Mood:  loud

Sexually Disorienting Kindergarteners

Taking the culture war ever closer to the cradle, moonbats are now targeting 4-year-olds for sexual disorientation.

At the Park Day and Aurora private elementary schools in Oakland, allowances are made for incoming kindergarteners who don't "fit on either side of the gender line." At Park Day, a girl has been enrolled as a boy, and a "consultant" has been hired who worries that girls might become scarred by being forced to dress like girls. At Aurora, a clinical psychologist conducts staff training on how to nurture personality disorders in "gender fluid" children.

Apparently encouraging "gender variance" in kids too young to take the training wheels off their bicycles is all the rage in the Bay Area. Marci Riseman of San Francisco boasts of a 4-year-old son who likes pink dresses and wears a tutu to ballet class. Come back in 14 years and you will meet a very troubled young man who probably won't be voting Republican.

The Traditional Values Coalition refers to these efforts to indoctrinate little kids with sexual moonbattery as "normalizing the abnormal." Its executive director Andrea Lafferty zeroes in on the self-hatred that can be found at the root of all things liberal:

If you talk to your typical person across America, they would be appalled. [...] To teach a child at an early age self-hatred, and that's what this gender variance is, is very sad.

It's an open question whether "gender variance" advocates are only encouraging psychopathology, or actively creating it. As V the K asks:

What do you bet those confused little crumb-crunchers are just reflecting their parents' neuroses, or that "progressive" parents are encouraging little Emily to wear flannel and a toolbelt and little Berkeley to wear dresses and buttless leather chaps?

Whether they are planting the seeds of neurosis and depravity or just providing fertilizer, the gender variance crowd knows what it wants: future generations shaped in its own grotesque image.

Helping children to turn out like this. >>>>>

Moonbattery.com ~ Van Helsing ** Sexually Disorienting Kindergarteners

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  quizzical

A good friend of mine sent me this, I had to pass it on...

Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southerner?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

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, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal 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 paint and weed day and make this 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!

Southerner'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 or Hollow Points?"
Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"
Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 5:20 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 5:25 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Doctor shortage to increase by 2015
without foreign-trained physicians: study

CALGARY -- A new study by the Fraser Institute says the number of doctors per capita will drop over the next decade unless Canada relies on foreign-trained physicians.

The study released in Calgary says government restrictions on education and training have caused the problem, which will only get worse between now and 2015.

The study urges governments to allow more qualified Canadian students access to medical training to ease the reliance on foreign doctors.

The doctor shortage has grown in recent years after provincial governments in the 1980s cut back the number of people allowed into medical school.

The Fraser Institute concludes that Canada's reliance on foreign- trained doctors is forcing poorer countries, such as South Africa and India, to make do with fewer physicians.

Breitbart.com ~ Canadian Press ** Doctor shortage to increase by 2015 without foreign-trained physicians: study

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:29 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 3:36 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Huffington Post, Steve Young,
Liberal Talk Radio

MORE EXCUSES

To Explain Libtalk's Failure,
'Progressives' Blame Network

Coming this time from a Huffington Post contributor, a fresh batch of excuses for Air America Radio's failure to succeed has now emerged.

We've recently been following this emerging trend and expect to see a great deal more of it in coming weeks. That's because a lot is on the line for the left, since Air America was widely touted as the network that could success- fully take on conservative talk's biggest stars.

Of course, asserts Steve Young, it couldn't be that the public simply doesn't want liberal talk radio. Instead, Air America's management and air talent should share the blame, he says.

But that conveniently leaves out the significant number of lefties who have tried and failed at syndicated talk radio, years before Air America even came into being: Jerry Brown, Alan Dershowitz, Mario Cuomo, Bernie Ward and many others come to mind.

Young is an author and television writer who apparently hosted his own program on Air America's low- rated Los Angeles affiliate KTLK-AM at one point.

By simply parroting conservative radio's on- air tactics, he claims, so- called "progressive" listeners have found Air America's programming insulting, rather than entertaining.

One problem: can Young give us some idea of exactly where the network's hosts have copied the styles of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? To your Radio Equalizer, the programming resembles NPR far more than that of KFI or WABC.

And, in a real attempt to give his piece credibility, Young disarmingly starts off by "agreeing" with Bill O'Reilly:

If you listen to Bill O'Reilly, liberal talk radio, especially in the guise of Air America, is on the ropes. Has no idea what it's doing. An utter failure. Ready to go under.

If you've ever read anything I've written, even my children's novels, I don't believe I've ever agreed with anything O'Reilly has said or written...till now.

Bill may have a point.

No, liberal talk is not ready to go under, though if they don't reassess their approach soon, finding a signal strong enough to hear a broadcast past the stations's parking lot may soon be in the offing.

And in backing the erratic, Courtney Love-esque Randi Rhodes, Young quickly loses credibility:

The only successful one who doesn't do it with comedy is Air America's Randi Rhodes, but Rhodes is so well-read and radio-hardened, that her arguments far surpass the bloviator test. Simply, she doesn't bullshit her audience.

Steve, get real: Randi has a team of writers to keep her "well- read", yet she still can't seem to maintain her train of thought through an entire point. Franken's performance, however, does not seem to warrant the same praise, according to Young.

And after making many excuses for the network's weak performance, he does appear to hold out a slight bit of hope for Air America:

Let's hope that Air America changes will bring on those who know how to be smart and funny on the radio. There are those in waiting that might be ready to step in. I mean, besides me.

There's plenty of comedy talent out there, but satire isn't enough. A sense of how you come across on radio is needed too. Funny can't be taught. Radio comes with experience. Air America, as well as local stations need to bring on the funny people and show them how radio can work for them. At the same time, programmers and station managers must be willing to learn all talk radio is not the same, least of all, liberal talk. It doesn't mean there is no room for serious discussion, or partisan cheerleading, but let's give the liberal audience some credit for being more than pablum munchers. If we don't they soon won't care what you're serving up. They won't be there to listen.

This is actually a common mistake in the radio industry: the perception that conservative talk radio succeeds because it makes its listeners laugh. Actually, it's more about an energetic and entertaining delivery, combined with a compelling sense of what matters to the listenership. Liberal hosts can't seem to put together these crucial elements.

Here, Young falls off the edge of a cliff. How could "progressives" have such a strange view of themselves?

Liberal listeners don't want an ideological hole drilled into their skulls. They just aren't angry enough to buy that. They're political weakness is they're willingness to be analytical. Being analytical necessitates taking both sides into account.

Right wing radio's success comes from angrily demonizing the other side as completely utterly uneffective. Liberal radio needs to be far more innovative to draw their audience.

Since so- called "progressives" aren't about to admit that their viewpoints are unpopular with the public, we'll watch to see how clever the excuses for libtalk's failure become in the weeks and months ahead.

The Radio Equalizer ~ Brian Maloney ** More Excuses To Explain Libtalk's Failure

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 2:53 PM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 3:01 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  silly

Hmmm.... another Dem caught by the stains.....
How long 'til Bush gets blamed for this?

State senator found guilty
Lawmaker from Queens convicted of throwing coffee in aide's face

By Carol DeMare, Staff writer --
Click byline for more stories by writer.

ALBANY -- A city judge found a state senator guilty Friday of throwing coffee in an aide's face earlier this year and ordered the lawmaker to pay a $250 fine and take anger-management classes.

Sen. Ada L. Smith, a Queens Democrat, was convicted of second-degree harassment, a violation, in a nonjury trial at which the victim testified about the March 21 incident that forced her to quit her job as a legislative aide after only a month.

City Court Judge William A. Carter deliberated briefly following the three-hour proceeding at which Jennifer Jackson detailed how she made what she felt was a friendly remark that angered Smith and led to the coffee throwing.

Smith maintained her innocence. After hearing the verdict, the senator choked back tears and told the judge, "I still pledge to you this never happened. Never in my life have I intentionally hurt anyone."

While Carter could have imposed jail time -- up to 15 days -- he said it wasn't called for in light of Smith's lack of a criminal history and service to the community.

In addition to the fine, which was the maximum, and the anger-management course that he suggested she take near her home in Queens, the judge also ordered restitution for any unpaid medical bills incurred by Jackson. He signed an order of protection to keep Smith from having any contact with Jackson.

Assistant District Attorneys Linda Griggs and Mark Harris of the Public Integrity Unit prosecuted the case. Griggs made no recommendation on sentencing and said she would check whether there were any unpaid medical expenses.

Defense attorney James Long said he believed the state picked up Jackson's medical bills. He also asked the court to give him 30 days to consider an appeal.

Jackson testified Smith had "started becoming verbally abusive" at work. Yet, she said, "my main objective was to make sure the senator was happy."

Testimony revealed that on March 21, she got to work at 8 a.m. When Smith arrived about 9:15 a.m., the senator excitedly told Claude Nelson, her chief of staff, that she had lost 4.3 pounds at Weight Watchers. Jackson chimed in, with what she intended as a light-hearted comment, telling the senator that with her busy schedule, "I thought you would have lost 20 pounds."

She said Smith walked toward her, threw coffee she was holding at her, and "she told me to keep my 'effing' mouth shut."

Jackson then looked at the judge and asked him if he knew what she meant. Carter said he did, bringing chuckles from spectators in the full courtroom.

Jackson recalled how the coffee splashed in her face and stained her jacket, blouse and underwear while Griggs held up the garments as evidence.

"I said, 'God bless you.' You can't do this. You have to treat us like human beings,' " Jackson testified.

She said Smith pulled off her pony-tailed hairpiece, which Griggs also showed the judge.

Smith then threatened her, "If you tell anybody, I promise, I'll kill you," and, Jackson said, all she wanted to do was get out of the office.

Before leaving the Legislative Office Building, Jackson said, her last words to Smith were, "If I offended you in any kind of way, I'm sorry. But you have to learn how to treat people."

As she repeated the words in the courtroom, she glanced at her former boss seated at the defense table.

Jackson said she called her husband to come and pick her up and later contacted Albany police. From her home she went in an ambulance to St. Peter's Hospital emergency room where she had X-rays and was prescribed pain killers, ointment for her eyes and other medication.

Under questioning by Griggs, Jackson said she suffered a pinched nerve that affects her neck down to her shoulders from the hairpiece being yanked off. She said she was depressed, lost confidence and didn't feel comfortable around people following the incident.

Smith was initially charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor. It was reduced to harassment because the severity of the injuries didn't warrant the more serious charge.

In an attempt to discredit Jackson, Long had her acknowledge on cross-examination her intent to sue Senate Democratic Minority Leader David Paterson, Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and the state over the incident. Long also noted that several years ago, Jackson received a settlement from a lawsuit she filed against a Brooklyn business where she suffered a twisted ankle.

As his key defense witness, Long called Nelson, who testified that the coffee incident never happened. He said Smith didn't have coffee in her hand that day.

"She did not throw anything," he said.

When Jackson chimed in with the weight-loss remark, Smith told her she should pay more attention to her work, Nelson testified.

Griggs questioned Nelson about his loyalty to Smith and suggested if he testified to something his boss didn't like, it could cost him his job.

"I don't lie," Nelson said.

In her closing remarks, Griggs said, "Jennifer Jackson's credibility is stellar compared to Claude Nelson's."

In a statement before sentencing, Jackson said, "The only reason I did what I did" was to hold Smith accountable for the way she treated people.

"She is an example of success in society," Jackson continued. "People look up to her, and she should embrace those who come into contact with her and give them her wisdom."

DeMare can be reached at 454-5431 or by e-mail at cdemare@timesunion.com.
Albany Times Union ~ Carol DeMare ** State senator found guilty

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 2:28 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  caffeinated

By Tim O'Brien, Staff writer -- Click byline for more stories by writer.

U.S. Rep. John Sweeney brought in a legal big gun to aid his effort to blast two political ads off the airwaves.

Attorney E. Stewart Jones Jr. fired off a letter to local TV stations Thursday, asking them to remove the ads from MoveOn.org. The ads depict Sweeney with his hand tinted red and claim he's been "caught red-handed" accepting donations from defense contractors.

"The MoveOn.org advertisement is demonstrably false, irresponsibly misleading and clearly defamatory," Jones wrote to the stations.

"I know that you are well aware that as an FCC licensee you have an obligation to exercise your independent editorial judgment and refuse to air such deliberately false statements. You also have a duty to avoid being a party to libelous, reckless, wanton or negligent character assassination and defamation of any individual, public or private, including (a) congressman."

Sweeney is running for re-election in the 20th Congressional District against Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand. MoveOn.org, a liberal organization known for targeting Republicans, is paying for the ads.

Earlier this week, Sweeney's campaign mailed a similar letter. The Republican National Congressional Committee also protested the ads, one of which says Sweeney supported hiring Halliburton as a contractor and approved $8.8 billion unaccounted for in Iraq. The missing funds were from Iraqi oil revenue, his staff has said, and Congress does not vote to hire individual contractors.

Sweeney voted to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to investigate contractor fraud in Iraq, Jones wrote.

Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington, D.C., director, said the letter is meant to intimidate stations.

"It looked like a cookie-cutter letter the Republicans have sent to stations all over the country," he said. "Every place we place ads, it doesn't matter what it says, they send out nasty letters with big words trying to use the clout of the congressman."

Jones' letter stops short of saying legal action would be taken if the ads continue to run.

"It's certainly in discussion," the attorney said. "The question is would the action be directed at MoveOn.org or with the media outlets?"

Since the ad is running in other congressional districts, Jones said, legal actions may be taken against MoveOn.org nationally.

Steve Baboulis, vice president and general manager for WNYT, said he passed the letter along to the station's attorney.

"The ad he references in his letter is not the ad that is running," Baboulis added.

There are two "caught red-handed" ads, one of which depicts dump trucks unloading cash in Iraq. While Sweeney and the National Republican Congressional Committee have complained that ad is riddled with errors, the ad WNYT is airing targets Sweeney's acceptance of cash from defense contractors.

Both ads, however, use the "caught red-handed" theme, which Jones wrote falsely implies Sweeney has done something illegal.

Rene LaSpina, president and general manager for WTEN, said it, too, has only been asked to run one ad and it is not the one that makes charges regarding missing money in Iraq. Still, she said, the station chose not to run the other ad.

"I'm not running it -- not because of Stew Jones," she said.

The station's counsel had advised against airing it, LaSpina said.

"It had the potential to be defamatory," she said. "It was pretty close to the line."

Matzzie of MoveOn.org said he appreciates the extra attention the letters have generated.

"That's the ironic thing. Every time they send out a threatening letter, it prompts a news story," he said. "It provides value to our ads.

The "Red-Handed" Ad
Tim O'Brien can be reached at 454-5096 or by e-mail at tobrien@timesunion.com.
Albany Times Union ~ Tim O'Brien ** Sweeney's attorney goes after TV ads

About time someone takes Moveon to task.
I bet by tomorrow they play the Dixie Chicks "our free speech is being trampled on" card.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 1:46 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  spacey

HuffPo Poster (NOT Commenter) Pines For Another 9/11 To Force American "Regime Change"

I don't even know what the hell to say to this.

Extensively excerpted so I don't get accused of selectively editing its vileness -- and to preserve a record of it after the inevitable bowlderization.

If Huffington wants to sue, fine, bring it on. Let's publicize the shit you're running on that lunatic site of yours.

I Hope And Pray We Don't Get Hit Again-BUT.....

I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.

If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.

But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party's chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:

[typical laundry list of liberal fantasias omitted]

I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.

But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:

If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?

Any at all?

Thanks to Michael G and Stace, who actually tipped me before, but I saw Michael's email first.

UPDATE: Now screencapped. If a goddamned word of this gets changed, up they go.
Ace of Spades HQ ~ Ace ** HuffPo Poster (NOT Commenter) Pines For Another 9/11 To Force American "Regime Change"

The most important thing to a libtard: More abortions!
We needs another terrorist attack so Bush can look like a failure. Then we will take control of the government to ensure the willy-nilly killing of unborn babies continues in America.

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 12:56 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Flagging will and white flags

One way to measure how the world has changed in the last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize.

President Bush, you'll recall, had declared you're either with us or with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Gen. Musharraf: He was with us; but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams.

Nonetheless, with U.S. action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in more than 30 years. He added he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he had asked Washington to provide some evidence this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but so far they had declined to show him any.

Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify assisting the infidel and said he had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support. He paused for applause and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping and said thank you and goodnight.

That must have been quite the phone call he got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of September 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on then Texas Gov. George W. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Mr. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's Gen. Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Gen. Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he would wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?"

Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore? If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short time. For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.

Five years later, the U.S. seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned around Gen. Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet nobody is.

What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy." Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize." They go along because you've impressed upon them that they've no choice. Gen. Musharraf and company weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of September 11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Mr. Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad thumb their noses with impunity.

I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that, "The Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag."

The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as it wishes to because Mr. Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: unlike Mr. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, they've made the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war. That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question.

Of course, if Mr. Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they would huff how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you?

At one level, the issue is the same as it was on September 11, 2001: American will and national purpose. But the reality is worse -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you had never begun it in the first place.

Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment.

In late September 2001, the administration taught a critical lesson to tough hombres like Gen. Musharraf and Russia's President Vladimir Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain's Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Washington Times ~ Mark Steyn ** Flagging will and white flags

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:01 AM EDT

Updated: Monday, 28 August 2006 11:24 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  a-ok

Death Squad Leaders Captured 

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A roadside bomb killed a U.S. Soldier north of Baghdad on Monday, and the American military announced the capture of two alleged death squad leaders as U.S. and Iraqi authorities step up efforts to stem rampant sectarian violence.

President Bush, meanwhile, served notice that he would not change course or flinch from debate about the unpopular war in Iraq as he campaigns for Republicans in the fall congressional elections. In fact, he suggested that national security and the economy should be the top political issues, and criticized the Democrats' approach on both.

Many Democrats want to leave Iraq "before the job is done," Bush told reporters in Washington.

"I can't tell you exactly when it's going to be done," he said, but "if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned," he added.

The two men accused of leading death squads were captured Sunday in southern Baghdad during simultaneous raids.

Both suspects "exercise control over all death squad cell activity" in the Sunni districts of Dora and Sahha and the predominantly Shiite Abu D'Shair in Baghdad, the military said in a statement.

It also accused one of the men of torturing and killing Iraqis in a Shiite mosque in the capital, although no details were provided. Four other suspicious individuals were detained during the operation, it said.

Some 12,000 U.S. and Iraqi forces are being deployed in the capital as part of a security crackdown on a surge of insurgent attacks and sectarian bloodshed.

A separate military statement said a U.S. Soldier died Monday when the vehicle in which he was riding was struck by a roadside bomb.

The death came a day after two Marines and a sailor, assigned to the Regimental Combat Team 7, died in fighting in the province of Anbar, the stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency west of Baghdad.

At least 2,610 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

In other violence, a person was shot to death in the northern city of Mosul.

But Iraqis generally enjoyed a rare day of relative peace as they returned to Baghdad's streets after a weekend vehicle ban during a Shiite religious commemoration that was disrupted by sniper attacks on pilgrims in another episode of sectarian bloodletting.

The Iraqi government said 20 people were killed by snipers who hid in buildings and sprayed bullets into Shiite religious processions Sunday. The U.S. military, however, said only five people were killed. The discrepancy in the toll could not be immediately reconciled.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, thanked the armed forces for preventing major attacks. "We condemn strongly the terrorists attacks committed by the terrorists against innocent civilians," he said in a statement.

"The success of the army and the security forces in preventing the terrorists from killing (a larger number of) innocent people - although some fell as martyrs - reflects the rising power of the armed forces," he said.

Many people made special efforts to watch the televised opening of Saddam Hussein's trial for the killings of tens of thousands of Kurds nearly two decades ago.

"I'm happy to see justice taking its course today," said Haider Kadhim, 28, the owner of an electronics shop in Baghdad, a city that suffers from chronic power shortage.

Kadhim said he bought five gallons of gas for his generator to ensure electricity to watch the trial, which was broadcast on all local channels with a 20-minute delay to ensure that sensitive portions with security implications could be censored.

Also Monday, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq plans to build several new oil refineries and upgrade existing ones to start exporting gasoline and other byproducts by 2010. But he acknowledged that insurgent attacks on pipelines remain a serious problem.

Al-Shahristani said Iraq plans to increase the production of crude oil from about 2 million barrels per day to the prewar level of 3 million barrels per day by the end of the year. He did not elaborate.

The largest of the new refineries - to be located in central Iraq - will be completed by 2009 or 2010, al-Shahristani said during a meeting with members of the parliament's economic committee.

Iraq, a founding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, sits atop the world's third-highest proven reserves. Its estimated 115 billion barrels are exceeded in OPEC only by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But it is facing severe fuel shortages because of the dilapidated state of its refineries, sending the black market price of gas as high as $4 per gallon. The official price is $1 per gallon.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.
Military.com ~ Associated Press ** Death Squad Leaders Captured

"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned,"
^ awesome quote

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 3:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  chatty

A Negotiation with Islamo-Fascism

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the Muslims began a crusade years and years and years ago, and the Catholic Church didn't do anything about it for a hundred years. The Catholic Church got in gear and beat it back, but it took a long, long time. All the time they're trying to talk to them. All the while they're trying to negotiate. All the while they're trying to come to a mutual understanding. It's dangerous because these are people that genuinely want to wipe us out, and there's a significant portion of our population that does not realize that. Look it, let me try another analogy with you. Let's say that we're going to negotiate with -- pick a terrorist group -- Al-Qaeda. What's Al-Qaeda's sworn mission? (See, you gotta have courage to admit this, though.)

Al-Qaeda's sworn mission is to kill us. That is the mission of militant Islam. It's to wipe out infidels, and we are the worst of all because we are Christian and we are Western. Okay. We're going to negotiate with these people. Their starting point is: you're dead. "We're not stopping 'til you're dead."

What's our counter? Do we say, "Uh, okay. How about, will you let us live for 50 years?"

"No. We're going to wipe you out in 30."

"Okay, well, uh, will you only take an arm from each of us for the first 50 years?"

"Nope. We're going to kill you all as soon as we can."

"No, no, no, no. That's not fair! We're negotiating with you. Will you settle for two arms and let us live?"

"Nope. Our mission is to kill you, infidel."

"Okay, uh, how about an arm and a leg and let us live for 50 years?"

"No! We are not compromising."

"Okay, how about if you kill half of us, the Republicans? If we give you the Republicans, will you --"

"No! We are going to kill all of you."

My point is, where do you negotiate with this? How do you negotiate with people whose objective is to kill you, Ms. Blumner? I'm sorry. I know it's a hard, cold reality we all have to face here, ladies and gentlemen.

"Well, how about if we let you have the Republicans and Mel Gibson?"

"No, we are going to kill every one of you, and you will be first."

That's how John Kerry would do it. How do you negotiate with that, folks? On what threshold or basis is there reason for any kind of settlement?

END TRANSCRIPT

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** A Negotiation with Islamo-Fascism

Posted by yaahoo_06iest at 12:58 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, 23 August 2006 1:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink