Make your own free website on Tripod.com

7-20-2004

The Liar vs. "The Liar"


Either you get rid of the inefficient Berlusconi, or we will really burn Italy. Berlusconi is dragging you into more blood plus absolute slavery to America.--A message from the Brigades of Abu Hafs al-Masri (a subsidary of al Queda), to the Italian people.

I enjoyed myself a long weekend, totally ignored the internet, and I'm feeling a bit prolific today. Hang on to your increasingly frayed donkey ears, kiddies.

World War IV rages on and our declared enemies seek to isolate us further by threatening to violently topple any government that stands by our side. In effect, they are threatening any government that dares to defend it's subjects from the radical Islam onslought.

And what do 50% of the folks in this country wish to do? Why, play right into the hands of the terrorists, that's what.

Rightfully so, the pundits are saying that Bill Clinton did nothing as the terrorists kept upping the ante all through the 90's. Clinton was simply too poll driven, which translates into being casualty averse. He just wouldn't risk a single life of any of our folks in uniform while playing war. Harken back to Mogadishu. In less than 24 hours, our soldiers and operatives suffered 18 KIAs while killing in excess of 1,000 enemy combatants. But...CNN treated us to some disturbing video of a slain American being dragged through the streets at the end of a rope. How did Clinton react? The order from headquarters? Run away.

Consider the operation he presided over once Yugoslavia went apesh*t. We'll bomb 'em back to the fargin' stone age, but only from the very edge of the stratosphere. Anti-aircraft defenses typically cannot hit an attack aircraft that is setting off the proximity alert alarms in our Shuttles. Casualties? Not on his less than decisive watch. Certifiable, or long-term positive results? Again, not on his watch.

1993 anyone? Some terrorists attacked the World Trade Towers with their stated goal being to topple them onto the rest of Manhattan. The less than tepid reponse from our commander-in-chief? A couple of Tomahawks were fired at a desert cook-out somewhere in Afghanistan. That ought to show them. Guess what. It didn't.

The embassy bombings in Africa? Tomahawks again. Scores of innocent aspirins were killed upon impact. That ought to show them.

The U.S.S. Cole? More empty, harsh words and a bitten lower lip from our very first completely spineless commander-in-chief. That ought to show them.

Try this on for size from NewsMax.com. Yeah, I know, Ethel. It's not from The New York Times or Pravda, your usual sources, but watcha gonna do. Some of us can stand to read both sides of any given issue.

Monday, July 19, 2004 10:14 p.m. EDT

Ashcroft: Berger 9/11 Docs Reveal Clinton Security Lapse

A sensitive after-action report on the foiled Millennium bomb plot, portions of which allegedly were pilfered by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, sounded the alarm that al-Qaida operatives had entered the U.S. and were preparing to strike. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission in April, Attorney General John Ashcroft detailed the highly classified March 2000 document, saying it contained a set of sweeping recommendations on how to combat the al-Qaida threat that were completely ignored by the Clinton White House.

"The NSC's Millennium After-Action Review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 with luck playing a major role," Ashcroft told the Commission.
"Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland defenses identified, the Justice Department's surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses."
"It is clear from the review," declared Ashcroft, "that actions taken in the Millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government." The Millennium plot review warned the Clinton administration "of a substantial al-Qaida network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of supporting additional terrorist attacks here," the Bush attorney general said.
"Furthermore, fully seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the review recommends disrupting the al Qaida network and terrorist presence here using immigration violations, minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and border controls," he explained. Ashcroft's comments suggested why a former Clinton national security official might not want the information contained in the Millennium review to ever see the light of day.
"Despite the warnings and the clear vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000," he told the Commission, "no new disruption strategy to attack the al-Qaida network within the United States was deployed. It was ignored in the Department's five-year counterterrorism strategy."


My point is not to fend off criticisms of Dubya by pointing out that Clinton was even worse. My point is that during the nineties, we, for all intents and purposes, had no real commander-in-chief. If not having the stomach for a fight somehow qualifies as capable leadership, he's definately your man. Your Democrat.

In my polluted mind, only a hopelessly partisan dildo would even attempt to take issue with any of my aforementioned brilliance. Clinton may have been the leader of the free world, but he sure as spit wasn't the defender of the free world.

Foreign policy? Hey, it's the economy, stupid.

If we assist the North Koreans with their nuclear program, they in turn will promise not to build any nuclear weapons. If an American city goes critical mass any time soon, ala "The Sum of all Fears," how much would you bet against it being Clinton's fault, albeit, somewhat indirectly?

Being a talk radio fan, I have to listen to mental incontinants that hate Bush asking why he didn't invade North Korea instead of Iraq if they are such a big threat to our national security. And I always find myself thinking the same thing. Dickus, he can only fix so many of Clinton's mistakes at one time.

And then I have to listen to guys calling in trying to impress their boyfriends with "Where are the WMD? Bush lied! Bush lied! Off with his daughters heads!"

If you folks are going to stick with this "Bush lied" gibberish for the foreseeable future, you are going to look like a horse's ass to the rest of us when it is finally determined where they were spirited off to as the M1/A1s were being prepped for battle.

But sadly, when the WMD question is finally answered, those of you too stupid to think for yourselves will call WILK and repeat whatever Ted Kennedy blurts out between benders.

Some of those in the Democratic party keep pushing this Bush-will-capture-Osama-right-before-the-election conspiracy theory as a way to prove that Bush is an evil bastard if we happen to capture the asshole before the election. They can't even wait until said capture comes to funkin' pass to espouse their latest, breaking conspiracy theory. Float the looney theory now, and if Osama ends up adorning the hood of a Humvee, that'll be touted as proof that Bush conspired against us somehow. You folks should listen to yourselves. You're only a tad more clever than a garden variety slug dying from Diazinon exposure.

Here's a great example of mental incontinence on parade.

OMG -- J.F.Kerry, 23:14:40 07/16/04 Fri [1]

Geez, Private Sector Dude! Can you be anymore Repulican? Really, is being Democrat or Republican more about pride then politics? One would tend to think that with the Q & A session with yourself that you are a confused individual on several fronts. You are confused with yourself and with the facts. Where are GWB's WMD's? Maybe you should ask Sherwood Baker if he found any, may God be with him! More importantly, is former WJC running again? I fail to see the comparison between WJC and GWB with respect for the current election climate. Why didn't GHB finish the job he started? No balls or did he succumb to UN pressure? Either way he now looks like a big pu$$y. Was there justification to enter Afghanistan? Sure! Was there justification to send our boys into IraQ? Scholars will be busy debating this question for years, yet you seem to have the knowledge and understanding to make such assumptions. I'm sorry if you had a direct link to the general's planning the whole operation.

Trust me, I don't need to defend the Sector Dude from any anonymous nincompoop that can't see the stated objective through the fog generated by all of the hateful spin. But I do take serious, serious issue with anyone disgusting enough to throw Sherwood Baker's name at him as if he was somehow indirectly responsible for his untimely death only because he is a Republican.

Pinhead! What's that Sherwood Baker crap all about? We support the war so we're somehow culpable when someone gets wasted? You Dems know no bounds. Don't give us any fu*king sh*t about somehow caring more about our troops only because you oppose whatever it is that you supposedly oppose. I bothered to attend Mr. Baker's funeral. Did you? I didn't even know the freakin' guy, but I felt compelled to be there and pay my respects to the guy. You selfishly used a fallen soldier's name to advance your perplexing argument. If you're not currently a eunuch, you probably should be.

And just in case you didn't notice, you geopolitical experts are contradicting yourselves. Bush's Daddy is a "pussy" because he didn't drive the troops all the way to Baghdad in '91? If we remember correctly, the left-leaning folks were dead set against that at the time. They were freaking out while pointing out that the UN, the government they really swear allegiance to, did not authorize such an undertaking. And, they were telling us that 10,000 body bags would be filled with American soldiers. Or was it 20,000? Or 30,000?

And you fail to see what the comparison between William "Jesus H. Christ" Clinton and George "(insert unsubstantiated accusation)" Bush has to do with the current political season??? Did you suffer a serious head injury as a child, or are you just blindly following the party line as so many on your side of the political equation tend to do?

Clinton halved our entire military. Who was it that said "I loathe the military" anyway? Thanks to his lack of vision, we can't project our power without calling up every reservist ever to wear a uniform. In 1990, with 600 surface ships in tow, the U.S. Navy would have re-fueled the U.S.S. Cole at sea rather than send it into a hostile port only to be attacked. But, while operating with only 301 surface ships a mere decade later thanks to Clinton's loathing of the military, 19 of our brave kids were needlessly killed.

Clinton cut our military strength in half, and John Kerry, the oft-noted ad nauseum war hero, voted to gut it even more than Clinton hoped to. Check his voting record. Apparently, Kerry thinks we can somehow protect ourselves without state-of-the-art planes, tanks, or highly trained troops. He's already stated that he'd take the "War on Terror" to the UN rather than directly to the terrorist morons, so I think the comparison between Clinton and Bush has much to say about what the next clueless leftist hopeful would do to us if elected.

Bush was undaunted when it became obvious that some rather tough decisions needed to be made in response to the terror threat. The very same tough decisions that Clinton never had the courage to make. For most Democrats, it seems that a very selective memory is a prerequisite for party membership. Bush is getting Americans killed? In case some of us were asleep for the past decade, Americans were being killed all along, but no one did anything significant in response. And the terror goons kept upping the ante until they finally scored big with one of their diabolical plots.

And Bush went after the bastards immediately. No bit lip for the cameras. No useless posturing. No polling data. No asking the UN to protect us. He did what Clinton should have done a few years ago. Namely, He brought war to those who had already declared war on us. And for that he is vilified for political gain?

And let's put this sh*t to bed right now. If anyone claims that Saddam did nothing to bolster international terrorism, they are either lying, or stupid beyond reproach. We've got way too many liars calling the president a liar.

Whatever happened to the charge that he invaded Afghanistan so that American oil companies could build a pipeline across that country? Hmmm? Can you people remember all of the kooky theories you've tossed against the wall hoping that one would one day stick?

The "war for oil?" That one's been dormant as of late? He was also accused of finishing what his daddy started in 91', but now the same folks making that charge are calling his daddy a pussy for reversing the invasion of Kuwait. Make up your f**king minds already. You folks really should stop and listen to yourselves. You're hysterical and exhibiting signs that a lobotomy may be in your near future.

If anyone was a pussy, it was Clinton. If anyone needs to be tagged as a liar, he's your man. Your Democrat. But alas, Democrats have very selective memories when it comes time to vote. Or to asassinate someone's character.

Be careful what you vote for. You might just get it. A flip-flopper-in-chief.

Another spineless Democrat.

Stronger at home. Respected in the world?

Name for me a Democratic president during the past four decades that had even a modicum of foreign policy smarts. Clinton? Carter? LBJ? Your hero, JFK? He was so-so when he wasn't taking us to the very brink of nuclear war. Carter? Does "complete failure" aptly describe his presidency? LBJ? "I will not allow Americans boys to do a job that Vietnamese boys ought to be doing for themselves?" That's almost comedic. Clinton? You be nice and we'll make nice? Don't ask/Don't tell?

Yeah, I know. Anybody but Bush. A Vulcan you folks ain't.

Highly illogical, captain.

Here's one for you and your golf buddies back at the namby-pamby, head-in-the-sand think tank. Iran is pressing on with their nuclear weapons program. Does that fact make you feel more secure knowing that Iran wrote the book on terrorism and supports it any which way it can? God Forbid! We can't unilaterally take out their nuclear facilites, because we all hate Bush. We could ask the UN for assistance but they'd do little more than threaten to kick Iranian athletes out of the next boring olympics, or cut off their shipments of chocolate-covered pork fat unless they cease and desist.

So...Terror Central is busily building a nuclear weapons program. How do we defend ourselves while hating Bush to no end and waiting for the ineffective UN to do jack squat about it? Do we have the political will to defend ourselves from a growing and ominous threat? Don't sweat it. The Israelis will destroy those facilities long before the first Fat Boy is ever rolled off the assembly line. In other words, the Israelis will defend us, because the Dems won't allow us to defend ourselves. And then the Dems will condemn the Israelis for defending us and any other country the whacko terrorists might have a beef with.

No matter how many words some of you folks use, just about everything you say amounts to three pitiful, less than convincing words: "I hate Bush."

Sorry, kiddies. But you're all going to have to do much, much better than that if you want to continue to argue about national politics on the internet in Wilkes-Barre.

Flashback: He stole the election.

Yeah, and he barbecues small children at his ranch too.


Big weekend here at the adobe. First, three of us here on Thompson Street ventured into the trees at the top of the street and removed trash, broken glass and plenty of those stinky bushes that grow to be stinky trees. The mayor and his army of volunteers never arrived as we were promised, so we did what we could and called it a day. I literally snapped Butchie's pruners in half, so I'll buy my own and head back up there this weekend.

Secondly, my youngest grandson, Zachary Bryce Cour, celebrated his very first birthday among a throng of family and friends. We had oodles and oodles of food, a barrel of Coors Lite and lots of loud music.

Things were a tad weird as Zach's other grandparents went well out of their way to let us know they would rather be ground into crouqettes than being anywhere near any of us. As things currently stand, they think their daughter could do much better than lowering herself by being with my son. I do take serious offense with that, but I was a real good boy and I did not sucker punch any one of them. Not yet. Maybe I should drink a lot more the next time they come a calling bound, kicking and screaming. Maybe I just won't invite them again.

It was funny, they wanted to know why I did not buy Zach a birthday present. Wifey replied by telling them that the $120 bucks I dropped for the entire party was my gift to Zach and his parents. Duh! Insert fat foot directly into fat mouth and slither on back to the double-wide.

Whatever. It was truly a good time for everyone else involved. The semi-normal folks.

It was very reassuring to open the Times Leader this morning and learn that the Farmer's Market is being strictly policed by it's own farmers. (??????????) A long-time market participant gets the boot for selling illegal cantaloupes??? And the city's legal honchos had to get involved to some extent???

Come on, people. You're supposed to cut cantaloupes in half and take a tablespoon to them, not dry 'em out and smoke them when no one is looking.

Has politics pervaded the Farmer's Market? Or have we been treated to contraband direct from Uncle Jiggy's farm all along? Where's the Attorney General on this one?

Later