Snooper"s Video Collection

Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Dems, Rocks and Hard Places...UPDATED

ANO

UPDATES below

Once upon a time, in a place not very familiar to many Americans and, even obscured from view from most of the world, there is a place called the United States Senate. Close in proximity, is a place called the United States House of Representatives. Both establishments have, in the past, performed the bidding of a now obscure band of citizens, referenced to in archaic documents as "We The People". Not any longer. Through the decades, a sickness from the morphing of Political Correctness, Multiculturalism and Identity Politics into the Political Farce of American Politics, orchestrated by emotionally unstable influences, has caused a condition that requires certain politicians to rely heavily on Weather Vane Decision Accountability and Authority.

This condition has so permeated itself into the framework of American Politics that if anything gets accomplished, it is only due to Blind Luck and not Reasoned Thought. Such shameful attributes are lauded as the status quo and the ins and outs can be blamed on weather vanes. This gives way to the condition of Microwave Mentality...if life and/or results of any undertaking doesn't happen within a prescribed or preconceived period of time, the effort is deemed as untenable from the beginning and is condemned to scrutiny stemming from the lethality of hindsight.

A long, long, long time ago, way back on October 11, 2002, the United States Senate, in a vote of 77 to 23, a vast majority of Senators, approved of an obscure document called the Iraq War Resolution. In a vote of 296 to 133, a vast majority of Representatives, the United States House of Representatives passed the Iraq War Resolution, giving the President of The United States authority to "wage war".

The wind direction of that time was blowing in a certain direction. As anyone knows or, should know, wind directions change from time to time. Also, it is also common knowledge, among those that know, that "war directions" also change from time to time - not as often as the direction of the wind - but it changes all the same.

On 91101, the United States was stunned, shocked, confused and angry. We were attacked on our home turf and I had an odd chuckle at that expression; home turf. Our Embassies across the globe ARE American Soil and they were also attacked and have been attacked since 1979. The age-old saying of "this could never happen to us" was eternally shattered. I suppose the difference was this; the events of 91101 took place on American Soil Proper. War was in the air. Someone was going to pay. The problem was, the people that attacked this country, died in the Act Of War against us. So, who was to pay? It was determined that Al Qaida, a terrorist cabal, was to pay.

On 91201, there was talk from all corners of the Nation of retaliation. The once Main Stream Media lauded that as well and Retaliation was in the air. The general perception was a Country United. For the most part, this was true. In actuality, however, this was not the case. Some seem to forget about the groups of people that believed before 91101, on 91101, and after 91101 that every woe on our globe we call Earth was and is a direct result of The United States of America. Such drivel came to the fore among the American Politik during the 2004 election cycle. The term "WMD" became The Issue.

Using defective and disingenuous reasoning, the Blame America For Everything Crowds have determined that since no WMDs were found in Iraq, they therefore never existed, therefore President Bush knew they did not exist, therefore, President Bush lied. That sort of reasoning is that of an intellectually void individual.

On March 19, 2003, after diplomatic channels were exhausted and Saddam Hussein would not comply with any United Nations Resolutions, military action was launched on Saddam's Iraq. I find the CRS Report for Congress has gone largely ignored by our politicians and have chosen an avenue destructive to their political aspirations. It has also most assuredly gone ignored by the alleged Peace Movements that are nothing of the sort. They are and always have been and always will be anti-Americanist groups, disclosed here and here.
[...] President Bush has repeatedly called for regime change in Iraq. In his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on September 12, 2002, the President emphasized the dangers posed by Iraq's programs to develop WMD and urged the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities by enforcing previous U.N. Security Council resolutions that Iraq has ignored. On October 10 and 11, respectively, the House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 114 (P.L. 107-243), which authorized the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing Iraqi threat and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council sanctions regarding Iraq. At the international level, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which imposed a revised and more stringent weapons inspection regime on Iraq, required Iraq to submit a comprehensive declaration of all its WMD programs within 30 days, and warned of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to cooperate.1 On March 19, 2003 (March 20 Iraq time), President Bush announced that he had launched military operations (known as Operation Iraqi Freedom) "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." [...]
The above is a brief snippet of the document and all six pages should be read and studied by all. Carrying on with the mantra of "illegal war" and "United States Constitution violations" is disturbingly absurd, especially since those allegations are simply untrue and have no basis or merit - except perhaps from the emotionally unstable that don't have the capability of sound reasoning and/or fact checking before they begin to ramble. I question their motives and feigned patriotism.

I have written extensively on what I call The Why we went to war with Saddam's Iraq and I also find it curious that President Bush's words are skewed and distorted to such a degree that our politicians cannot return to the original intent(s) of The Why. However, there are three key speeches given by President Bush that are a must read and, they are as follows;
President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002

President Discusses the Future of Iraq, February 26, 2003

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, March 17, 2003
The above will or, should or, perhaps can, put an end to the idiots decrying the ignorant "illegal war" and similar idiocy.

Another widely ignored report comes from DefenseLink. It is ignored for one reason and one reason only. Blind hatred of President George W Bush. There is no other explanation. Or is there? But first, what constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Is it a Nuclear Weapon? Is it a Biological Weapon? Is it a Chemical Weapon? Is it a Long-Range Missile?
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 - The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. [...]
I already know the answer. Do you?
This brings us to the title of this article.

The Democratic Party Leadership has boxed themselves into a sticky wicket. They have painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without getting "dirty", as it were.

In 2004, the Democratic Party Leadership chose Sen Kerry to oust President Bush. He ran using the WMD issue and lost. He also ran on the credo that GWB "stole" the elections of 2000 and lost. The full onslaught of the Democratic Party Leadership did not fully take hold until the elections of 2006 utilizing their masters in the Leftinistra Press. They built a premise that we were losing the War In Iraq when nothing of the sort was true. The war was going poorly indeed, much in part to a defective ROE, developed and initialized by ignorance and diplomatic screed. We certainly were not losing...there. We were losing here, at home. The only thing similar to the War In Iraq and the Vietnam War were the politicians, the anti-Americanist groups and the American News Media.

The Good News flowing in from the results of the efforts by our troops under the leadership of General David Petraeus, unanimously anointed by the full Senate, is unmistakable and undeniable. Why else are there no more "woe is me" stories in the opening segments of the news hours and leading stories on the front pages? Why have the stories vanished from the alphabet news shows and removed to the back pages of the theoretical leading newspapers?

The Libocrats, both Democrat and Republican, were relying on a quick victory in Iraq much like the quick victory over the Taliban. They were not counting on the aftermath and some claim that there was no exit strategy, assuming this military action as a financial market. Exit strategy comments in regards to a war is indicative of a person and mindset that doesn't understand war and how it changes. Plan A quickly turns into Plan Z, running through the gauntlet of change.

Let us not forget the many now "anti-war" Democrats and Republicans that were once "pro-war" Democrats and Republicans. And, I find it purely disgusting that the politicians would actually invent the terms "anti-war" and "pro-war"...two terms that are so grossly disingenuous it causes my Warrior's Blood to boil. In these modern times, in this particular point in time, the only ones I know that are "pro-war" are the Jihadis. The proper terms are "anti-victory" and "pro-victory" and, this is why.

The Democratic Party Leadership in particular and the Fraud Republicans as a notice of recognition for what they are, have so invested in defeat in this war, a defeat would mean their victory in the American Political Arena. A victory in this war would be a defeat for them in the American Political Arena.

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article at NRO that I ran across several days ago. He runs through the ever changing political scene and a key point I shall never forget. The nuance will escape the average anti-Americanist:
[...] The second problem was the nature of the growing antiwar mood in the country that after the pullback from Fallujah in April 2004 became frenetic. Democrats rashly fanned this national wildfire. By 2006 the conflagration had finally led to their return to power in Congress.

Unfortunately, many Democrats saw the change-of-heart in the electorate as a blanket endorsement of their own alternate universe. But it wasn't necessarily so. The voters were not necessarily interested in new ties with terrorist Syria, restoring diplomacy with Iran, gay marriage, abortion, minority-identity politics, new spending programs, open borders, closing down Guantanamo, an end to wiretaps of suspected terrorists, or the repeal of the Patriot Act.

The people were mad at the war not because they felt it was amoral or unsound policy, or because they hated George Bush, or because they wished liberals instead to end it in defeat -- but simply because they felt frustrated that we either were not winning, or not winning at a cost in blood and treasure that was worth the effort.

That Pattonesque national mood ("America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser") is not quite entirely gone, and was entirely misunderstood by most Democrats. Somehow instead they saw their new popularity as connected to the appeal of their politics rather than their shared anger at the mismanagement of the war. [...]
Very powerful that is. And, in light of the recent developments in the War In Iraq, that sentiment marks their doom and they know it.

The Dems are between a rock and a hard place and cannot get out unscathed. They have embraced defeatist rhetoric in the hopes of political gain, self-destructive as it has become, and they have no way out and no way to recover. The elections of 2008 will be very interesting indeed.

Just a few days ago, Rep Murtha returned from Iraq and said (my paraphrase), "By golly gee! The Surge is working". This so infuriated SoH Pelosi that she put the kibosh on that almost immediately...too late it was in the coming. Murtha has some serious damage control in his own life to consider and may have been too eager to make points with the military. We may never know for sure.

Regardless, being stuck between their rocks and their hard places, they will be crushed and exposed for what they are; disingenuous cretins.
[...] Democrats have invested everything in losing the war in Iraq and blaming it on President Bush, and now they've been proved wrong. Murtha has admitted it; other Democrats, one by one, will follow.

How much faith can Americans place in a party so committed to a national failure - and now so discredited?
Exactly so. They just cannot get anything right on Iraq, can they?
Dems are on the wrong side of history and fading fast.

"But I felt kinda embarrassed telling the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here." - Democratic Congressman Norman Dicks.

The spin before was we cannot win, pull the troops out. The spin now is we won, pull the troops out.

Will Democrats ever change their course and head for victory? [...]
Only time will tell.

[Update 1]...forgot to include the United Nations Resolution 687...Persian Gulf War Cease Fire

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

SHHHHHH!! Don't Tell The Anti-Capitalists This Secret!!

ANO

Heritage Foundation Study Finds Democrats Represent More Wealthy Districts Than Republicans

HT to JWF!!

We don't want to hear how the Republicans and Corporate America is destroying the country anymore. We already knew that was a crock of shiite and now everyone else does as well. I guess the Party of Double Standards has been caught with their knickers down participating in that Evil Capitalism thing...

Go figure. Catch the wave.


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Stalin Loves Our Democrats


Yes. Stalin, if he were still alive, would be proud of his Leftinistras. He would beam with glee at the spectacle of how well the Soviet prediction of, “We will take the United States from within” as the shoe was being rapped down upon that dais.

Yes. Stalin would be proud that the Leftinistra blame America first. He would be proud that the NEA tells parents that only they can raise those American children.

Yes. Stalin would be proud that the Leftinistra of the 1950s and the 1960s brought children into the world that would be properly indoctrinated in the ways of socialism/communism and infiltrate the Higher Education facilities and eventually into the Halls of CONgress.

He would be proud that The List Of 45 are being implemented day after day in America. He would be chortling with hysterical pride in his puppets spewing out the I Hate My Country and what she stands for rhetoric. Yes. It is America’s fault.

Stalin would be proud.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, December 29, 2007

The Problems With Liberals

WP, TH, ANO

The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can’t handle the war on terrorismBy John HawkinsFriday, February 23, 2007


from right here I was going to elaborate further but, I cannot add anything to it at this moment!! Many people assume that the Democrats’ opposition to the war on terrorism and their unwavering determination to undercut the war in Iraq are solely an outgrowth of their dislike of George Bush. While Bush Derangement Syndrome and raw political considerations certainly are part of the problem, you’ve got to understand that the modern Democratic Party is simply no longer capable of dealing with a conflict like the war on terrorism because of the weird ideological tics of liberalism.Look at how weak and helpless Jimmy Carter was when he was confronted by the Iranians. And Bill Clinton? Despite being prodded to take action time and time again by world events like the bombing of the World Trade Center, Saddam Hussein’s attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr., the Khobar Towers bombing, the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons under his watch, Clinton seemed incapable of dealing effectively with any serious foreign policy challenges.That being said, if this nation were unfortunate enough to be burdened for four years with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or one of the other liberals contending for the Democratic nomination, things would be even worse this time around. Why would that be the case? There are a variety of reasons for it.

1) The Democratic insistence on treating the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue will make it extremely difficult to deal with terrorist groups. When you have heavily armed terrorists ensconced in foreign nations, sometimes with the approval of their government, it’s simply not practical to capture them, read them their rights, and take them back to America for trial. That is something that should be obvious after that approach was tried by Bill Clinton in the nineties and it failed to produce results. Going back to it in the post 9/11 world, which is what the Democrats want to do, is nothing but an invitation to catastrophe.

2) Ronald Reagan once said that, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” Conversely, a super power that seems weak invites attack. After spending the last six years railing against the Bush Administration and fighting tooth and nail against almost every measure that makes it tougher on the terrorists, a Democratic victory in 2008 would be viewed by the world as nothing less than an American capitulation in the war on terror. This would encourage the terrorists to launch more attacks and cause our allies in the fight to lose heart.

3) When the only credible Democratic voice on national security in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the Democratic primary last year, the message sent to Democrats was, “Being serious about defending America may cost you your job.” After that, elected Democrats became even more reluctant to stand up against terrorism, which is really saying something, since the Democratic Party has been nothing but a hindrance in the war on terrorism since they voted en masse for the war in Afghanistan.

4) The Democratic base doesn’t take terrorism seriously and considers it to be nothing more than a distraction from socializing the economy, raising taxes, promoting gay marriage, and the other domestic issues that are near and dear to the heart of liberals. It’s old hat to hear Democrats say that they think global warming is more dangerous than terrorism, but at one point in 2006, 94% of the readers at the most popular liberal blog on earth, the Daily Kos, were actually saying that they thought that corporate media consolidation was a greater threat than terrorism. If you have a Democratic base that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism — and it isn’t — you will have a Democratic President that isn’t serious about fighting terrorism.

5) Using the American military to further the interests of our country makes liberals uncomfortable, even though they’re usually happy to send the troops gallivanting off to the latest godforsaken hotspot that has caught the eye of liberal activists. That’s why many Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who oppose winning the war in Iraq, are all for using our military in Sudan. However, it is also why those same liberals will oppose using our military to tackle terrorists abroad except in Afghanistan, where it would be politically damaging for them to call for a pull-out.

6) When the U.N. Security Council has members like China, France, and Russia that seem to be financially in bed with every country we end up at loggerheads with, the UN is going to be even more hapless and ineffective than normal. Since the Democrats are so hung up on getting UN approval for everything we do, it will be practically impossible for them to move forward on any serious, large scale foreign policy enterprise.

7) The Democrats are overly concerned with “international opinion,” AKA “European opinion.” The Europeans have mediocre militaries, pacifistic populations, fetishize international law, and have extremely inflated views of their own importance. Other than Britain, they don’t have much to offer in a military conflict, yet even getting token forces from them that are minimally useful is like pulling teeth. Getting large numbers of European nations to cooperate with us on military ventures that are important to American security will be nearly impossible at this point — yet since Democrats place a higher priority on European approval than our national security, they will insist on it. This, combined with the logjam at the UN, would hamstring any Democratic President.

8) The Democrats want to close Guantanamo Bay and put the terrorists held there into the American court system. The justice system in the United States is simply not designed to deal with and interrogate terrorists or enemy fighters captured overseas by our troops. Putting the terrorists held at Gitmo into our court system would only mean that hundreds of terrorists would be freed on technicalities because it’s not advisable to reveal intelligence methods — or because our soldiers aren’t trained in the legal niceties that are necessary for policemen, but should be irrelevant in a war zone. How absurd would it be to catch a Taliban fighter entering Afghanistan, take him back to the United States, have him released by a liberal judge, and then dropped back off on the Afghan border where he’d be back shooting at our troops the next day? If a Democrat wins in 2008, we will get to find out all about it first hand.

9) The intelligence programs that have helped prevent another 9/11 would be curtailed under a Democratic President. As a general rule, Democrats favor weakening our military and intelligence agencies. Add to that the complete hysteria we’ve seen from liberals over programs like the Patriot Act and the NSA tapping calls from terrorists overseas to people in the U.S. Under a Democratic President, we would be sure to see our intelligence agencies systematically stripped of the powers they need to detect and foil terrorist plots.

If a Democrat were to win in 2008, it would give terrorists worldwide a four year respite to rebuild, reload, and run wild without serious opposition from the United States. The price our nation and our allies would pay in blood and treasure for that mistake would be incalculable.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, December 28, 2007

White Flagger Jibber-Jabber

WP, TH, ANO

Democrats disingenuous in their anti-war rhetoricBy Victor Davis Hanson right here


Personally, I find the socialist liberal and White Flag (theoretical) republican jibber-jabber quite spooky.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 27, 2007

DNC Cowards

WP, TH, ANO

I heard this today and it sure is dead on target. It is a sad state of affairs.


“Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you’re officially a Democratic candidate for president.”

Labels: , , ,

Two-Faced Democrats

Wordpress and Townhall and ANO

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:13 PM
INRE:
Democrats Bar GOP Alternative on Iraq
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Now, why in the world would the Socialist Democrats do such a thing? Is it because they have a not-so-hidden agenda? Do they wish to have a “success” like they did in the early 70s in regards to the Vietnam War (police action)?

From the article: “…The concerns of members like Donnelly are behind Democrats’ strategy for this week’s Iraq debate, which was carefully calibrated to bar votes on a GOP alternative that could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground…”

A messy divide between the CONSERVATIVE democrats that defeated the LIBERAL republicans (RINOs) last November and the Socialist democrats currently having a strangle hold on the democratic party? No kidding?

Who would have thought that was possible? LOL! The democratic party is a mess. Much more in a mess than the republican party. The reason the republican party is in the mess that IT is in is due to their gross negligence and total disregard with the precepts and concepts that swung them into political dominance via the Contract With America in the Reagan era. The democratic party is in a quagmire because their “leader”, the first women as SOH, has stated pre-elections that there will be no cutting off the funds for the WOT in Iraq and her alleged and “loyal” followers are touting a different tune.

The republican party is showing signs, albeit small ones, that they are WAKING up. The RINOs had a strangle hold and conservative democrats took their places and rightfully so. The republican party, as a whole, know that this WOT going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to our peace and tranquility back home.

What is happening now in DC is a prelude to a new American Civil War. Perhaps not a war of blood flowing in our streets but a war just the same.

One must ask themselves why on God’s green earth are the democrats trying to vote on a useless resolution expressing their “unhappiness” with the NOW IN PLACE troop surge that they had been demanding to happen months ago? Oh. Wait. They didn’t think of it and they didn’t enact it so the glory of victory is slipping from their grasps. The term victory and democrat really shouldn’t be used in the same sentence in the context of a war. Sorry. They really are pacifistic cowards.

From the article: “…Determined to send an unambiguous and bipartisan message of disapproval for the troop buildup, Democrats moved Monday night to block Republicans from proposing any alternative, including one that would have guaranteed funding for U.S. forces in Iraq…”

Unambiguous? What? Bipartisan my donkey! Socialist Democrats are NOT to be trusted and one can always tell when they are lying. They are breathing, their eyes are open and their lips are moving.

Labels: , ,