A previous poster mistakenly referred to Iran's government as "democratically elected". While it is true that elections are held in Iran, the supreme guide (the mullahs) insure that only those candidates who support the mullahs' view of Shi'ite Islamic supremacy are permitted to run for office. In fact, those Iranians who dare challenge the totalitarian vision of Islamic supremacy in favor of democracy are not only excluded from running for office, they are routinely silenced "with extreme prejudice", if you get my drift.
The current hostage-taking we are witnessing there reflects a malignant thuggery.Comment Posted By GnuCarSmell On 2.06.2007 @ 17:51
When Democrats win by a narrow margin, the voting machines work. When Democrats lose by a narrow margin, the machines are sabotaged. A pattern is emerging here...Comment Posted By GnuCarSmell On 24.02.2007 @ 19:49
Arkin really is a contemptible worm. But his attitude is pretty mainstream for the Democrat party. We need only consider the positions held by a few prominent Democrats to see this is so.
Charlie Rangel (D-New York, Chairman/House Ways & Means Committee) recently expressed his belief that no young person in their right mind would serve in Iraq -- only economic desperation could force someone to enlist. (Translation: no one serving in Iraq is motivated by patriotism).
John Kerry (D-Mass., Democrat candidate for President 2004) advised an audience of college students that if they were smart and studied hard, they wouldn't end up stuck in Iraq. (Translation: the military is a dumping ground for society's losers).
Bill Clinton "loathed the military." (No translation necessary).
If Arkin's journalism career peters out, he will no doubt have a bright future as a Democrat politician.Comment Posted By GnuCarSmell On 6.02.2007 @ 23:03
Clinton had become so accustomed to the media playing defense for him, he naturally assumed that Chris Wallace would play the game. The Great Obfuscater obviously expected Wallace to go along with the usual wink-and-a-nod MSM pretensions of "I'm going to ask a couple of questions that seem tough, so you can fully explain your position." Instead, Wallace confronted Clinton with questions he has never had to answer before an unsympathetic interviewer. It caught the Great Obfuscater like a sucker punch. He lost it, and it was ugly. Finger-wagging ugly.
While it's true that we should concentrate on the future, it's also true that Clinton should (for once) have to confront his own actions -- without hiding behind the findings of the 'bipartisan' 9/11 Commission, which after all, were tainted by several of his most partisan co-obstructionists (especially Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick). Clinton's (ahem) 'lack of candor' in the Wallace interview surprised no one.
What Clinton and his apologists don't understand is that all the spin and revisionism in the world will not change the facts. History would not be flattering to them in any case, but will be even less so for their deliberate distortions.Comment Posted By GnuCarSmell On 23.09.2006 @ 22:06
Excellent commentary by Rick Moran. He correctly notes the falseness of the "solidarity myth", which idiotically pretends that "the whole world was with us" until "Bush thumbed his nose at our allies". Apparently the Arab street that erupted in joy at news of 9/11 had not gotten news of their solidarity with us.
The other part of the myth is that Bush turned the world against us. What drivel. It turns out it wasn't us who "thumbed our noses" at our allies. Rather, some of our allies stabbed us in the back. France and Russia were in cahoots with Iraq to steal billions of dollars from Oil For Food -- the U.N. program criminally mismanaged by Kofi Annan. How absurd to blame the bad behavior of others on Bush.
Our enemy more than anything wants to see a divided and weakened America, and sadly, the Democrats (at least too many of them) have accommodated the enemy's wishes. A unified America is the enemy's worst nightmare.Comment Posted By GnuCarSmell On 10.09.2006 @ 18:31
Pages (1) :