No one that I know (and I know one hell of a lot of conservatives) ever believed that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11.

There is documented 10 years worth of evidence linking Al Qaeda with Iraq.  I also know a lot of conservatives-seeing as the whole of my family are.  Now, don’t mistake this statement as meaning there was a connectioned between 9/11 and Iraq.  Coincidentally, I think the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq is strong evidence that they are comfortable there and have been for some time.

However, declaring war on terror was a much wider statement than declaring war on those that attacked us on 9/11.

Indeed.

Iraq routinely and publicly funded terrorist attacks in Israel. That made him the enemy

Precisely. I am constantly amazed at how this simple fact escapes many Democrats. I am also further amazed at how many Jewish Democrats would just as soon we turn our backs on Israel and abandon them to the threat of terrorism in the mideast and do nothing to stem the threat that is ever headed their way.  It boggles my mind.

Personally, I would have compiled evidence of Iraq’s involvement in terrorism and used that as a justification for overthrowing Hussein.

Theoretically, he should have done that. And I have thought about this myself, as to why he didn’t approach it from that angle.  But if you will notice, he did so with the American public but not with Congress. I think the reason for this, and I could be wrong, is that Bush was forced to use the intelligence and information already out there.  I think it was a matter of conserving time and working as fast as possible to get over there and start making changes within Iraq. It would have aten up alot of time if he had to send more intelligence in and gather new information and proceed only after that could be furnished and a whole new resolution drawn up. As I already pointed out to Chris, the Bush administration already had the earlier Congressional approval for Clinton to use force-to work on.

That said, I agree with most everyone about the post-war situation being a mess.

I think it’s a shame that someone who claims to be for the war on terrorism is also falling victim to the media spin on the war. Rarely do we hear of the positive things happening in Iraq and Afghanistan-and I do think the Bush Admin. should be doing more to play up the positives. But I fail to see how things are a mess over there.  It’s war, it isn’t clean and tidy and without pitfalls.  Nothing ever goes perfectly in a war. But in the sense that we are successfully battling the terrorists THERE rather than HERE-is a great success and something to be very proud of.  I don’t think anyone should have assumed the war would be easy or quick. But insomuch as it has been 4 years without any further attacks on civillians here-the war is a smashing success. We need to keep the busy there, and we are.

Hello again, Geekmom. I see you are having fun misinterpreting my posts again.

Wooo, look who’s gone and crowned herself QUEEN OF THE WORLD! It’s clearly not about anybody else but HER and her little skin cells.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????????  I was insulted that nowiser insinuated that his skin cells were comparable to MY unborn babies.  That’s it and that’s all. Now if you read something more there that isn’t I can’t help you.

Karen, Consi is one of the smartest people here, and could have been your most powerful source of support if you hadn’t been too busy preening in the mirror to take his advice

Well your first mistake is assuming I need or want an ally here. I don’t. I don’t really care that much.  I kind of like being the odd man out, it’s more fun.  Your second mistake was asserting yourself in to a thread were people are actually talking about something that is apparently waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head.

(while you’re flinging insults at the board’s owner).

I did no such thing. I stated the reality of the situation as I see it on this board, the man doesn’t have a job and so much as admits it and obviously has nothing better to do than critique my posts (right along with the rest of you), take sides and try to babysit and chastize me-when I am only responding to HIS members the way the majority have addressed me. I just think maybe his time would be better spent finding a damn job. Hell, if my husband were unemployed the last thing he would be doing is sitting on a blog, chastizing pregnant women and worrying about their behavior on a message board.  His ass would be at Home Depot or McDonald’s. Not on the fucking internet.

.If you don’t want to be the whipping post, stop sticking your ass in our faces.

C’mere and take a big wiff, Geek. But I warn you, I had cole slaw for lunch. LMAO

At this point you’re nothing but a source of entertainment.

Good! Excellent! Then sit back, shut the fuck up and be entertained! Stop being such an outraged ninny and get with the program, bitch!

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the warm, tolerant, loving, selfless Christian charity that we’ve all heard so much about.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is…

...somebody worth ignoring.

And now back to more interesting pastimes.

Doh!  Correction: the quote I attributed to Consi was from KPatrickGlover a ways upthread. 

DOF:

Consi, you say you know a lot of conservatives and not any who connect Iraq with 9/11.  I take that as very good news.  Yet our president seems to make that connection rather often.  Is there a disconnect between the president and Republicans on the street?  Or am I missing something?

I believe that was me rather than Consi who made that statement, so I’ll follow your quote from Bush….

(I’m referring to his 29 June Ft. Bragg speech where he said; “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.”)

It’s a question on how you read (or hear) what was said. I don’t see that quote as an indication that Iraq was connected to 9/11, merely that Iraq was a nation that supported terrorism or “murderous ideology” in Bush speak. I agree with that entirely.

and though I hesitate to dignify one of her posts with a serious reply, Karen did respond to my post here seriously and I owe her the curtosy of doing the same.

Karen, You said:

I think it’s a shame that someone who claims to be for the war on terrorism is also falling victim to the media spin on the war.

You don’t have to have your head in the sand to support the war and the President. Things post-war haven’t been handled as they should. The solution isn’t to walk around denying it, the solution is to fix the problem.

It isn’t a case of media spin, it has to do with how the White House has been attempting to spin the media, starting with the error in justification that I pointed out earlier. We need to spend less time worrying about how the press is looking at the situation there and more time securing the Iraq borders to prevent more and more terrorists from seeping in. We need to secure the country so it can be what we wanted it to be in the first place but were too timid to tell the press. A stable US base from which to fight the rest of the war on terror.

DOF:

We “broke�? Iraq not by invading, but by ever supporting that bastard Saddam in the first place.  Just like supporting the Shah all those years is a major reason for the current extremist theocracy in Iran.  It would just be nice if there were some indication of “lessons learned�? in high places.  We need to be a lot more selective in who we support, and the Chalabi debacle is not exactly reassuring to that end.

I also have not heard from any Republican the one rationale that would support the Iraq war in my mind; that Saddam was our boy, our mess, and it’s up to us to go fix it.

Just to expand here a little bit. The situation in that region didn’t just happen in the last six years or fourteen years. The CIA has been, for lack of a better term, meddling in the region since (at least) the Eisenhower administration. Besides setting up the Shah. We supported three Baathist regimes before Saddam came to power, and we encouraged him during his ascent. We were perfectly happy with him when he was gassing Iranians with the chemicals that we sold him. For whatever reason, we implied that he had a green light from us to invade Kuwait. When he did invade, he was suddenly no longer our bastard. In short we are the ones who planted the dragon teeth. Would things be better in the region had we taken different courses of action in the last half century? I honestly don’t know.

KPatrickGlover:

We need to spend less time worrying about how the press is looking at the situation there and more time securing the Iraq borders to prevent more and more terrorists from seeping in. We need to secure the country so it can be what we wanted it to be in the first place but were too timid to tell the press. A stable US base from which to fight the rest of the war on terror.

How are we going to secure Iraq’s borders and stabilize the country without breaking the Army or reinstating the draft? (Beats me here too.) We didn’t go in there with the necessary force to hold the place. We are paying for that omission and will continue to do so.

Then sit back, shut the fuck up and be entertained!

“Waterworld” was better.  I want my money back.

Elwed writes…

I can’t help wondering how you will reconcile the personal appeals from the poster known as Karen with the derisive comments about your (perceived, I hope) lack of employment made by said poster.

It did give me pause to raise an eyebrow. I’m still digesting her latest missives and considering carefully how I wish to respond. I was quite impressed with Karen initially, but the more she contributes the more she damages her credibility with me. But then I’m just an unemployed, chastising, babysitter so what do I know?

Karen writes…

I apologize in advance, in case this is also upsetting some sensitive members, for how my posts get screwed up and look like one big quote.

I took the time to fix your quotes for you. Something I’m usually more than happy to do whenever someone politely asks.

I did no such thing. I stated the reality of the situation as I see it on this board, the man doesn’t have a job and so much as admits it and obviously has nothing better to do than critique my posts (right along with the rest of you), take sides and try to babysit and chastize me-when I am only responding to HIS members the way the majority have addressed me. I just think maybe his time would be better spent finding a damn job. Hell, if my husband were unemployed the last thing he would be doing is sitting on a blog, chastizing pregnant women and worrying about their behavior on a message board.  His ass would be at Home Depot or McDonald’s. Not on the fucking internet.

It’s true that I’m currently unemployed and have been since February 11th. Soon it’ll be a full five months, almost half a year, since I was last officially employed. This is the longest I’ve ever been unemployed since I was 20 years old. My situation is not one of choice nor should it be seen as indicative of lack of effort to regain employment.

Have I “failed to be gainfully employed” as you stated in another thread? I suppose I have to some degree. Is it true that I have “nothing better to do than critique” your posts? Not at all, there are any number of activities I am engaged in above and beyond worrying about the petty rants of someone arrogant enough to think she has me and my life situation figured out after so short a time visiting my blog.

If you were to check the archives you might notice that the level of my posting to my blog has actually declined significantly since I became unemployed rather than increased as one would assume it would if it were all I were doing with my time. But then I don’t think you’re interested in dealing with facts, just your shallow perceptions of the situation. You might also have noticed that I have started freelancing recently for a local company which, while not full-time employment with benefits or vacation time, is at least providing some income to help keep food on the table. That this freelancing has actually kept me quite busy as of late and, thusly, not doing as much on my blog as in times past.

You might also learn that in my previous position I was earning around $54,000 a year and my unemployment checks are actually higher than what I would earn even if I worked at both McDonald’s and Home Depot not to mention trying to hold both jobs would make going to interviews for opportunities in my field next to impossible. Not that I won’t resort to that should the day come that my unemployment benefits come to an end.

I’ve sent out almost three hundred resumes and cover letters since before my last day at my old job and I’ve had perhaps 16 interviews or so in that time. I actually knew the man I’d be working for at the last position I almost had an interview with and he told me that within the first two hours of posting the position he had already had a dozen resumes turned up on his desk. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Michigan is third worst in the nation for unemployment right now which means there’s a lot of folks looking for work out there allowing employers to be very choosy.

Now perhaps I’m not as much of a man as your husband is and perhaps my situation is as much a result of my own poor choices in not finishing college as it is the crappy job market in this state, but don’t flatter yourself by thinking that all I do is sit on the Net looking for bitchy, self-absorbed, pregnant women to come by my blog so I can critique their attempts at holding a coherent discussion. If I’m going to waste my time in such a manner I can think of a ton of other much more enjoyable ways to do it than that.

(cough) I take each posts on it’s face and like to respond individually to the individual.
(...)
“nettiquette.�? I’m sorry but it stil cracks me up that some dude on the internet actually uses that word.

Karen, for the record, your habit of posting a bunch of separate replies doesn’t get my panties in a bunch (a physical impossibility in any case).  Suum cuique.

It does crack me up, however, that you heap scorn on the neologism “nettiquette” and take people to task for saying “your” instead of “you’re”, and yet you yourself, in addition to making lots of spelling errors, persist in using “it’s” as the possessive of “it”.
Cutting slack works both ways.  That’s a part of nettiquette that I can get behind.

DOF:

KPatrickGlover did make the statement.  I also agree with his assessment regarding Bush’s statement.

Elwed:

I take solace from my review of the comments section at a few other blogs.  It provides anecdotal evidence that the attention craving individual who feels compelled to dispel all doubts about their IQ are equally dispersed amongst both sides. It certainly doesn’t engender any good will for conservatives here though.

Consi, I don’t think there will be any problems distinguishing between your well thought posts and the obnoxious personal attacks of the other.  Even when agreement can’t be reached, debate keeps the mind sharp.  You still have KPatrick on your side.    On socialism issues we are probably closer than you think.

It certainly doesn’t engender any good will for conservatives here though.

That’s all I wanted to convey.

and take people to task for saying “your�? instead of “you’re�?, and yet you yourself, in addition to making lots of spelling errors, persist in using “it’s�? as the possessive of “it�?.

For the record the one and ONLY time I brought anyone to task was for saying “your” instead of “you’re”. I realize people make spelling and grammatical errors-especially when typing fast. I never claimed to be perfect and I don’t go around in every thread pointing out all the spelling and grammatical errors. I just get irritated with THAT one.

Tit for tat. If this is all you have to come at me with-then knock yourself out pal. If it makes you feel real good about yourself.

The solution isn’t to walk around denying it, the solution is to fix the problem.

I’m not denying there are horrible things happening in Iraq.  Just so we understand that.  What I do feel is that any war takes time. Things don’t get better overnight, we shouldn’t expect them to.  I also feel that since you and I are not there it is a little unfair for both of us to say “hey things are a mess” or even to say “things are peachy keen”. The only people who know what things are really like there are the Iraqi people (and you see how little press they get) and our military commanders. I have enough faith in our military that they are working hard to sort things out over there and given enough time they will be successful.  I am trying to stay positive and give them the benefit of the doubt. I just don’t think it’s fair to sit here all comfy and cozy in America and armchair criticize their progress based on skewed media reports that seem to ONLY show the bad and those annoying talking heads who seem to love to keep a daily tally of the dead and remind us constantly of it, as though that is the totality of the war-who is dying and who is being wounded.

We need to spend less time worrying about how the press is looking at the situation there and more time securing the Iraq borders to prevent more and more terrorists from seeping in.

But I see the media, particularly the VERY liberal media as a huge part of the problem. Every time they overblow a situation at Gitmo or go on and on ad nauseum about Abu Ghraib, out guys take a hit over there. The media is actually costing lives in many instances and not enough Americans are outraged about it.  This is all painfully reminiscent of Viet Nam, too.  When you speak with most vets they are still very bitter about the behavior of the activists and the anti war liberal leaders who many vets feel actually hurt the cause as well as their morale in Viet Nam.

And I don’t know, maybe I am way off here but based on the conversations I have had with my dad and my uncle there is strategy to NOT fully securing Iraq at this time.  The idea is to keep the terrorists seeping in from Iran and Syria, bring them to us so to speak instead of us expanding out in to Iran (which doesn’t look like an option right now anyway) and (Syria is difficult terrain in the mountainous region like Afghanistan and water is scarce in the desert and concealment is limited) spreading our troops thin. If you engage them in the hostile areas of Iraq, the battle is on an already somewhat familiar turf and the area is contained-concealment is better.  Granted, this is just my speculation and if you think about it, does make some sort of sense.  But like I said, none of us are in the minds of our military commanders and can’t know their reasons and it just seems unfair to second guess those guys. They have served, many of them their entire lives and have been educated, instructed and trained for this moment and I believe they are doing what needs to be done and their success will be apparent not a moment before it culminates and is obvious.  I just think it’s more important to be patient right now and have faith in our military rather than risk hurting their morale or defeating their spirits. I wouldn’t want my brother or sister-should they be serving there-to think their country doubted their abilities.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the warm, tolerant, loving, selfless Christian charity that we’ve all heard so much about.

How many times do I have to tell you this, Geek, before you get it through what grey matter is swimming around up there?  I AM NOT A FUCKING CHRISTIAN.

I never claimed to be one. I never claimed to be warm, tolerant, loving or selfless or even charitable.

Can you read, lady or do you just make this shit up as you go?

Karen said:

I never claimed to be one. I never claimed to be warm, tolerant, loving or selfless or even charitable.

Yeeeahhh…I think we got that.  Thanks for the clarification, though.

*note: this response was alot less evil than my first planned response.  LOL

The only people who know what things are really like there are the Iraqi people (and you see how little press they get) and our military commanders.

  The first blog Baghdad Burning is supposedly run by a woman living in Baghdad.  It is not very political and more or less just tells her day to day story.  The mood seems to be mainly resigned and cynical, but still offers a view into the life of an Iraqi.  Usually you will have to scroll down to the writing.
  The next one is just the opposite- the modern “Baghdad Bob” if you will.  It is full of political invective, dire warnings, etc…  It is extremely biased, but useful as a sounding board.  It is called The Iraqi Resistance Report.  There are several other blogs supposedly originating from Iraq, but these are the two main ones I check on from time to time.

It feels like I am the only one who sees this all a little differently.  A building in New York is destroyed with a horrible loss of life.  Reprisals are carried out to punish the people responsible?  How do you know you are attacking the people responsible?  Is this supported by the rest of the world?  What is an acceptable loss of innocent life?

From another perspective, some kid sitting in Iraq just got his government replaced, had all his medical, social, and economic infrastructure ruined, and probably lost some family.  The thing is in 10 years the general public will be surprised when that kid blows himself up in some US city as a reprisal for what was done to his family.  You would fight for yours, why call him bad when he fights for his?  Are you justified by saying they started it?

The “solution�? to terror is not to pound a country back into the stone age.  How can anyone honestly think that using thousand pound bombs on civilians in a military operation can be justified?  The forces are all irregular and part of the whole problem is identifying the good guys from the bad.  I don’t know about the definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, but those bombs do a lot of destruction.  It is ok if we use them but not if they have them?

I don’t know why everyone thinks that the withdrawal from Iraq would go any smoother than it is.  It is classic military occupation.  If you leave the country will become more unstable and setup the same conditions that were in Afghanistan.  If you stay you end up with an intractable management problem.  It always takes more resources to defend an occupied territory.  When attacking, the military could just overwhelm specific targets, but now they must defend all the areas they secured.  Every secured location splits the effectiveness of the force, a good commander attacks to weakness so whatever point ends up being the weakest will be attacked.

Ok Clinton did something bad, but we are talking an order of magnitude.  The President is ordering soldiers into dangerous situations and to date there is an order of magnitude of death and destruction as a result of the “reprisals�?.  Was the law broken? Yes.  Can you ever “win�? the war on terror? No.  Does randomly invading and destabilizing countries make the problem worse? Yes.  How many dead foreigners would make up for the loss of life?

The question is should he be impeached?

The question is should he be impeached?

YES.

Bruno, everyday I think about those people and I wonder how come we ever let this happen.

Nice thoughts, Bruno! 

Subject:  Worth Reading

Whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or ‘neutral,’ I would highly
recommend you read all of this message.  I am sending it to you just as I
received it without further comment.

The following was written by someone unknown to me. Whoever forwarded it,
cut out the sender’s (author’s?) name—unfortunate for not getting credit
for the insights. I think you’ll agree, after reading it, the author could
—maybe should—be a major contributor to our Foreign Policy thinking

Please read it. You may not agree with the conclusions drawn, but the
premise is too real.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is
now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we
have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII! ).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very
few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who
realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Kh! obar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 19 98;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and
Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no
provocation’s by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors,
Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?  25%

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference. You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the
6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of
anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world
focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his
way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German,
Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill
all in the way—their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else.
The point here ! is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no
protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims
there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim
leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing—by their own
pronouncements—killing all of us “infidels.” I don’t blame the peaceful
Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major
reason we can lose is that! so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to
the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means
hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business,
like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing
really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not
subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not
just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced
an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan
was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and
submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot
help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a! time. It will be
increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t
matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from
Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told
them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be
done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might
see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in
that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may
already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading
fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all
vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they
were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are
completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know! it too and be
likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we
recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our
thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort
to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by “imploding.” That
is,
defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose,
and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided,
there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.

Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the
duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have
become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil
rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in
fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political
Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a
clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out
of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is
because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening.
It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying.

We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim
prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.

These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues
and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000
of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy
fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American
prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some
Muslim prisoners—not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary
of Defense.

If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of
the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we
are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner
issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome! burned—totally
oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people
are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the
magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists
have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That
translates into all non-Muslims—not just in the United States, but
throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant.’ That charge is
valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we
are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all
those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can
defeat anything bad in the world!

We can’t!

If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and
no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone—let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman
Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be
written or read.

If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take
over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the
Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on
the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among
themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to
weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily
familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct
piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide,
that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves,
once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start
brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.
Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful
Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united,
there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the
factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are
in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking
about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our
children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes
the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our
“leaders” in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to
anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

I am convinced that Bruno is one of those people that simply DOES NOT get it.  We are at war. Wether we want to be or not. This was thrust upon our country and our president. He didn’t seek it out,and admittadly neither did Clinton. So when Bruno asks how many have to die, wether they be Americans or innocent civillians caught in the crossfire…as many as it takes.  War is brutal, unfair and yes, it KILLS. Over a hundred thousand men lost their lives in the Civil War. It was tragic but was it a waste of life? I suppose that is arguable but I think most people say not because our country survived and was stronger for it and men were FREED from bondage.  When Bruno questions if we can handle occupying Iraq for as long as it takes he seems to forget our military presence as it continues today in Germany and Japan as well as a whole host of other nations.  Whatever it takes. And if we don’t do whatever it takes, we can kiss this country and all we hold dear goodbye.  People like Bruno may want to turn tail and hide from the problems we face but this is not what real men are made of. This is not the type of man upon whose back this great nation was founded on. Men of vision, strength, courage and conviction can save this nation from the threat we face today and I only hope that this country continues to see the wisdom in electing such men and ignoring people like Bruno.  And I can only hope that Bruno and people like him will someday see how their rhetoric and cowardice is opening us up for more attacks on OUR innocent citizens and children and will see the danger in their positions.

Joe McCarthy, is that you?

It all takes a wrong turn on step two.

Okay, so when does the Taco Bell dog run across my screen?