Comments Posted By Hankmeister
Displaying 41 To 47 Of 47 Comments
Once again those on the other side of the aisle whine about the names they've been called. We'll I've been called far worst by the radical leftists in my community ("baby killer", "warmonger", "jingoist", lying fraud are but mild epithets) AND I've received threats in the mail in response to my letters to the editor in the local newspaper.
I remind some of the posters here that it wasn't long after 9/11, that the anti-war war left trying to recover from the stunning defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan began galvanizing their political counter-offensive and began making comparisons between Bush and Hilter, generating ignorant conspiracy theories about "neo-cons" (i.e. Administration Joooooooooooos!) and 9/11 being "an side job" and claiming Bush was sending American soldiers to fight Israel's war against Muslims (thank you Ms. Cindy Sheehan). And then shortly after that left-wing media blitz terms like "reich-wing", "kkkonservatives fascists", "Rethuglicans", "right wingnuts", ad nauseam began to find their way into the liberal anti-war lexicon. Yeah, it cuts both ways so how about ditching the faux wounded pride and own up to the rank hypocrisy and ad hominem attacks which also exists on the left side of the aisle in spades.
Also, in earlier debates when conservatives questioned the anti-war left's often defeatist and divisive policies, we were accused of "questioning their patriotism." What a strawhorse, particularly in view of the fact that for the last year or so the emboldened anti-war crowd began accusing conservatives of being UNPATRIOTIC for supporting POTUS because ... ready for this ... he was destroying the country! You see, it wasn't the anti-war left that was being divisive, but rather it was Bu$Hitler who was provoking liberal Democrats with his divisive policies. What, trying to win a war is "divisive"? I guess it is among those who are essentially claiming the war was lost before we destroyed Saddam's regime in 21 days. Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I have absolutely no problem with honest dissent, the Constitution guarantees that. I have always been exposed to the Mennonite and Quaker tradition of pacifism thoughout my life so I know what constitutes just cause and just war in the context being a true peacemaker/peacekeeper. But I can't tolerate a "dissent" in good conscience which is based on its own set of lies and partisan boilerplate that is little more than radical ideological divisiveness. Too much is at stake for that kind political opportunism disguised as principle during these perilous times.
Whether a person prefers to stick their head in the sand regarding the "religion of peace" as practiced by the more radical elements of Islamism or simply bash Bush and blame America for every negative twist and turn in a type of global war which has never fought before against a fascist ideology which knows no borders, the fact remains there is a very real struggle between Islamic jihadism and what's left of the free world and Iraq is presently just one front on that war, just like Afghanistan. Islamic fascism can no longer be ignored, it cannot be wished away and it cannot be appeased. If we do not continue to make a determined stand on the battlefields of the Middle East, where will we fight this war in the coming decades? The frontiers of freedom must extend beyond our own borders or our posterity will suffer for generations to come. Let it never be said of our spoilt brat boomer generation that we prefer appeasement to a determined resistance against such transparent evil which has demonstrated a clear willingness to target innocent civilians in pizzarias and shopping malls. We cannot go back to a pre-9/11 world despite whatever well-intentioned fantasies certain reality-denying utopians might hold. This delusion will only imperil our own security in the coming years in light of an implacable enemy which loves death more than some of us love life and liberty.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 30.04.2007 @ 10:36
TIME IS NOW THE BIGGEST ENEMY IN IRAQ
Bad news for Democrat defeatists. From the NYT:
Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.
“Many people are challenging the insurgents,†said the governor of Anbar, Maamoon S. Rahid, though he quickly added, “We know we haven’t eliminated the threat 100 percent.â€
Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders’ encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.
I guess the editors at the NYT are reich-wing "kool-aid" drinkers too. When I visited the milblogs over the last three years, what they were saying as boots-on-the-ground has rarely matched up with journalist-in-the-Hiltonâ„¢ ... until now.
Hugh Hewitt's interview of Max Boot who recently returned from Iraq is interesting as well as relevant to this discussion. What follows is Mr. Hewitt's analysis of the interview:
If you scroll through the interviews I have conducted this week, you will see that Democrats in the Senate and the House are willfully, even perversely, ignorant of --or willfully blind to-- the stakes and the conditions in Iraq. They seem to believe that this is a winning political strategy. I don't think so, not even in the short term and certainly not in the long term. Munich was very popular for a short time --from the signing of the agreement on September 29, 1938 until the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, or until Hitler's nature become unmistakable even to the most appeasement-oriented Chamberlain supporter. The consequences of the left's surrender sickness will be obvious sooner or later. It is only the costs that are obscure at this point.
Seventy years down the road, the actions of the Democrats these past few weeks will seem even more craven and inexplicable than those of Baldwin and Chamberlain in the '30s, for in that long ago age of appeasement, those men at least had the excuse that Great Britain was exhausted, broke, and unable to risk a confrontation with the growing evil for fear of a military defeat.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 30.04.2007 @ 08:29
BTW, it's 1938 all over again and the real insanity is about to begin. Instead of Nazism we are now faced with Islamofascism, yet nearly half of America is in denial, preferring instead to believe America's military might is provoking Muslim jihadists and insurgents into violence. Though nothing is ever a perfect metaphor or analogy, this would be like blaming law enforcement for the rising gang violence here in America. What are we supposed to do in the face of such great evil, try to reason with it, hope it goes away or embrace the notion our leaving Iraq would be interpreted as a gesture of peace and everyone picks up their AK-47 and go home? John Wixted has some interesting views about the lamestream media's inability to break free of its own biased narrative in accurately reporting the violence in Iraq. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the axiom "united we stand, divided we fall" has a lot of truth in it, and though wounded by its own scandals and even more transparent bias, the liberal national media plays a very large role in sapping the morale of the America people. It's very self-evident that a constant dose of bad news - even though there is a lot of good news to report which goes unreported except on milbogs and conservative blogs - does have a very negative impact on the American people.
It's gutcheck time and it looks like the appeasement crowd is winning as we see the white of the eyes of the enemy ... and America blinks. Indeed, I hope all the posts here are saved for our posterity and historians down the road ... if there is any posterity worth saving. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, but once America goes on defense and unilaterally withdraws on a very well publicized timetable from Iraq (and ultimately Afghanistan), I truly believe we will all find out just how much worse things can get. But the anti-war radicals can always solace themselves by hating Bush or blaming America even more.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 29.04.2007 @ 17:07
Recently translated Iraqi documents can be found here.
Does hyperlink work here? If not, copy and paste: http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/
I understand this is but a small fraction of those captured Iraqi documents. The Bush Administration once again has been curiously remiss in mining this treasure trove of information, naively believing that the political leftists will one day become magically enlightened and realize that they too have a personal stake in a very real War on Radical Islam.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 29.04.2007 @ 16:36
It's what I said when I called in to our local talk radio show here in the People's Republic of Illinois a few weeks after 9/11: There is a very real war against radical Islamism that must be fought, that it will take many years if not decades to fight, far better it be fought on foreign soil than here in America, and we can only lose this war if the American people fail in their will and resolve to see this thing through.
At that time I had no idea that liberal Democrats and the radical left in this country could engage in the divisiveness and lies that is has. Neither did I think the liberal media would play such an active role in biasing the American people against the war not only in its incessant yammerings about American body counts (often repeating the deaths several days until a new batch occur) but also in what it DID NOT report, the tens of thousands of positive things that were happening all over Iraq and to a lesser degree in the Anbar Province.
For whatever reason, the Bush Administration failed to protect itself from the mendaciousness of Joe Wilson (not even citing the SSCI report in their defense!) who was the one who got the "Bush lied" meme going in the early stages of the Iraq War. Also President Bush and his administration curiously failed to make the case that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a sensational success in deposing Saddam's regime in a mere 21 days and now we were entering a phase of combat that was opening another front on the general war on terror. Recently translated Iraqi documents prove there was some operational coordination or acknowledgement between al Qaeda that was in Iraq before the war and Saddam's regime, but clearly the Iraqi theater - and to some degree the the Afghani theater - of operations acted as flypaper attracting the truly fanatical Islamofascists to the sandbox whereupon many tens of thousands of them were sent on their way to their 72 virgins.
But if what you say is true, Rick, then we may as well get ready to assume our new role as dhimmies in an ever-growing global Islamic caliphate. We see it already happening in the emerging Eurabia and don't think for a minute it can't happen here. What we will be forced to do if we "lose" (i.e. quit like we did in Vietnam) in Iraq and "redeploy", is defend ourselves somewhere else or possibly in American streets. I hope I'm wrong, but this is one enemy which seems perfectly willing and capable of following our troops home to America. And we already have a pretty good idea that the liberals in this country will be perfectly content to let the rest of us defend them from their Islamic overlords if that day comes.
Despite the fact there is no age limit or physical to pass to be the human shield that peaceniks have so much regard for and blather about, I'm still not seeing these do-nothing-but-complain pacifists volunteering to be the next defensive vanguard for the American people. In light of this reality, I'll take my chances with the U.S. Army and Marines who volunteered to fight on the frontiers of freedom in the enemy's strongholds. I'm just beginning to believe Jeffrey R. Snyder was right, we are a nation of cowards and shirkers (http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/books/jfpp6.txt) that when the going gets tough ... we quit in the face of a determined enemy. Well, we can add another 3,400 names to some Memorial Wall as lives thrown away because the cost became too great and the American people quit. The America I knew growing up in the post-World War II 1950s is all but dead. And given the entitlement mentality of so many Americans and the creation of a society which virtually celebrates moral decline, maybe its for the best. Thank goodness the Second Amendment still survives. What was that we used to joke about? One for all and all for one and every man for himself?
If we do cut-and-run, the liberals OWN this defeat just as they owned the post-Vietnam slaughter of innocents, though they are still in denial about that, too.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 29.04.2007 @ 13:56
FROG MARCHING AND OTHER TWICE TOLD TALES
You forgot the short-lived scandal of Schiavo memogate. This was the one where a legal counsel to Senator Mel Martinez authored a memo that ended up in a file given to Senator Harkin (D-Moon) whose staff (or possibly himself) subsequently claimed this was an official talking point memo put out by "the Republican Senate leadership."
And let's not forget the killed-in-the-cradle Downing Street Memogate which never got any traction here in the US. We had any number of local moonbats ranting on the radio airwaves how this was going to bring down President Bu$Hitler...that is until conservatives thoroughly deconstructed these ambiguous, pre-UN Resolution 1441 memos that British journalist Michael Smith admitted to have had re-typed and the originals either A) destroyed or B) returned to their original top secret files.
Liberals are the quintessential poisoned kool-aid swillers when it comes to bogus conspiracy theories. Their credibility on anything is fast approaching zero.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 20.07.2005 @ 13:40
Just simple substitution like replacing Bush's name with Clinton's or Kerry's and replacing "Republican" (sorry, Rethuglikkkan) with "Democratic" actually makes more sense. If there is a party that has demonstrated it puts party politics before country since 9/11 it's been the Democrap Party.
I've also felt the thinly-veiled lies at DailyKos were always good for a laugh. This guy must really be swilling the kool-aid if he can't see liberal Democrats for what they are: feckless, seditious liars. So Zuniga is in good company.
Next thing we're going to hear from DailyKos is how the American Founders were all atheist progressives and Jesus was a card carrying liberal.
Comment Posted By Hankmeister On 19.07.2005 @ 06:27
