Lydia Cornell

Saturday, August 12, 2006

WE WILL WIN WAR ON TERROR by GETTING OUT OF IRAQ




REMEMBER: BUSH WANTED TO SELL OUR PORTS TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. Bush rules only by fear which is False Evidence Appearing Real. FEAR. He uses terrorist tactics on us, making us think he thwarted these terror attacks! Thanks to Britain and Pakistan who shared information that helped thwart the London terrorist plot. Bush only found out about this on Sunday, so the Republican spin machine has no right to say Democrats are soft on "terror" or getting out of Iraq will make us less safe. IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

STRENGTH LIES IN INTELLIGENCE. Democrats are stronger on terror because we know the value of human life. We will win the war on terror by gathering our forces and fortifying our homeland. By first bringing our troops home and strengthening our own borders, ports, airports and train stations and using our resources wisely. We can't afford to lose a single human life. We've lost over 2,600 troops, and another 16,000 missing arms and legs, and we've spent over 300 billion dollars on a war that has DEFINITELY CREATED MORE HATRED AND TERRORISM throughout the whole world against us.

Democrats will go out and communicate with our enemies: we will bridge the gap and open diplomatic channels. Syria, who was helping us right after 911 will be helping us again. Everyone wants to be on the side of the Peacemaker who brings a higher vision to conflict. In the time that George Bush and the Three Stooges have been in power, they have created more enemies than ever before in America's history. This is the most shameful time in our country. We must get these primitive self-serving oil barons and Neanderthals out of power before they destroy the world.
__________________________________
To NYTimes Editors
Re: the "liquid plane bomb threat." Two items from the massive press reporting do not ring true: 1) that the plotters go-ahead message "begin the attack now" would be sent without code words. No one is that dumb. And 2) How did the airlines know in advance to have thousands of clear plastic carry on baggies ready to distribute?
Plus there's the obvious political angle "Why just now?" which took away the democratic party's moment in the national spotlight with Ned Lamont's victory.

Garth Bishop, Los Angeles
_________________________________
BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON:
At a time when the real enemies in the war on terror have reared their murderous heads (exploding shampoo? no need to sex that up), to hear Dick Cheney and company using illogical, over-the-top, fear-mongering rhetoric conflating Ned Lamont's victory with the war on terror is as deeply offensive as it is jaw-droppingly outrageous.

You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.

What Lamont's victory should really do is embolden Democrats to aggressively counterattack the Republicans' scare tactics nonsense. (It would help if the MSM reacted to the GOP drivel by treating it with the contempt it deserves instead of dutifully reporting it as if it contained even an ounce of logic or sanity.)

John Kerry effectively counterattacked the Republican's scare tactics nonsense today -- and every Democratic leader should do the same every day, without fail, until the message finally breaks through the static. The thwarted London attacks, said Kerry, "expose the misleading myth that we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. In fact, the war in Iraq has become a dangerous distraction... Nearly five years after the attacks of 9/11, we are not as safe as we can and must be... The 9/11 Commission's recommendations to secure our most vulnerable infrastructure remain virtually ignored. And homeland security funding has been cut for cities like Boston and New York."

One of the main reasons this has happened is that Congressional Democrats have failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for taking its eye off the national security ball in order to pursue its imperial adventure in Iraq. It's worth noting that the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is none other than Joe Lieberman, whose belief in bipartisan comity has kept him from holding the White House's feet to the fire. No wonder Karl Rove wanted to help him out, and Dick Cheney feels so concerned by his defeat.
Read more at HuffPo
_____________________________________

posted by Lydia Cornell at 5:02 PM

332 Comments:

  • Wow, your getting sneaky Lyd, I didnt even see the new thread till right now.

    seriously though, excellent points, I've been saying since January that the terrorists arent dumb they arent going to say "tomorow Allah will reign down fire and brimstone on the Infidels when we blow up the stadium at the Superbowl at 7:20PM, of course they talk in code and spying on every single phone call of 300 million Americans is a complete waste of resources not to mention illegal and a violation of our constitutional rights and privacy, not to mention what this information could be used for, it could be used to get dirt on political rivals or for any number of sinister things.

    By Blogger Mike, at 9:36 PM  

  • And the repugs greatest fear is losing control of Congress because when the congressional hearings and true oversight begins and all the dirt comes to light it will lay bare the republicans self serving agenda as well as the fact that not only have they done nothing to keep us safe and protect us, but they could care less about catching or stopping the real terrorists, 9/11 and all the tough talk and fear tactics and war mongering is about nothing more than opening up the Middle East to Imperial opportunism, the elite and the energy giants will benefit tremendously from overthrowing those govenments in Iran and Iraq that were hostile to us so American energy companies can make fortunes developing their reserves, thats what the bait and switch was about when we forsook the war on terror to invade Iraq.

    By Blogger Mike, at 9:44 PM  

  • Lydia, Iraq is central to winning the War on Terror. The violent faction within Islam - who are committed to an 8th century ideology of repression and conquest - can only be eradicated by the majority of good hearted Muslims who desire peace, prosperity and well being. We've forced the violence and pathology of Islamist terror back to its source. The Iraqis will have to remove the murderers from their midst. In doing so, as a free and soverign people, it will create a sea change throughout the region and initiate a severely necessary reformation within the Islamic religion and throughout the Islamic world. We are forcing Muslims to confront and remove the cancer within their body. That is our only option. 19 individuals killed 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Unless we force a profound change in the environment that breeds violence and extremism, we will be attacked again with weapons that will kill millions of our innocent friends, family and countrymates. We cannot sit back and wait for that. Best Regards!

    By Blogger Thomas, at 11:21 PM  

  • Oh, and one more thing .... Lydia, you look fantastic! You have absolutely blossomed with age. Great googooly moogooly and shazzam. Your hubby hit the jackpot.

    By Blogger Thomas, at 11:28 PM  

  • Thank you Thomas!
    Luv xo
    Lyd

    By Blogger Lydia Cornell, at 11:45 PM  

  • Hey Mike, that was an amazing story! I have to read it again. The rainbow is a covenant.
    Luv & xo
    me

    By Blogger Lydia Cornell, at 11:47 PM  

  • Mike, if Bush and his "big oil" conspirators were interested in cashing in on Iraq's oil resource we didn't need to invade the country: Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we dreamed of at cut rates if we left him alone to plunder,oppress and kill his economy and people and destabilize and terrorize his neighbors. We know he had WMDs because he used them against his Kurdish countrymates and Iranian soldiers. We know he harbored Al Qaida operatives and paid rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We know he was using the corrupt Oil for Food program to purchase and develop deadly weapons, fund terror cells around the globe and buy UN Security Council protection. He killed hundreds of thousands of his people. He fired at our warplanes patrolling the UN no-fly zone. He ignored the conditions of his surrender from the first Gulf War, in which 130 Americans lost their lives. When he refused to disarm, he had to be taken out. This War has nothing to do with oil ... we get 80% of our imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and the Saudis.

    By Blogger Thomas, at 12:21 AM  

  • Thomas, you're preaching to a deaf crowd. In a minute or two clif will be here to tell you how wrong you are.

    He's an ex GI who used to defuse unexploded ordinance, yet somehow he knows more about how to run a war than all the people who were above him.

    And even though your responce seemed peaceful and well intentioned, mikey and clif both will tell you how hateful and bigoted you are.

    Peace brother!

    By Blogger Voltron, at 12:42 AM  

  • Kerry: ‘I Was Wrong’ On Iraq
    By Nathan Burchfiel
    CNSNews.com Staff Writer
    June 13, 2006

    Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) - U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

    "We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

    Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, said it was necessary to admit mistakes because "you cannot change the future if you’re not honest about the past." He criticized supporters of the war, who label anti-war activists and politicians as unpatriotic and pessimistic.

    "The true pessimists are those who will not accept that America’s strength depends on our credibility at home and around the world," Kerry said. "The true pessimists are those who do not understand that valuing our principles is critical to our national security and it is as critical to our national security as our military power itself."

    He said questioning the war and fighting in it are "two sides of the very same patriotic coin" and compared the modern anti-war movement to the anti-war movement in the Vietnam War. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, returned to the United States and offered testimony to Congress, opposing the war and describing horrific war crimes he said soldiers committed there.

    He said opposing the war is "a right and an obligation" because it was "founded on a lie [and] can never be true to America’s character."

    Kerry also lashed out at war supporters who accuse anti-war activists of not supporting the troops. "The best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that destroys their lives," he said.

    Kerry renewed his call for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, saying that he supports setting a timetable for the removal in Iraq that is not "cut and run." Without saying when he would like troops removed from the war zone, Kerry said he believes "we need a hard and fast deadline."

    Kerry made his comments during a speech at the annual Take Back America conference in the nation’s capital. Organized by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, the conference has also featured U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. U.S. Sens. Russ Feingold and Barack Obama are scheduled to appear Wednesday.

    A spokesman for the Republican National Committee was not immediately available for reaction to Kerry’s comments.

    Perhaps the Sen. Kerry (D-France) will recall the letter he and other Senate Solons sent the President on October 9, 1998:

    CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
    October 9, 1998

    Mr. President,

    Today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq’s actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs…

    And speaking of Rep. Pelosi (D-Al Qaeda), here is a press release she issued two months later:

    Statement on U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq
    December 16, 1998

    As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

    The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people…

    Now, I’m no historian. But I’m pretty sure William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was President in October of 1998.

    And he and his cohorts were asserting some rather definitive things on the subject of Iraq’s WMD:

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." — President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 CNN

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 CNN

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 USIA

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998 USIA

    So who exactly was "misleading" Kerry (and Pelosi)?

    By Blogger Voltron, at 12:58 AM  

  • The previous btw, was brought to you courtesy of the good folks at "Sweetness & Light"

    http://www.sweetness-light.com/

    By Blogger Voltron, at 1:01 AM  

  • Hezbollah's Final Solution
    By Alan M. Dershowitz
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2006

    The uniqueness of the Holocaust was not the Nazi's determination to kill the Jews of Germany and even of neighboring Poland. Other genocides, such as those by the Cambodians and the Turks, sought to rid particular areas of so called undesirables by killing them. The utter uniqueness of the Holocaust was the Nazi plan to "ingather" all the Jews of the world to the death camp and end the Jewish "race" forever.

    It almost succeeded. The Nazis ingathered tens of thousands of Jews (including babies, women, the elderly) from far flung corners of the world--from the Island of Rhodes from Salonika and from other obscure locations -- in order to gas them at Auschwitz and at other death camps.



    The official leader of the Palestinian Muslims, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated in the Nazi genocide, declaring that he sought to "solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries" by employing "the same method" being used "in the Axis countries". Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin and was later declared a Nazi war criminal at Nuremberg, wrote the following in his memoirs:



    Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours."



    Husseini planned a death camp for Jews modeled on Auschwitz, to be located in Nablus. He broadcast on Nazi Radio, calling for genocide against all the world's Jews: "kill the Jews wherever you find them--this pleases God, history, and religion." Professor Edward Said has acknowledged that this Nazi collaborator and genocidal anti-Semite "represented the Palestinian Arab consensus" and was "the voice of the Palestinian people." Yasser Arafat referred to Husseini as "our hero."



    Never before or since in world history has a tyrannical regime sought to murder all of the members of a particular racial, religious, ethnic or cultural group, regardless of where they live--not until now. Hezbollah's aim is not to "end the occupation of Palestine," or even to "liberate all of Palestine." Its goal is to kill the world's Jews. Listen to the words of its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah: "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15, section 2, column 1.) Nasrallah is one of the most admired men in the Muslim and Arab world today. Hitler made similar threats in Mein Kampf but they were largely ignored. Nasrallah has a reputation for keeping his promises.



    His genocidal goals--to kill all Jews--were proven by two recent statements. He has warned the Arabs and Muslims to leave Haifa so that his rockets can kill only Jews. And he apologized for causing the deaths of three Israeli-Arabs in Nazareth, when a Katuysha struck that religiously mixed Israeli city. Hezbollah also worked hand-in-hand with Argentine neo-Nazis to blow up a Jewish community center, murdering dozens of Jews.



    Nasrallah is a modern day Hitler, who currently lacks the capacity to carry out his genocide. But he is an ally of Iran, which will soon have the capacity to kill Israeli's five million Jews. Listen to what the former President of Iran has said about how Iran would use its nuclear weapons:



    Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated by dropping its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small "sacrifice" from among the billion Muslims in the world.



    Now listen to the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies the Nazi Holocaust, but calls for a modern Holocaust that would "wipe Israel off the map."



    Despite these anti-Semitic and genocidal threats, some of the hard left admire Nasrallah and his bigoted organization, as well as Iran and its anti-Semitic president. Others do not seem to take his threats seriously.


    For example, the notorious Jewish anti-Semite Norman Finkelstein has said, "looking back my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."



    Finkelstein's hatred of Jews runs so deep that he has actually implied that his own mother, who survived the Nazi Holocaust, may have collaborated with the Nazis. If so collaboration with evil seems to run in the family, because Finkelstein has clearly become a collaborator with Hezbollah anti-Semitism and Nazism. Finkelstein's website is filled with Hezbollah promotion, including breathless reprints of Nasrallah speeches. Noam Chomsky, who works closely with Finkelstein, has said of Finkelstein that he is "a person who can speak with more authority and insight on these topics [Israel and anti-Semitism] than anyone I can think of."

    The Iran-Hezbollah axis is the greatest threat to world peace, to Jewish survival, to Western values, and to civilization. Those like Finkelstein, who support Hezbollah, and even those who refuse to fight against this evil, are on the wrong side of history. They are collaborators with Islamofascists -- today's version of Nazism.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 1:15 AM  

  • Terrorists Are Not POWs
    By John Yoo and Glen Sulmasy
    AEI.org | August 11, 2006

    In its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld rejecting President Bush's military commissions for the trial of al-Qaeda terrorists, the Supreme Court made a number of missteps.

    Justice John Stevens, writing for Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and the wandering Anthony Kennedy, evaded Congress' order that the court not decide any cases arising from the detention of enemy combatants at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, camp. They narrowed Congress' authorization for the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. They overlooked centuries of American history in which presidents from George Washington to FDR used military commissions to try enemy combatants for war crimes. They essentially overruled the central lessons of three Supreme Court decisions from World War II upholding the use of military commissions.

    But believe it or not, these are not the worst aspects of the court's decision. In an effort to interfere with the way the elected branches of our government have chosen to wage war against al-Qaeda, they interpreted a law recognizing military commissions to require the United States to follow what is known as “Common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions. While limited only to military trials, Hamdan suggests the possibility that the courts will order the United States to apply Common Article 3 to other operations against jihadists who do not wear uniforms nor display any distinctive signs, systematically flout the laws of war, and are neither parties nor signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan has the potential to straight-jacket our armed forces well beyond the narrow issue of war crimes trials.

    A stretch? You bet.

    It is critical to clarify where Common Article 3 really applies and what it actually demands. Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoner of war status is reserved for captured soldiers in the regular armed forces of nations that have signed the treaties. POWs receive the gold standard of treatment: they cannot be placed in cells, they need only provide name, rank and serial number, and they are entitled to a great many privileges and benefits, such as retaining their uniform, unit structure and chain of command.

    These rules have in mind the conflicts between the large conscript armies of World Wars I and II. It provides protections to those who follow the laws of wars: do not target civilians deliberately and restrict violence to combatants.

    The major purpose of these provisions is to ensure, through treaty, that reciprocity be afforded to all nations and their armed forces once engaged in combat. Al-Qaeda did not exist at the time of the drafting of the Geneva Conventions, and affording such protections was never in the minds of the signatories--certainly not the United States. Al-Qaeda is not a nation state and could not be, nor will it ever be party to such treaties. It has no intention of following any of the laws of war. In fact, its primary tactics--targeting and killing civilians, taking hostages and executing prisoners--are designed specifically to violate any standards of civilized warfare.

    Our conflict with al-Qaeda cannot trigger the general POW protections of the Geneva Conventions, because al-Qaeda is not a party to the treaties.

    Common Article 3 applies to certain fighters who do not meet the standards for a POW. It sets minimum standards “in the case of armed conflict not of an international character.” Its inclusion in 1949 cured a major gap in the Geneva Conventions. The original conventions did not set rules for internal civil wars between a government and resistance or rebel groups. Common Article 3 extended minimum protections to detainees who were not fighting on behalf of the armed forces of another nation, but not those due to POWs. It requires, for example, that “persons taking no active part in the hostilities,” including the sick, wounded and captured, “be treated humanely.” They are to be protected against “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.”

    The basic purpose of Common Article 3--humane treatment--is already the policy of the United States. But Common Article 3 also contains some ambiguous provisions. It prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment,” which it does not define. It only allows the use of a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples,” which it again leaves undefined.

    An example from Hamdan itself illustrates how ambiguous these terms can be. Under the Pentagon's rules on the procedures for military commissions, a court may exclude the defendant from the courtroom if classified information is to be presented. His defense attorney may be present, but not the defendant. This makes a great deal of sense. We would not want al-Qaeda operatives directly learning the sources and methods used by American intelligence to track and capture them. Al-Qaeda has shown that it quickly adapts to outsmart our strategies and tactics. Does preventing an al-Qaeda defendant access to such information constitute a violation of “judicial guarantees that are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples?”

    The Supreme Court seemed to think so, but we believe many would agree that the military commission rule is a reasonable compromise that allows for the defendant's interests to be represented but without harming national security during an ongoing war.

    Our conflict with al-Qaeda does not fit within the general Geneva Convention rules for wars between nation-states. Al-Qaeda terrorists are not legally eligible for the rights granted to POWs. But the war on terrorism does not fall within Common Article 3 either. The United States is not fighting an internal civil war. As Justice Clarence Thomas notes in his vigorous Hamdan dissent, the war against al-Qaeda and its supporters is clearly one of an “international character.” The battlefield reaches beyond Afghanistan and Iraq, to New York City, Washington, D.C., London, Bali and Madrid. The war that began with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 is certainly nothing like the internal civil wars in the minds of Common Article 3's drafters in 1949. We are not fighting a liberation movement of Americans who want to overthrow the government. We are fighting something that lay completely outside the experience of those who wrote Geneva after World War II: an international terrorist organization with the power to inflict destruction on a par with the armed forces of a nation.

    Hamdan also disregards the distinctions between lawful and illegal combatants. The enemy we now fight, and will fight for the foreseeable future, does not abide by the laws of war. Any incentive to follow the rules of civilized warfare is removed if they receive the same rights as those who scrupulously obey the Geneva Conventions. In applying Common Article 3 to the jihadists, we now equate illegal combatants to ordinary armed forces. By affording Geneva Convention protections to al-Qaeda, we would be legitimizing their form of warfare.

    This is a dangerous path to follow. Al-Qaeda uses our laws and treaties against us while violating the same humane principles we hold dear. Al-Qaeda and those who hate the Western way of life are using our respect for the laws of war against our armed forces and are trying to open the door to claims of war crimes based on ambiguous terms. It is telling that the week after the decision was handed down, al-Qaeda in Iraq offered a video on an Islamist Web site of the two U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq--showing them beheaded and their chests cut wide open. Can we ever expect humane treatment and reciprocity from terrorists? Never.

    In trying to force Common Article 3 onto a conflict that stretches beyond national borders--but with an international terrorist organization rather than a nation--the Supreme Court is trying to force a round peg into a square hole. We can have a legitimate debate on whether to update the Geneva Conventions to ensure humane principles are applied in conflicts with terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda. But as it stands now, as a matter of both law and policy, such application to al-Qaeda only hurts the United States in its efforts to protect the nation against international terror--both now and in the foreseeable future.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 1:23 AM  

  • Let the Jews Die
    By Alan Nathan
    FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2006

    UN Secretary General Kafi Annan repeatedly describes as “disproportionate” the Israeli response to the act of war committed by the Hezbollah wing of the Lebanese government; on July 31st in Beirut, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a news conference that Iran is a great people and, “plays a stabilizing role in the region” - despite knowing that Iran is waging a war by proxy on Israel through Hezbollah; and, on August 9th in a Washington Post column, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora demanded that, “Israel be made to respect international humanitarian law, including the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which it has repeatedly and willfully violated.”

    All this begs a very specific question: How long have these folks been on their pharmacological excursion? Is their addiction in any way correctible? Are there any support groups that can provide a nurturing and non-threatening environment to better facilitate a reentry into the earth’s atmosphere even though it will require the severing of bonds with an ideological mother-ship hell bent on not letting her flock of delusional space munchkins become grounded by the gravity of logic. In short, are they out of their minds?

    For the better part of the month long conflict, the European Union and Russia have joined most of the UN in their criticism of Israel’s supposedly disproportionate use of force. When did “proportionality” become the gauge for appropriateness when launching a counter-attack against those who first attack you? Isn’t the more legitimate gauge of appropriateness the response that best ensures the enemy’s inability to replicate those attacks in the future? Would the citizens from any other country not demand the same standard?



    Most of the UN member states, including those who sit on its Security Council, are saying that Israel only has the right to defend itself up to the point where it doesn’t harm the fellow citizens of its enemy even though the enemy attacks from behind those same citizens. They’re demanding that Israel subordinate the security of its own citizens to those of its enemies whenever the two are in moral conflict. By consequence of this “catch-22” formula, the UN is essentially mandating that Israel not be allowed to defend itself while rhetorically saying it can.



    French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy seems almost theatrically out of touch when characterizing Iran as a stabilizing force to the region while it has in fact been the impetus behind the very blood bath we all want to stop. We know that Muslim nations like Syria and Iran are allied with Hezbollah against Israel as well as with the insurgent and sectarian terrorists in another proxy war against Americans in Iraq.



    If a country is waging war against you, does it really matter whether it’s direct or by proxy? Don’t their acts of war entitle both the United States and Israel to counter-attack these countries? How is it that three degrees of separation by name equals three degrees of separation for accountability? This crazy restriction allows these sponsor nations to slaughter with impunity. If they were launching missiles at the US or Israel from their homeland, reciprocating in kind would seem justified by one and all. Why is it when they launch attacks by proxy, we can’t do the same? This is tantamount to not charging people with murder simply because they had it done by contract.



    The only suffering Iran and Syria currently sustain is the termination of their weapons (terrorists and suicide bombers). It’s like shooting down incoming rockets with Patriot missiles but then not firing back at the genuine source.



    The Lebanese Prime Minister praises Hezbollah while accusing Israel of war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention. What’s so paradoxical about this is that the Lebanese Government knowingly allowed Hezbollah to violate the Geneva Convention by immersing their rocket and missile launchers in the private homes of densely populated towns and cities. The Convention defines these activities as war crimes because the acts proactively place civilians in harm’s way. Hezbollah has a greater awareness of those jeopardized innocents than does the country that may kill through retaliation.



    When the enemy attacks you and then hides behind a wall of innocents for protection, the destruction of that wall is the fault of those hiding behind them, not those completing the task of self-defense? If we don’t accept that logic, by default we’re condoning a template that allows terrorists to attack with a one-way entitlement. Essentially, they would get to repeatedly hit and hide but escape accountability by saying, “You can’t get me, because I’m behind a wall of innocents.”



    Once a country is subjected to an unprovoked act of war, the ensuing deaths become the responsibility of the original attacker. You don’t get to drag somebody into your backyard and then whine about their trespassing. You can’t start a fire and then bitch about the flames.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 1:24 AM  

  • voltaire, the great delusion is this notion that somehow our campain in Iraq has created some enemy that didn't exist before. We've been at War with Islamist fascism for nearly 30 years. The Iranians seized our embassy and held our citizens hostage for six months in 1979. Terrorists kidnapped and killed our Beirut CIA station chief in 1981. Terrorists bombed our Beirut Marine barracks and killed 240 Americans in their sleep in 1982. Terrorists hijacked boats and planes and murdered American citizens in 1985. Terrorists bombed a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbee, Scotland and killed several hundred Americans in 1988. Terrorists captured and killed Navy airman Scott Spicer in 1992. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center and killed 5 Americans in 1993. Terrorists bombed Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and killed 19 Airmen in 1996. Terrorists bombed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and killed 80 in 1998. Terrorists attacked the USS Cole in Yemen port and killed 16 sailors. Terrorists attacked and killed 3000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001. Terrorists bombed and killed hundreds of civilians in Madrid, London, Beslan Bombay, Riyadh, Bali, Manilla, Tel Aviv and Jeruselum, Morocco and Cairo the past four years. They target schools, hospitals, mosques and playgrounds. Terrorists kidnap American civilians and cut off their heads. They desecrate captured soldiers.

    We've been at War with radical Islam for several decades. Now, however, we're fighting them with our world class warriors in their neighborhood . Failure in this War is not an option.

    By Blogger Thomas, at 1:25 AM  

  • BIG FOOT, SCOOP JACKSON DEMOCRATS AND OTHER MYTHS
    August 9, 2006

    I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

    On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

    As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

    That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

    In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

    Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

    The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

    Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

    Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

    Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy — Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

    To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

    Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

    By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

    Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

    So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

    The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

    AnnCoulter.com

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 5:38 AM  

  • Bush gets 55 pct approval on security: poll

    Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:00pm ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fifty-five percent of Americans approve of President George W. Bush's handling of homeland security, an 11 percent jump from May, according to a Newsweek poll released on Saturday.

    The poll was taken Thursday and Friday, after British authorities foiled a plot to use chemical bombs to bring down as many as 10 airliners flying from Britain to the United States.

    Bush's approval rating rose to 38 percent, a 3-point increase since Newsweek conducted its last poll in May.

    Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would oppose a ban on all carry-on baggage on commercial flights, the poll said.



    Taken three months ahead of congressional elections, the survey found 44 percent of respondents said Republicans would do a better job handling terrorism, compared with 39 percent who preferred Democrats.

    Fifty-three percent of respondents said they wanted to see the Democrats win enough seats to take over Congress, while 34 percent said they wanted the Republicans to retain control, the poll found.

    Twenty-two percent of those surveyed said Iraq was the most important issue in the upcoming election and would determine how they would vote. Eighteen percent said the top issue was the economy and 15 percent cited terrorism.

    Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed also said they trusted the Democrats to better manage the economy, while 34 percent sided with Republicans, according to the poll.

    The survey of 1,001 adults has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 6:48 AM  

  • Poll driven approval ratings track the price of gas and the last media supplied image or story the respondent saw. People lie to pollsters. Everyone hates Congress as a concept but likes THEIR representative. Everyone hears that the economy is bad , it must be so, but nobody personally knows anyone who is hopelessly unemployed, economically doomed and without any prospect of improvement. Most Americans are doing well, and on November 7 they are going to make a very simple calculation: Who is going to protect my life? That comes up Repbulican for anyone who is living their life removed from political messabe boards and who is not an intractable partisan consumed by their ideology.

    By Blogger Thomas, at 8:05 AM  

  • Connecticut Senate: Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5
    Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
    August 12, 2006

    Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

    A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

    Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

    57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

    Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

    Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

    Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

    For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

    Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 8:09 AM  

  • The above by Rassmussen

    http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

    By Blogger Voltron, at 8:10 AM  

  • I agree Thomas. But as soon as mikey and clif arrive they'll tell us how wrong we are....LOL

    By Blogger Voltron, at 8:12 AM  

  • Politics
    What It Takes to Be a Good Democrat
    by Michael Lewis
    Posted Aug 10, 2006

    Unable to “hash” out a coherent, unified position on any issue, Democrats are fielding a variety of leftist ideas this election season. Such campaign promises include taxing funerals, reducing the child tax credit for middle class families, and letting pedophiles live near schools so they can vote -- for Democrats. Never forget the chief campaign promise of Democrats: take our quasi-socialist government and institute full-blown Marxism.

    While Democrats claim to oppose Communism, their actions tell a different story. Efforts to nationalize industries, establish a single-payer healthcare system, and abolish all references to God are indicative of their quest for a utopia based in secularism and excessive equality. All of this war for ideas, of course, is won in America’s public school classrooms, where teachers promote “open-mindedness” by displaying portraits of Che Guevara. The rhetoric is of course cloaked in moderation. Fear of lynching by the American public prevents Democrats from saying what they truly believe.

    Despite conclusions by political pundits of all stripes that the 2004 election was a referendum on values, Democrats seem more hell-bent than ever on moving the Party further to the left, as is evidenced by their selection of nut job Howard Dean as Party spokesman. Polls may show public dissatisfaction with the Republican Congress, but dissatisfaction with the minority Party is even greater. The last time the minority had a lower satisfaction rating than the majority was -- wait, that’s actually never happened before.

    The inability to articulate a political platform palatable to the American public leaves Democrats stooping to new lows each passing day. Pinning their hopes on a cut-and-run strategy in the war on terror leaves them clamoring to whip the Caucus into line. In fact, minor signs of bipartisanship and independence by members of Democratic Party are a death sentence via mob lynching for the perpetrator. Such an execution resembles a Purple Haze fan club gathering.

    Unable to win at the ballot box, Democrats of late have increasingly relied on the federal courts to implement their agenda. Judges who stick to the Constitution are labeled extremists, bigots, and a slew of racial epithets. However, the control of the judiciary seems to be slipping from the Democrats. Recent State Supreme Court rulings in heavily Democratic states such as New York and Washington have dealt serious blows to efforts to redefine marriage.

    Left with few options, Democrats have resorted to internal political witch hunts in an effort to seize control of the country. Former Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate and longtime Sen. Joe Lieberman (D.-Conn.) was beat out by a primary challenger as a result of his support for Jewish causes, like the defeat of Islamofascism. Support for the war in Iraq, coupled with criticism of Democrats and St. Clinton’s sex escapades landed him in hot water with burnt-out ‘60s radicals. Ned Lamont, Lieberman’s previously unknown billionaire challenger, gained a 4-point lead in the polls by criticizing a kiss Lieberman received from President Bush at this year’s State of the Union address. It is now apparent that Democrats’ ancestors were no doubt the mob of people screaming “crucify Him!” to Pontius Pilate. In fact, one of Lieberman’s campaign advisor recently told the New York Times that “there is a growing tolerance for anti-Semitism in the Progressive community.”

    Even Boy Clinton said that the plan to purge Democrats who waver from the party on one issue was the most ridiculous election strategy he’s ever heard of. Still, John Kerry declined to support Lieberman. But alas, Stalin purged his comrades, too.

    In order to be a “good Democrat” these days, one must posses a myopic obsession with personally hating the President, coupled with an appreciation for good hash and Willie Nelson songs. If deviance on one issue is all it takes to run a fellow party man up a flagpole, then McCain, Hagel, Graham, Frist, Chafee, DeWine, and Specter should all be hanging from the oaks in front of the Capitol. To the contrary, the Republican Party has always been a big-tent party where members are free to think independently. Despite our disagreements, we still respect McCain, et al as great men.

    Dig this joint, man.

    Mr. Lewis is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16443

    By Blogger Voltron, at 8:49 AM  

  • Bush rules by fear, that's all he has.

    By Blogger Lydia Cornell, at 9:16 AM  

  • Lydia, on one of the hijacked flights on 9/11 a hijacker walked a 6 month pregnant Flight Attendant to the front of the plane and unemotionally, methodically slit her throat. If you don't fear that pathology, if you don't fear an enemy that is capable of that level of brutality and inhumanity more than you fear and loathe George W. Bush ... there's just no place to start.

    By the way, I remember a "Hunter" episode you were in where you and the big guy shared a "From Here to Eternity" swimwear moment, scampered to the boudoir for some quality networking and then, after the lovin' ... you grabbed a knife tried to put a hit on him.

    I'm sorry ... that was antisocial Lydia!! LOL. You broke Hunter's heart too. He thought you were the one before you tried to fillet him. You made him engage in bad acting! I remember thinking at the time while you being hauled off to jail ... "Well, this is why they make conjugal visits." Cheers!

    By Blogger Thomas, at 9:30 AM  

  • Saddam used the wmd THAT WE GAVE HIM and don't ever forget that! Remember it was during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years that we were arming Saddam to the hilt.

    Let's not forget either that there were at least 2 Texans involved in and profitted from The Oil For Food Program! Starving Iraqis didn't seem to bother these guys either!!!!!!!!!

    If Saddam killed thousands and thousands of people in his country and the massive graves aren't from years of bloody war with Iran, then please explain Thomas why Saddam is on trial for killing 143 people! Doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense to be having a war crimes trial in the middle of an illegal occupation/war.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:02 AM  

  • Knowing that all the evidence has come forth and out in the open that the Iraq occupation was based on forged documents and started on lies, John Kerry can't change his mind about the war? You mean to tell me that America is now a nation where there is only one way and one way only? No free thinking?

    You mean to tell me that when you purchase an expensive item only to get it home to find out it's nothing but a fake, that you can't change your mind about it? You have to keep the garment, lose your money, and can't say one negative word about maker of the garment because of fear that you might upset him?

    Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!

    Many republicans in your party are changing their minds about Bush and his fake war. Why aren't you talking about them but continue to lambaste John Kerry for also feeling the same way?

    I know why!!!!!

    You're pathetic little sheep following your Shepard and can't see the edge of the cliff approaching in the distance!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:05 AM  

  • kay said: "Many republicans in your party are changing their minds about Bush and his fake war."

    Right, Bush's poll numbers are going up. Kay, I am happy to see that you aknowledged that Saddam DID have WMDs. Good of you to come around on that issue.

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 10:16 AM  

  • Oh by the way Thomas,

    While Mike, Clif and Lydia are definately to the left, you'll find that Kay is clinging by her fingernails to the left edge of the planet...

    I'm not sure, but I believe she escaped from Area 51.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:19 AM  

  • Sorry Tall Texan, Bush's approval rating is at 33% (which is down 3% in the last week or two) and I find it hysterical that his homeland security number is up to 55% which is up 11% since May! Wow, Reuters is werkin hahd to help their Fuehrer's party out for the upcoming November election, even though it is now known that the British plot was hurried by our CIA and many of the 'terrorists' didn't even have passports at their disposal! Funny how the Pigs in Washington tried to use this plot to try to fake out our country that a vote for Lamont was a vote for a terrorist attack!

    YOUR PARTY is desperate. YOUR PARTY is irrational and deceitful. Americans are onto you. If you don't go down in November it's because of Rovian plots by YOUR PARTY!!!!!!!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:20 AM  

  • Yeah Kay, John Kerry CAN change his mind.

    I just thought it was so horrible that Bill Clinton, Madeline Notsobright and Sandy Burglar ALL lied to him!

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:21 AM  

  • Isn't it funny that Bush has been defunding bomb detection at our airports and has known about the liquid bombs, but funny how it's been relaxed?

    I guess the Pigs in Washington have to relax the security measures in our country so they can get their ducks in a row before the November election!!!! Yup, can't have fantastic machines in place to detect bombs when you have people on your payroll who need to get them through!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:22 AM  

  • Boxcutters and lipsticks can takeover America's defense systems! Watch out for the L'Oreal brand!!!!! They're the scariest according to the Bush Pigs!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:23 AM  

  • Kay, if rueters is on our side, why are they doctoring pictures to make Israel look so bad?

    And if the recent attempted plane bombing was a plot to help republicans, why didn't they use it BEFORE Lamont won the primary, huh Kay?

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:25 AM  

  • And did you notice Lieberman is now ahead in the polls according to Rassmussen?

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:26 AM  

  • Did you know that 3 Texans were arrested a day or two ago for trying to purchase 80 cell phones (can be used to detonate bombs) from a Wal-Mart and when their personal property was searched, it was learned that 1,000 cell phones were in their possession?

    Wow! Bush says, "we must fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here!". Wow!

    Bush doesn't believe in homegrown terrorists because he's too busy counting all the money that he and his Swines have stolen from the American people in the last 6 years by setting up fake companies to launder our money into! Fake wars help them so much too!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:27 AM  

  • Thomas, just listen to Kay go. You'll get the idea....LOL

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:28 AM  

  • Did the doctored picture look worse than the original picture or did it just look blacker? The fake smoke wasn't much higher than the real smoke!

    But, you warmongers will use anything to make yourself look like the victim in all of this!

    Joe Lieberman did the same thing with his "website being hacked". It wasn't hacked. He just purchased a cheap webserver that was shared with 73 other websites and it crashed during the middle of the night! Just like all Rovian republicans, Joe used a normal occurance to make himself look like a victim to the big bad liberal opponent!

    JOE AND YOUR PARTY are screwed. YOU'RE ALL CRIMINALS.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:30 AM  

  • LOL @ Kay!

    Yeah, I just HATE those pretend muslim extremists from texas...

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:30 AM  

  • Rant on Kay!

    You make our point everytime you post!

    ROTFLMAO!!!

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:32 AM  

  • Notice how the RNC is not supporting the republican candidate in Connecticut? Wow! You know what that means.......LIEBERMAN IS MORE OF A REPUBLICAN THAN THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE AND THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE OF CONNECTICUT BOOTED HIS ASS TO THE SIDEWALK!

    Who will support Joe as the Independent? Not the democrats. Nope! THE REPUBLICANS WILL LAUNDER MONEY TO HIM SOMEHOW. Dammit. Jack Abramoff isn't around. Rove will just have to find an unknown to do it. Awwwww, poor Karl. He's going to be busy this fall.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:32 AM  

  • Post things against my rants that prove me wrong Trolls!!!!!!!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:33 AM  

  • "Did the doctored picture look worse than the original picture or did it just look blacker? The fake smoke wasn't much higher than the real smoke!

    But, you warmongers will use anything to make yourself look like the victim in all of this!"

    Yes Kay, and who really cares if Dan Blather used faked memos on the Bush hit piece right before the election, we know the "facts" are true anyway....

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:35 AM  

  • So, why would 3 Texans buy so many cell phones and do it so 3 were rung up at a time? Hmmmmmmmm...they're addicted to cell phones? Yeah, that's it! Yup, addicted to cell phones. This is what Bush will use as an excuse everytime there is homegrown terrorists exposed. Yeah, yeah, he'll say, (insert your best cowboy accent here) "They're addicted to white phosophorus and electrical components. They're addicted to blowing things up. Don't pay no attention to them. Timothy McVeigh was not real. He never did a thing to America. Go buy a new outfit to make yourself think happy thoughts".

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:37 AM  

  • From Rassmussen Kay, Read it and weep!

    Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%.

    57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

    Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

    Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

    Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

    For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

    Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:38 AM  

  • Please post evidence that Bush flew planes everyday while in the National Guard. Post as much stuff as you have that proves he showed up faithfully like all others during that time. And make sure you post all the evidence you have that proves that Bush couldn't wait to fight in Vietnam and was so disappointed when his number wasn't called!

    No one in the National Guard at the time that Bush "served" have come forward as far as I know to say that Bush served honorably and proudly.

    Dan Rather shouldn't have been fired. BUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE TO BE.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:39 AM  

  • Voltaire! Leiberman is going to lose my friend! Did you hear what he just said about the Holocaust? Wow, for a guy who supports Israel and is Jewish himself he sure likes to use the Holocaust to get his way!!!!!!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:41 AM  

  • The suspects are 21 year old Adham Abdelhamid Othman, 18 year old Maruan Awad Muhareb, and 23 year old Louai Abdelhamied Othman.

    Yep, good ol Texas names...

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:43 AM  

  • Joe said that anyone who doesn't agree with him and who doesn't like the war on terror is worst than Hitler!

    He was implying that what Hitler did was nothing compared to what the liberals, democrats, and moderate republicans are doing by voting in Lamont!

    HE WON'T BE ON THE TICKET IN NOVEMBER because gassing, starving, and beating to death the Jews by Hitler is much better than voting for Lamont.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:44 AM  

  • Well tell ya what Kay, how about I take you to court?

    I can fake some memos and pictures to prove my case.

    I assume by your previous posts that it would be OK with you?

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:46 AM  

  • And how come you never criticize Kerry for not finishing his enlistment?

    He never showed up for his final 6 months in the ready reserve...

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:47 AM  

  • Kerry fought in Vietnam, idiot.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:52 AM  

  • Bush’s National Guard years
    Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts
    Byron York

    What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
    That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

    News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

    The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

    That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

    Not two years of weekends. Two years.

    After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

    According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

    Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

    That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

    Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

    “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

    So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

    Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

    In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

    Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

    During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

    A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

    A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

    http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:54 AM  

  • Kay said "Funny how the Pigs in Washington tried to use this plot to try to fake out our country that a vote for Lamont was a vote for a terrorist attack!"

    Kay, the plot was revealed two days after the CT election.

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 10:55 AM  

  • Voltaire, the 3 Texans are either American citizens with those last names, are illegals, or have come from abroad and have infiltrated our security. Wow! I guess we don't have to fight the terrorists over in Iraq anymore. Seems that not all the terrorists on the planet followed us to Iraq. Awwwww poor Bush, he thought he was so right too. He forget that he didn't secure our country right after 9/11 and is now defunding all security programs. Awwww, no wonder he vacations so much. He hides his head under his pillow hoping the world will go away! Kind of like his 'service' during Vietnam. Thank God he had his powerful Daddy and the bin Laden family members to get him through it all!!!!! Phew.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 10:56 AM  

  • Lt. John Kerry as a Ready Reservist

    John Kerry signed a 6 year contract (plus 6 months extension during war time) with the Navy.

    John Kerry also signed a Officer Candidate contract for 5 years of active duty and active Naval Reserves.

    Kerry was required to attend 48 drills per year and go on active duty for training each year 14 days. Kerry was also subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

    When John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of 3 years and 18 days, he was required to attend weekend drills in the Ready Reserve for at least 2 years.

    It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not get an Honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972, about 29 years later when he plans on running for the presidency.

    On Jan. 3, 1970 John Kerry was transferred to Naval Reserve Manpower Center, Bainridge , MD 21965.

    Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 14 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released? Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled? Or was Lt. John Forbes Kerry AWOL from service during war time???

    How many navy regulations did Lt. Kerry USNR violate as a Ready Reservist, while he was leading his traitor buddies in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War?

    1. Lt. Kerry was at many rallies where the enemy's flag (VietCong) was displayed while our flag was defiled, mocked etc.
    2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
    3. Lt. Kerry made false testimony against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about the crimes committed in Vietnam.
    4. On national TV Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal and condemned the military and the USA.

    That is just a few of the violations Lt. Kerry committed while he was supposed to be on active Ready Reserve!!!

    http://johnkerry-08.com/war/reservist.php

    By Blogger Voltron, at 10:56 AM  

  • TallTexan, explain why Bush gave the authority to push the terror coding system to red level ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT? And why did Bush know about it on Sunday before the Lamont/Lieberman race and never said anything? Huh? BECAUSE THE BUSH REGIME IS PLAYING AROUND WITH OUR SECURITY FOR POLITICAL REASONS!

    They don't care about you and I. They care about winning and doing whatever they want! Laws in our country? Not according to Bush who has used over 800 signing statements to ignore them! He thinks he is the Unitary Executive of America, the Imperial Ruler of America, and the Dictator of America. He and his Swines hate the idea of democracy where the people rule. They want America to be a dictatorship.

    Because they don't want to lose in November, expect a huge terrorist attack to happen in our country. And.....if the democrats win in 2008 (if Martial Law hasn't set in by that time and Diebold has folded), you can bet your sweet ass the repukes are conspiring now with our military (think Anthrax attack right after 9/11) to do something huge "to prove" that a vote for a democrat means a terror attack!

    They just used the same analogy this past week after the Lamont win.

    Pigs. I spit on them.

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 11:01 AM  

  • Kay, didn't you see that compelling piece by Dan Rather in which he proved, by showing an unaltered email from 1975, that Bush dodged his service? Didn't you see that?

    Also, glad to see that you finally acknowledged that Saddam has WMDs.

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 11:02 AM  

  • Questions for Kay:

    1. Have you ever seen Big Foot?

    2. Ever been abducted by a UFO.

    3. Do you think Elvis is still alive?

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 11:05 AM  

  • Okay, so what you're saying is John Kerry's time in Vietnam aboard a swift boat (which were the tiny boats that would speed to shore to come in first to take on and scope out the enemy before the 'big guns' got there) is now deleted because he spoke out against his country (freedom of speech was still available during that time, wasn't it?) and then didn't go on to spend one weekend a month in the Reserves?

    Do you know how stupid that sounds?

    That's like saying, "Well, George Bush's presidency is null because he didn't serve as president of his freshman class back in high school".

    Say what you want.....JOHN KERRY SIGNED UP TO GO TO VIETNAM and GEORGE BUSH DID EVERYTHING IN HIS SPOILED CONNECTICUT ROOTS TO NOT!

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 11:06 AM  

  • Kay, what's your reaction to the fact that 55% of Americans approve of Bush's performance on national security?

    By Blogger TalllTexan, at 11:07 AM  

  • Sorry everybody but Bush was drinking and snorting coke during his time in the very elite portion of the Texas National Guard! Believe what you want, but the man was the son of a powerful father and he didn't go to Vietnam nor did he serve honorably.

    It's my understanding that after Dan Rather's employees were fired and after he left, it was found that the documents were NOT FALSE. A funny thing happened when this whole thing happened, IMMEDIATELY THE REPUBLICAN PUNDITS JUMPED ON THE STORY AND CALLED IT FALSE WITHOUT THEIR OWN PROOF!

    The same thing happened on election 2000 night. In the middle of the night all the exist polls were stating that Gore had won until FOX NEWS exclaimed that Bush had won it!

    The republicans are very good at throwing in a bone into everything. They hate to lose and to look like the asses they are, so they first will put a lie out there hoping the population will take hold of it!

    Same with Joe Lieberman and his webiste......very Rovian, agree?

    By Blogger KayInMaine, at 11:11 AM