt earlier this evening:

How's it feel to be a Loser, Loser?

The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed. "San Francisco values" may control the gavels in Congress, but they do not control America. Property rights initiatives limiting eminent domain won big. MCRI, the anti-racial preference measure, passed resoundingly. Congressman Tom Tancredo, the GOP's leading warrior against illegal immigration--opposed by both the open-borders Left and the open-borders White House--won a fifth term handily. Gay marriage bans won approval in 3 states. And as of this writing, the oil tax initiative, Prop. 87--backed by deep-pocketed Hollywood libs, is trailing badly in California.

John Kerry's late-campaign troop smear galvanized bloggers and talk radio hosts, but it was not strong enough to overcome wider bipartisan voter doubts about Iraq. I'll weigh in further on the war and the GOP in the morning. For now, I am relinking to two columns by Washington Times writer Diana West that you should read in full and digest:

What President should say to us (part I).
Fighting sharia.

Michelle Malkin.com ** Conservatism did not lose

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 4:40 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 8 November 2006 4:48 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

WaPo Shocker: ‘Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results’

By Noel Sheppard

This certainly wasn’t something I expected to see published just hours before a crucial election, but there it was in Monday’s Washington Post (hat tip to Patterico), “Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results.” Granted, Josh White’s fabulous piece got relegated to page A13. But, let’s not look a gift-horse in the mouth (emphasis mine throughout):

For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

The article marvelously continued:

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

And then quoted some of our soldiers in Iraq:

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

White even addressed the political ramifications, and how soldiers and officers disagree with the Democrat view:

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

The article also depicted conditions that defy conventional wisdom:

Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

And one truism that every American should consider this Election Day:

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

The piece concluded with some very powerful opinions from our brave men:

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

Bravo, White and WaPo. This was a gutsy move the day before Election Day.

News Busters ~ Noel Sheppard ** WaPo Shocker: ‘Soldiers in Iraq Say Pullout Would Have Devastating Results’
Noel Sheppard's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories: 2006 Congressional | Iraq | Washington Post

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:10 PM EST

Updated: Monday, 6 November 2006 6:18 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America

JERUSALEM -- Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. -- including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

World Net Daily ~ Aaron Klein ** Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 6:55 PM EST

Updated: Thursday, 2 November 2006 7:24 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Republicans Outnumber Democrats Online, According to Nielsen//NetRatings

"Moderate" Is the Most Common Political Leaning Among Web Users

NEW YORK, NY -- Nielsen//NetRatings (NASDAQ: NTRT), a global leader in Internet media and market research, announced today that 36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents. With campaign Web sites becoming increasingly important to reaching the electorate, candidates need to keep their fingers on the political pulse of the Internet.

The Web site with the highest concentration of Republicans was RushLimbaugh.com, with an 84.8 percent Republican audience (see Table 1). NewsMax.com and Bill O'Reilly.com ranked No. 2 and 3, with audiences that were 65.4 percent Republican. The Drudge Report and Salt Lake Tribune rounded out the top five Republican sites with 59.0 and 57.9 composition percent.

Among Democrats, the top three sites were BlackAmericaWeb.com, AOL BlackVoices and BET.com with audiences that were 79.9 percent, 64.8 percent and 58.6 percent Democratic, respectively. Salon.com and Village Voice ranked fourth and fifth among Democrats, with 55.3 and 55.2 composition percent.

"The fact that the online population is more heavily composed of Republicans than Democrats is principally a function of the Republican party's higher composition within the overall electorate," said Nielsen//NetRatings analyst Ken Cassar. "This is exacerbated by the fact that online penetration continues to be deeper among affluent households, which have historically skewed Republican," he continued.

Table 1: Top 5 Sites among Republicans and Democrats (U.S., 18+ Online Population)

Source: Nielsen//NetRatings @Plan, Fall 2006 Release

Newspaper of Choice

Political party members also have distinct tastes in online newspapers. WSJ.com has predominantly Republican readers, at 40.2 percent. Democrats make up 25.8 percent of WSJ.com's readership, closely followed by Independents at 24.3 percent.

The New York Times online is a favorite among Democrats, who make up 52.3 percent of its readership. Independents compose 22.6 percent and Republicans 18.3 percent.

Political Leaning

When respondents were asked about their political leaning, the largest segment, 36.1 percent, identified themselves as "Moderate." The second largest segment, 32.5 percent, identified themselves as "Conservative/Very Conservative," while 19.8 percent of respondents identified themselves as "Liberal/Very Liberal."

Demographics

Perhaps contrary to assumptions about who's a Democrat and who's a Republican, neither party seemed to favor a particular gender or age group. Among racial groups, African Americans skewed Democratic; with a composition index of 231, they were over twice as likely to be Democratic as the average Web user. Asians were 36 percent more likely than the average Web user to be Democratic, and Hispanics were 28 percent more likely. White people were slightly more likely to be Republican.

About Nielsen//NetRatings

NetRatings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRT) delivers leading Internet media and market research solutions, marketed globally under the Nielsen//NetRatings brand. With high quality, technology-driven products and services, Nielsen//NetRatings is the global standard for Internet audience measurement and premier source for online advertising intelligence, enabling clients to make informed business decisions regarding their Internet and digital strategies. The Nielsen//NetRatings portfolio includes panel-based and site-centric Internet audience measurement services, online advertising intelligence, user lifestyle and demographic data, e-commerce and transaction metrics, and custom data, research and analysis. For more information, please visit www.nielsen-netratings.com.

Market Wire ** Republicans Outnumber Democrats Online, According to Nielsen//NetRatings

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:28 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

China, U.S., N. Korea agree to resume 6-way talks soon

(Kyodo) -- (EDS: UPDATING WITH COMMENTS BY U.S. HEAD DELEGATE)

China, the United States and North Korea agreed in talks Tuesday to resume the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs "at a convenient time in the near future" after a break of almost a year, a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said.

Christopher Hill, U.S. head delegate to the six-party talks, told reporters after meeting with his Chinese and North Korean counterparts that while the precise date needs to be agreed by all six parties, he believes it will be "in November, or possibly in December."

The announcement was made after a series of meetings in the Chinese capital among Hill, who is U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan on the same day.

Hill said North Korea did not attach any conditions for returning to the talks, but added the United States agreed to set up a mechanism for addressing Pyongyang's main complaint -- financial sanctions imposed on entities suspected of laundering money and counterfeiting for North Korea.

"We agreed we will find a mechanism within the six-party process to address these financial measures, that there would probably be some kind of a working group to deal with this," he said.

North Korea had refused to return to the talks, saying it will not do so unless the United States lifted the sanctions, especially those imposed on a Macao-based bank since September 2005.

Hill also said North Korea reaffirmed its commitment to a joint statement issued in September 2005 by six nations, in which it had said it would abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for diplomatic and economic benefits.

"We all reaffirmed, including the DPRK delegation, our commitment to the September statement and to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," he said.

DPRK is the acronym of North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

While the six parties -- which include South Korea, Japan and Russia -- met again in November 2005, the talks have been not been held since then.

Defying international warnings, North Korea test-fired missiles in July and carried out its first nuclear test on Oct. 9, prompting the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution on Oct. 14 to impose financial and arms sanctions on Pyongyang.

Hill said Washington does not accept North Korea as a nuclear state.

"I made very clear that the United States does not accept the DPRK as a nuclear state, and neither does China, and neither does most anyone else," he said.

As for the possibility of another nuclear test by North Korea, Hill said, "I think that obviously to go ahead and have another nuclear test would be entirely inconsistent with the meetings we just had, so I think it's self-evident that they should not engage in these kinds of provocations," he said.

Earlier Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters, "We believe that restarting the six-party talks itself could bring about a new start in the Korean Peninsula situation, could become a factor that could relax the Korean Peninsula situation."

Breitbart.com ~ Kyodo ** China, U.S., N. Korea agree to resume 6-way talks soon

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 10:35 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Message to Bin Laden: Al Qaida has begun 'to behave strangely'

An Iraqi Jihadist leader last week called on Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden to "disown" the Al Qaida group in Iraq because of its practice of killing Muslim leaders and teachers.

"The organization in Iraq has deviated in the full sense of the word from your principles," Abu Usamah al Iraqi stated in a message posted on a Jihadist website. "It completely ignored your words and the words of the Mujaheed Shaykh Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, may God protect over him, and Shaykh Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdisi."

After it aligned with Al Qaida, the group functioned well but then "the organization suddenly, and in a weird manner, began to behave strangely," the posting stated. Abu Ayoub Al Masri, is head of the Al Qaida network in Iraq.

The statement went on to complain that Al Qaida in Iraq terrorists were blowing up houses, schools, hospitals and electric generators.

The group also seized funds from public service personnel and terrorized worshippers in mosques, "killing scores of imams and preachers."

The statement also said Jihadists remain silent on the actions.

"You either disown the organization's branch in Iraq while we, your sons, will not fall short from leading the war and jihad in Iraq or you would remain silent," the posting said. "If this would be the case, then don't expect us to remain on good terms with them or to remain silent because the money and blood of Muslims in Iraq is the responsibility of every Mujaheed. We shall make them our harvest and we shall humiliate their noble ones. You hold the keys to the lock of sedition. You either close it or open it. We are people endued with great might. The Mujaheed tribes -- we don't say the collaborating tribes -- support us, waiting ..."

World Tribune.com ** Message to Bin Laden: Al Qaida has begun 'to behave strangely'

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

House Defense chair asks Pentagon to remove embedded CNN reporters

SAN DIEGO -- The chair of the House Armed Services Committee asked the Pentagon today to remove CNN reporters embedded with US combat units.

The network televised portions of a video on Wednesday showing insurgent snipers targeting US military personnel.

Executives said the tape came to the network unexpectedly through contact with an insurgent leader.

Representative Duncan Hunter wrote in his letter that, quote, "CNN has now served as the publicist for an enemy propaganda film featuring the killing of an American soldier."

San Diego-area Republicans Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray also signed the letter.

CNN executives defended their decision to air the footage, saying its news value outweighed other concerns.

KESQ - ABC News Channel 3 ~ Associated Press ** House Defense chair asks Pentagon to remove embedded CNN reporters

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Bush the New Churchill, What Would World Be Like With Saddam?

Back in 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany. His elevation was accomplished, not by military coup, but by what passed for democratic procedures in the Weimar Republic. The "civilized world" was war weary, after the horrific slaughter of WW I, and looked for excuses not to invade. Those excuses were not hard to find.

First, the excuse was that "power would make him responsible". His re-armament, and occupation of the Rhineland, as well as his massacre of the "Brown Shirts" that initially supported him on June 30, 1934 made short work of that argument. The Ruhr Valley was re-occupied, with not a peep. Winston Churchill, one of the lone voices in the wilderness, was considered an out-of-touch crank, much the way many are now considering GWB.

As we all know, things got worse; far worse. Austria, Hitler's native land, was occupied in the "Anschluss". In March 1938 the Germans were handed the Sudenland. They took the rest of Czechoslavakia, really the only democracy in the area, in September 1938. Again, excuses, but no action, from the civilized countries.

On November 9-10, 1938, the Germans perpetrated the horrific "Christallnacht", which, in retrospect, was the start of the Holocaust. Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were smashed to bits. The victims were only Jews; the world could live with that. On September 1, 1939, Germany attacked Poland, on the pretext that Poland attacked a German radio station. While Britain and France declared war, in practice they did almost nothing.

The Germans rapidly overwhelmed Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark. Norway, being geographically remote, took a bit longer. Had not the Germans turned on their erstwhile allies, the USSR, who knows if we'd still be living under civilized government? The loss of life in WW II, again, was horrific. The West, again, had over five (5) years notice of what was to come. Hitler told us his plans himself.

Now, fast forward to 2001. Saddam Hussein had, since taking power in the 1970's (I remember him running things long before his official naming to the top positions of Ba'ath Party leader in 1978 or 1979) been making bellicose pronouncements. From all appearances, he was arming fast. Did Israel destroy a "peaceful" reactor as Osirik in 1981? Was Bush to take the chance that Saddam was just trying to be funny? Should we take that chance with Iran's President? With North Korea?

Maybe it is true that Iraq is drowning in sectarian violence. Would we be better off with Saddam paying families to homicide bomb in Israel? Or maybe carry out his lurid threats against the West? I, for one, don't think so.

Now, Saddam's been deposed. Do the left-wing posters, who argue idiotically, that Somalia or Sudan was the right venue to fight in, or maybe Burundi or Rwanda, wish to see what would have happened had Saddam been left to his intentions and devices?

I myself think that while we will never learn what Saddam would have done, we are better off from not having found out.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:30 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink