MONDAY 10/20/03

KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL

And that's the way it is, folks.  The ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq.  He wasn't alone.  John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote.

Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and every other politician who voted against this funding request was sending messages to our troops in Iraq, their families at home, Saddam Hussein and his supporters, Islamic terrorists and the international community. 

The messages these Democrats are sending are clear:

To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't.  We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field.  What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.

To Saddam and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out.  Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition  against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded.  We want out.  You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad.  What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit.  There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.

To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves.  As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign.  Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return.  If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry.  You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered.  They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.

To Islamic terrorists around the world --  the way is clear.  We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil.  We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn.  We do not have the stomach for a fight.  Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.

To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism.  We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement.  You would be well-advised to do the same.

And to the American people -- Brace yourselves.  Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq.  We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal.  Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons.  At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country.  This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil.  To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times.  You will also be subject to searches  of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time.  Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.

This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington.  Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters. 

We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't.  We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil.  We fight or run.  If the party of appeasement takes control after next year's elections many of you will be instituting your escape plans.  The rest of you will be wishing you had one.

DON'T YOU THINK THIS MAKES THE CASE?

I guess this is just my day to feel contempt for Ted Kennedy.  Of course, that's pretty much been every day since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die trapped inside his car resting in a few feet of water while he paced up and down the roadside trying to figure out how to salvage his political future.

Here is what Kennedy had to say from the floor of the U.S. Senate last week:

"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."

Never has a prominent politician made a statement so full of complete and unadulterated provable BS.  We'll do some of that on the show today, but first I'm going to engage in a little cutting and pasting from a speech excerpt posted on the Internet:

This is part of a speech by the president outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq.  I am going to ask you to read this excerpt and then tell me whether or not you think the president made the case.  Come on now.  This is a serious matter ... give it a read.  These are remarks made by the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam Hussein:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . . .

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

So, what do you think?  Did the president made the case?  It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends.  Well, you would be wrong.  I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush.  These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on on February 17, 1998.

If you would like to read more, especially if you want some information to use against your friends who think that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy have made the right call on this one; here's your link to a tremendous article in Front Page Magazine.

THE HOLLYWOOD CULTURE WE SO ADMIRE

Helena Bonham Carter is a movie star!  Wow!  Imagine that.  A star!  She gave birth to the child of director Tim Burton, her next door neighbor.  And what did she have to say about this Hollywood moment?  "I find it romantic bearing his illegitimate child and living next door.  I don't know if we'll marry."

Someone please tell me, why the hell do we idolize these people like we do?

READING ASSIGNMENTS AND INTEMPERATE THOUGHTS

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post writes the left's hatred of George Bush is "A dislike unlike any other."  I guess you could call it the hatred that passeth all understanding. 

Oh how true this is.  Mona Charen says that there is a tendency for liberals to always want to believe the worst about the United States.  This is particularly true when it comes to military action.

This is the way our colleges and universities support freedom of expression.  At Bucknell University merely listening to a talk radio show could get you expelled from school. 

This is very very bad news for those out there who think that people actually

chose to be gay.  Sorry, that's just not the way it is.  Yet another

research study shows that sexual

identity is hardwired -- set before birth.  I guess that means that

some of you will just have to hate these people for how they were born.

Can you hear it pounding in your ears?  It's the constant thump-thump-thump of the drumbeat from the failure brigade.

This comes under the "no way in hell" category for me.  You people can go to Vegas and knock yourselves out.

Diana West says that at some point the anti-war elite of the Democratic Party are going to have to stop merely taking shots at George Bush, and start telling the American people what they would do if they were in his place.  They're still probably trying to figure out that part out.  It means they would have to explain why they left Saddam Hussein in place.

Want a preview of the next Democratic filibuster of a Bush Appeals Court nominee?  Here you go!  More evidence, by the way, that the definition of "black" is more political than racial.

Talk about cursed. Atlanta has four professional sports teams with a combined 123 total seasons.  Out of those 123 seasons there has been exactly one championship, and that would be the Braves in 1996.

Pretty soon they're going to start requiring NYU students to wear hard hats. 

Now this is pretty sleazy.  Terri Schiavo has been denied a final Communion from a priest.  Police officers guarding her door said that the communion wafer would violate the doctor's orders that nothing be placed in Terri's mouth.  This was apparently on the orders of Michael Shiavo.

Mike Adams is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.  Here is a letter he has written to students who are a bit weary of having their views censured by the diversity elite at UNCW.

From Time Magazine:  They've found yet another video tape where Wesley Clark is praising George Bush.  This tape was made eight months after the first uncovered tape where Clark expressed his deep admiration for the Bush team.  This time Clark says:  "I tremendously admire, and I think we all should, the great work done by our commander-in-chief, our president, George Bush,"  Read this to see the spin that Clark's spokesmen tried to put on this one.

He killed a small town banker.  Shot him four times.  Straddled his body and bashed his head against a wall.  Then he beat his face in until the barrel on his gun was bent.  He was sentenced to death.  That was changed to life in prison.  Now he's going free.  Say hello to the Georgia parole board.

 George Will says that the governor of Colorado is getting noticed by national Republicans.  Could he be the man to run against Hitlary in 2008?

Newt Gingrich wonders if Wesley Clark even bothered to read his own book. 

Another Clintonista slamming America from foreign soil in time of war.  It has almost become routing now.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

World Net Daily

NewsMax

Wall Street Journal

opinions

Washington Times

Washington Post

Real Clear Politics

Media Research Center

The Drudge Report

The

Associated Press

SF Gate