I am, unlike George Bush (or any male of the Bush family, for that matter) a Jacksonian:
The whole point of Jacksonianism is "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you."
I believe that, at core, America is a Jacksonian nation. And when America finally realizes with what loathing we are regarded by the rest of the world, the result will not be what the rest of the world thinks will occur. There will be no sudden American need to apologize and submit ourselves to the world's judgment. We are a nation founded on telling the rest of the world to go to hell, and shedding our blood to send it there.
#3
tweaking the American nose has got to have consequences. 1st in the batting order: Iran, 2nd: Syria; 3rd: NK; 4th: Chavez...like frightened animals the rest will understand
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Unfortunately, Jacksonianism in its baser form is best typified by the character Pap Finn, father of Huckleberry. A man filled with burning hatred of anyone with $50 in his pocket, precisely because he had never had $50 in his whole life and knew that anyone who had, had gotten it through improper means.
As much as Jackson himself despised "aristocrats", which he defined as anyone with money and breeding, in practice he was an autocrat, and one with a violent temper. He disliked the formalities of the constitution that denied him what he wanted, again seeing them as tricks by the upper classes to keep the common man down.
Not ironically, he stands as the president who stood on the middle ground between early and modern America. He represented the rising power of the South and the West, and foresaged both the Civil War and American isolationism. As much as he is seen representing individual liberty and States' rights, in fact he believed in an overriding and perhaps overreaching federal government.
It is right and proper that he was a co-founder of the modern democratic party. In many ways they still reflect his contradictions and crudeness of action.
#9
That's a fine load of airy flabbergustophilliation. Doesn't mean shit in today's terms, however.
Jacksonians have defended this country, despite the flaws and all, for more than 200 years. You may have served, but you sure as shit didn't know your fellows - or they were wardroom warriors.
Autocrats? Crude? Big Gov't? Democrats?
LOL. You act as though what it originally appeared to be is what it is today. No, I think DailyPundit's definition says it much much better. Much more succinctly. Much more accurately. Jacksonians are people who want to be left the fuck alone - does that sound like Big Gov't Donks?
#11
Hmmm. Perhaps things evolve, Anonymoose, perhaps not.
Are you saying that the historical view of Jackson, developed by historians and such-like voyeurs long after there were any Jackson contemporaries to object, is sacrosanct and modern people who differ in some respects can't call themselves Jacksonians?
We seem to have, IIRC, Jacksonians, Jeffersonians, Wilsonians, etc.
Looking at the definition DP offered, they certainly aren't Wilsonians or Jeffersonians - or I wouldn't see them that way. I've always thought the hallmark of Jacksonianism was self-reliance. Crude? Perhaps. Anti-elitist? Definitely. Big government? Hardly - or so I've always thought.
Thus, I can't buy this assertion: "he believed in an overriding and perhaps overreaching federal government"
And I think that's where flyover parted ways, as well, because you appear to dispute that key trait of self-reliance. The problem is making assertions without backing them up with proof or verifiable examples.
I rather liked Daily Pundit's definition, myself. If you find fault with it, why don't you take it up with him? Or provide something substantial...
BTW, the Nixonian / Chinese food bit was very clever. I'm afraid I'll be hungry for more soon, though, without proof of your assertion.
#12
next time, use "The Frank G" method whereby outrageous and unreasonable methods are used to teach several-generation-level lessons. Shoot Qassams? Die by the hundreds. Kill Americans? Die by the thousands. Time for fun and restraint is over.
You Islamists are SO lucky I'm not king. The excuses you've used in the past will not fly in the future. Suffer the consequences of your actions, and the world would be a better place. Can anyone disagree with that?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 22:36 Comments ||
Top||
#13
You Islamists are SO lucky I'm not king.
Actually I think they're quite fortunate that [insert name of Rantburg regular here] isn't in charge. This can be a bit of a tough crowd.
"You've got to hold a ceremony to appease the ancestors so the bees will go away peacefully." - Professor Peter Mtuze of Rhodes University in Grahamstown on traditional Xhosa ceremonies involving the removal of bees, after an elderly man was stung to death during what was thought to be such a ceremony.
#1
I had to pull up the full story to be sure this wasn't one of our American university nutters.
Unfortunately, I don't think he'd stand out.
As for the sad case of the elderly victim, they must've screwed up the ceremony somehow... perhaps Mtuze's implying they should've paid him to direct it correctly.
Long, tortured piece from the New York Review of Books by Ahmad Rashid. Everyone you want to know about why Afghanistan will go down the tubes and why (natch) it's all our fault.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/25/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There is seasonal infiltration going on in Afghanistan. It will be beaten back. My concern is with the pro-Taliban pronouncements that are reportedly flowing from Afghan mosques. That subverts the war, and should be squelched by Karzai.
#3
I'll read the NY Times and their reviews when hell freezes over. If they oppose something it's either good for me or good for America. I'm fine with that
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 0:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This isn't the NYT Book Review, it's the even nuttier-left New York Review of Books.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Should have destroyed all Iranian oil/gas production and refining facilities after the Khobar attack. The US policy of rolling over for the Iranians has cost us a lot of lives, treasure and prestige. It should be the other way around, with the mullahs losing their asses and wondering when the next hammer blow hits. And the Saudis would not have supported bin Laden and al Qaeda if they feared the destruction or seizure of their oil fields.
Posted by: ed ||
06/25/2006 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I knew USAF people in the Towers when the attack occurred. I consider Freeh to be extremely kind to himself and his agency in his commentary, but he's dead right about Clinton who played the entire episode "The State Dept Way". The fact that he mentions it is pure butt coverage, not some sea change where he recognizes the LE model just does not work against terrorism. He's still a product and defender of the Fibbie Old Boy Network and the Clinton Era.
Even mentioning "normalization" with Iran is just stupid. Geez, coming from someone who ran the FBI for crying out loud, this is Kool Aid territory. Another Clinton Era squishy-soft LE pseudo-warrior. Freeh was part of the problem, one of those who participated willingly in "the Gorelick wall" and never said anything about it. Hard to say who was the bigger buffoon, Freeh or Tenet. It was Freeh's FBI which made catching any of the 9/11 network impossible - despite the fact that there were a few excellent field agents who smelled something rotten.
I mourn the victims. The Iranian Regime must fall, must be wiped out, to avenge their deaths and prevent more from this source.
The Times June 24, 2006
To allow Islamists to direct the post-7/7 debate was a disaster
Michael Gove
The British State has come under severe criticism following the Forest Gate raid for its intelligence failures in the fight against terrorism. But the biggest failure of all in the battle against Islamist extremism has gone practically unnoticed. Tony Blair has acknowledged that the fight against Islamist terrorism cannot be restricted to a police action against isolated individuals or small groups. Last summer he spelt out that a much broader effort is required to tackle, at root, the ideology of Islamism that has bewitched so many minds. But in the struggle against extremism the British State has failed to tackle the underlying ideological currents that favour Islamism. Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), whose members have shown sympathy for extremist positions, are rarely challenged, and certainly not publicly by the Government or its agencies.
For moderate Muslims the picture is dispiriting. They see the most religiously conservative and politically provocative groupings enjoy the lions share of attention and they wonder how serious the British State is about countering extremism. How can they convince young men within their community that the path of moderation brings respect and a voice in the nations deliberations when the most influential voices are seen to belong to those with radical agendas?
In Islamist circles a complementary message is absorbed. The British State does not have the courage to face down the advocates of political Islam. Islamists in Britain scent weakness. Just as Islamists abroad believe the West does not have the stamina to resist for long, so Islamists within the UK believe the momentum is with them. Islams Leninists have drawn the bayonet, probed, and found mush.
Proof of the British States institutional weakness came directly in the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings. At the Prime Ministers behest the Home Office established a series of working groups to tackle the threat of Islamic extremism. A variety of individuals were appointed whose past statements or current affiliations made them very curious conscripts in the struggle against extremism.
Among those appointed was Ahmad Thomson, a convert to Islam who has argued in the past that Hitler was supported by Zionist financiers and Muslims are obliged to want to live in an Islamic state. Another figure appointed was Ibrahim Hewitt, who sits on the ruling council of Respect, the political party founded by George Galloway, which fuses together the Trotskyist SWP and the Islamist MAB. Also invited to advise the Government was Professor Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Professor Ramadan is not, of course, obliged to follow in the footsteps of his forebears. But he gives it a good try.
Professor Ramadan has been characterised as a moderate because he has said that he agrees with integration of Muslims in the West. But he has also insisted that we [Muslims] are the ones who are going to decide the content. Bernard Kouchner, the French Socialist and former health minister, has described Ramadan as absolutely a kook with no historical memory and a dangerous man.
Given the presence of these and others with a similar perspective on the Home Offices working groups, the conclusions were not that surprising. In so far as extremism was acknowledged as a danger it was attributed to the foreign policy of Blair and Bush. And in so far as remedial action was required, it seemed, again and again, to consist of more public money going to exclusively Islamic bodies that would be empowered to provide more Islamic solutions, in accordance with appropriate Islamic principles.
In my conversations with moderate Muslims, the folly of such a strategy is repeatedly underlined. Mainstream Muslims wish to participate fully in the life of our nation as equal citizens. Their faith is an important, integral, part of their identity but they do not wish it to be the exclusive route through which they relate to the rest of Britain. But the the approach of organisations such as the MAB and MCB, an approach reinforced by the working groups report, is to Islamicise every issue with which Muslims come into contact.
The success of the MCB, MAB and their allies in dominating the public debate, shaping public policy and driving the media conversation has been profoundly damaging. A narrow version of Islam has been privileged, theological conservatism reinforced and political radicalism given room to advance. A rising generation has been encouraged by those Muslims most prominent in public life to put their Islamic identity ahead of their British citizenship. That generation will have heard the Muslims most fêted by government pay tribute to terrorist leaders and fundamentalist ideologues as figures worthy of respect. That generation will also have had its sense of grievance nurtured even as its sense of separateness has been reinforced. For Islamists and their allies, it has been a golden prospect. Extracted from Celsius 7/7, published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson on June 29
It seems pretty obvious that they are just a local African-American cult which mixed Judaism, Christianity and (a little bit of) Islam. It seems to be a of vague offshoot of the Moors group founded by Dwight York. I heard on CNN that one of them talked of being Moors. And Batiste, the leader, called whites "devils" in the tradition of the original Nation of Islam and York's Moors. Now CNN is saying one member said they practiced witchcraft [likely meaning Haitian voodoo or perhaps Santeria-like rituals]. One former member is called Levi-El, suggesting he might be associated with the Black Hebrew movement or an offshoot. Now a relative of one of the members, Phanor, said that they wore black uniforms with a star of David arm patch and considered themselves of the Order of Melchizadek. I wonder if it is "Seas of David" or "C's of David", with "c" meaning commando or some such?
Heavens!
The Black Hebrew Movement is working within Al Qaeda to plan jihad! I'll bet it's got something to do with black helicopters and fluoride in the water, too. Keep looking, Prof. Cole. The truth is out there.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/25/2006 07:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe this version of Islam will merge with the Nuwaubians.
And if you don't know who the Nuwaubians are, you are in for a treat.
(via the Free Republic)
Well, as is ALWAYS the case, the truth comes out eventually (you'd think the democrats would learn this eventually). And as it turns out, Murtha isn't even as big a war hero as John Kerry, and John Kerry did't see or really do squat in his pathetic three months in Vietnam (You did know Kerry served in Vietnam right?)...
I found a man whom fellow congressman Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, silver star and three bronze stars, calls a liar and a phony. A man who came to Bailey crying and sobbing, thanking him for saving Murtha from the ethics committee (on Abscam-related charges) at which time he admitted to Bailey that his purple hearts weren't earned. A man with a couple of years of active duty and the rest of his 37 year career spent in the Marine Corps Reserve. A man with one year in Vietnam as a staff intelligence offer. A man who's no more been in combat or is a war hero than I am. Even John Kerry has more combat experience than Jack Murtha.
Gotta love the internet. The CNS stories (here and here) were quite enlightening. And it's too bad the Stolen Valor Act will never make it into law. It could certainly put a real and painful stop to the bullshit. Note that Murtha was not one of its sponsors, LOL.
Wonder whose interests that would serve, LOL.
Fuck Murtha, Kerry, and all of their little paperwork warrior buddies.
Who doesn't love Jerome Armstrong? Before he was a controversial political consultant; before he was a co-author, with Markos "Screw Them!" Moulitsas Zuniga, of "Crashing The Gate", in which he heralded the rise of the "Netroots"; and before he was barred from the securities industry by the SEC for his role in some penny-ante stock hustling, he was - I wish I had the nerve and imagination to make this up - an astrologer. . . .
. . . I want all you unreconstructed 60's flower children to put your hands together and join in. I know you know the song:
When the moon is in the seventh house
And MyDD aligns with Kos
Then Mark Warner will be the nominee
And love will steer the stars
Everybody!
This is the dawning of the Age of the Daily Kos
The Age of the Daily Kos
The Daily Kos!
The Daily Kos!
OK, that was a beautiful moment but I have to serious up - these folks might actually anoint our next President. Ooops, now I'm laughing again...
Posted by: Mike ||
06/25/2006 08:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
heh heh Kos and his Townhouse "defenders" are making this story into a meltdown rather than a minor scandal
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Columnist David Brooks has a piece in today's New York Times skewering Kos and his army of pallid, shuffling acolytes. This, and the TNR piece that started the whole flap, makes me wonder:
Is all this just a well-deserved, impromptu peer assault on an arrogant, overbearing asshole who's gotten too big for his britches and thinks he's running the Democratic Party?
Or are we seeing the opening shots by the Hillary Clinton Opponent Obliteration Machine as she begins to clear away the riffraff on the Loony Left in preparation for her final assult on America to put-- in JosephMendiola's immortal phrase-- the BettyCrockerCommieCrats in charge?
Either way, I'm investing in popcorn futures.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/25/2006 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, the signs are that at the next democrat convention, there are going to be some fistfight brawls for the record books.
You know it's going to be good when Karl Rove invests several million dollars to subsidize the production of the cheapest rotgut cane whiskey he can import for them.
#4
Hmmmm Dave D, I hadn't thought of the HillBill opponent elimination angle, but I like it. However they should have strangled this one in the crib way back in 2001, and surely even prior to the 2004 'lection, but at that time Kos was too valuable as a mindless Bush Hate Machine.
Animal Planet's excellent "Animal Cop" series recently featured a dog that died of blood loss from its fleas. The Democrat wing of the Progressive Party might wish to consider any possible parallels.
#7
If the Democratic Party dies from flea-inflicted blood loss, it has only itself to blame.
The Donks appear to have made a cynical, coldly-calculated decision, sometime around the time of the 2002 midterm elections, to start pandering to the Loony Left and tap into its reserves of money and political passion. Until then, most elected Democrats were on the same page as the rest of America with regard to the GWoT, and only a few wierdos in the Party opposed it.
But since then, so many in the Party have internalized their own bullshit propaganda that mindless opposition to the war is now the rule: not only have the inmates taken over the asylum, but most Staff have doffed their white coats and joined them hurling feces in the hallways-- and only poor Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are left barricaded in the Nurse's Station.
I have to wonder: what kind of shape would the Donks be in today if they hadn't embraced the Left and made opposition to the War their entire agenda?
My guess is that if they'd focussed on crafting an attractive set of domestic policy initiatives instead, and eschewed the crazy Bush-bashing and anti-war lunacy, and supported the war wholeheartedly, they'd now be in firm control of both houses of Congress.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/25/2006 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You know you can't make this stuff up cuz no one would beleive you. Kos...the epitome of the moonbat, conservative-hating, LLL...gets caught being a whore and then...then tries to cover it up. It's just prescious.
I guess that makes Kos the Karl Rove of the "barking at the moon", LLL.
#9
"...if they'd focussed... and eschewed the crazy Bush-bashing and anti-war lunacy, and supported the war..."
Sorry, Dave, not possible -- there's a two fantasy limit on Donk behavior. You've just had four. Only Karl Rove gets four -- because we allow him to think way outside the box.
When The New Republic's Web site published an e-mail from Moulitsas to a group of friendly activists urging them not to talk about Kosola and thus "starve it of oxygen," Moulitsas went berserk in a blog posting, accusing the venerable liberal journal of treason. By the weekend, Moulitsas's allies were sending each other e-mails infected with the paranoia of revolutionaries who've gained power too fast: How should they deal with traitors? How much openness could they handle? Which fellow travelers could they really trust?
and this:
Yet some Dems fear that Moulitsas's popularity will pull the party so far to the left that it won't be able to win the general election in 2008. "It's a little bit like 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' with these guys," said an aide to a Democratic presidential candidate who asked not to be identified while the boss was angling for Moulitsas's support. "You like what they're saying when they're coming in, but you don't know what they're going to do once you let them into your house."
"Will" pull the party too far to the left? I think they already have.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/25/2006 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
Kos's writing style -- which has obviously served him well as a blogger up to this point -- sounds angry and crazed to the outsider. It's easy to get him to react with "belligerence and paranoia," and the more successful he is, the more Democrats are motivated to marginalize and disqualify him. Those he's accused of "digging around in my past" have denied that they're doing it, but, really, why wouldn't they be doing it? And why wouldn't part of their strategy be to make him think that they are so they can lure him into displaying more of that "belligerence and paranoia"?
So I assume there is a conspiracy and a strategy to investigate Kos. And it's so easy to do because it can succeed even if it fails to turn anything up, because it will provoke him, and when he reacts, they'll all say he's paranoid, belligerent. Escort that man back outside the gate.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/25/2006 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#15
#11: That's why I'm also stocking up on ammo, just in case the "festivities" become threatening.
Not neaning to be funny, You're just now stocking up?
I have both a goodly supply of many different types and calibers put away, and extensive reloading equipment/supplies on hand, and have had it for years.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/25/2006 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#16
No automatic weapons here, so I haven't seen any point to keeping more than a thousand rounds or so on hand.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/25/2006 13:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Well Dave, I guess it's okay to go with the just-in-time inventory model. :)
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/25/2006 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Keep Murtha on the tube saying stupid shit like his Cut and Run stuff, and the AMERICA is the biggest terrorist in the world, and those UAW types will be right on over.
Its all about the press properly reporting the guy instead of covering for his decrepit senile ass.
Last week John Kerry revealed his plan to "redeploy" U.S. forces from Iraq. This plan is different from fellow Defeaticrat Jack Murtha's plan to "redeploy" U.S. forces from Iraq to Okinawa, which Congressman Murtha seems to think is in the general neighborhood of Iraq. Iraq's in the Middle East, Okinawa's in the Far East: C'mon, how far can it be to get from the Far to the Middle? After all, the distance between the farthest fringe of the kook left and the center of the Democratic Party seems to be closing up every week.
Anyway, Sen. Kerry doesn't want to waste time "redeploying" to Okinawa. When America "redeploys," it's not going to take a connecting flight via Japan and risk its luggage getting "redeployed" to Bratislava. No, sir, in John Kerry's America, we "redeploy" nonstop, straight back to Main Street in time for the Redeployment Day parade.
You gotta hand it to these guys: "Redeployment" is ingenious. I'll bet the focus-group consultants were delirious: "surrender," "lose,","scram," "scuttle ignominiously," "head for the hills" all polled poorly, but "redeploy" surveyed well with all parts of the base, except the base in Okinawa, where they preferred "sayonara" -- that's "redeploy" in any language. The Defeaticrats have a clear message for the American people. Read da ploy: No new quagmires.
This is the most artful example of Leftspeak since they came up with "undocumented immigrant." In fact, if it catches on, I'll bet millions of fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community now start referring to themselves as Redeployed Mexicans.
The only teensy-weensy problem is this: If America ever adopts the Kerry plan, the Murtha plan or some variation thereof, does anyone think al-Jazeera, the BBC, Le Monde, Der Spiegel et al will be using the word "redeploy" in their headlines? Or will they use a word closer to what's actually going on?
In a sense, the Democrats have already psychologically redeployed. Last week they unveiled their "New Direction for America." It's a six-point plan, two of whose points are "Cut College Costs" and "Ensure Dignified Retirement." On the first point, it's true the education system remains a problem: Many hardworking Americans are trapped in low-paying dead-end jobs as U.S. congressmen because an inadequate education left them with the impression Okinawa's in the United Arab Emirates. On the second point, I'm all in favor of a "dignified retirement": Why not try it on Kerry as a pilot program? As for the other four points, none has anything to say about national security or foreign policy.
The Defeaticrats' "New Direction for America" foresees a future for this country as a kind of Lesser France. That would be problematic enough: The dependency culture favored by the Dems has mired much of Europe in permanent double-digit unemployment, a moribund economy and unsustainable social programs. Presumably, Nancy Pelosi and Co. would respond by saying that their pledge to "give America a raise" -- i.e., increase the minimum wage -- shows that their party is in tune with real people's real needs rather than a lot of foreign adventuring that's got nothing to do with how real people really lead their really real lives. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Not even the Democrats can redeploy from the whole planet.
If you were a 5-year-old boy standing in the London streets in 1897 for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee parade and marveling as the hussars and lancers of the mightiest empire the world had ever known passed before your eyes, it would have seemed inconceivable that you'd be celebrating your 80th birthday in a decrepit ramshackle broken-down strike-bound basket case of a state. Permanence is the illusion of every age. And, if you're interested in a "dignified retirement," you might want to give some thought to the shape of the world the day after tomorrow.
Today, lots of experts crank out analyses positing China as the unstoppable hegemon of the 21st century. But the real threat is not the strengths of your enemies but their weaknesses. China is a weak power: Its population will get old before it gets rich. Russia is a weak power: If Africa has health crises, the Middle East has Islamists and North Korea has nukes, then Russia's got the lot: a dying population whose men have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis with a Muslim separatist movement sitting on top of the biggest pile of nukes on the planet. Europe is a weak power, remorselessly evolving month by month into Eurabia.
Islam is a weak power: In the words of Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the former prime minister of Malaysia, one of the least worst Muslim nations in the world, "We produce practically nothing on our own, we can do almost nothing for ourselves, we cannot even manage our wealth." But in Iran they're working full-speed on nukes that will be able to hit every European city.
North Korea is a weak power: Its population is starving but it's about to "test" the latest variation on its aptly named No Dong missile. I mean "test" in the sense that I test my new shotgun by firing it through your kitchen window. They're going to launch it and see where it comes down -- maybe Tokyo, maybe San Diego; maybe they'll aim for Los Angeles but it'll fall in Vancouver. Hey, that's why we call it a "test," right?
The danger we face is not a Chinese superpower or an Islamist superpower: If it's a new boss, you learn the new rules and adjust as best you can. But the greater likelihood is of a world with no superpower at all in which unipolar geopolitics gives way to nonpolar geopolitics, a world without order in which pipsqueak thug states that can't feed their own people globalize their pathologies. There would be more stories like that one the other day about the three decapitated policemen whose heads were found in the Tijuana River. But Pelosi would carry on talking about college tuition as the world sinks into economic decline, arbitrary bombings and kidnappings, and the occasional nuking.
Kerry gets all huffy if he thinks you're questioning his patriotism, so let's be charitable and assume the Defeaticrats are simply missing the point: For the rest of the world, what's at issue in the Iraq war is not the future of Iraq but the future of America. Can the world's leading nation still lead or is Kerry's Vietnam Syndrome "seared" (as he'd say) into its bones? Luxembourg can be Luxembourg. America doesn't have that option. In a nonpolar world, there's nowhere to redeploy to
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Indeed, Steyn rules. A mixture of shudders and howlers. Ridicule seems the only outlet at the moment since voters keep sending power whores like Kerry back. The remaining possibile solutions guarantee the sinktrap.
#3
John Kerry can't do any real harm in the Senate, other than the occasional obnoxious headline -- and it's not as if his constituency would elect someone more conservative if they could. As a potential presidential candidate he serves nicely to siphon off funds from Democrats more likely to actually win.
caught via Hugh Hewitt
Mr. Keller,
What ceases to amaze me about your paper is the
lengths you are willing to go to make headlines and
sell papers. Who cares if those headlines help the
enemies of America, you guys are making money and that
is what it is all about in the end right?
Your recent decision to publish information about a
classified program intended to track the banking
transactions of possible terrorists is not only
detrimental to America but also to its fighting men
and women overseas. I know because I am a sergeant in
the army on my second tour to Iraq. As I am sure you
dont know because you arent in Iraq, and I am sure
never will be, terrorism happens here everyday because
there are rich men out there willing to support the
everyday terrorist who plants bombs and shoots
soldiers just to make a living. Without money
terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no
longer be supplies for IEDs, no mortars or RPGs, and
no motivation for people to abandon regular work in
hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier.
Throughout your article you mention that the banking
program is a closely held secret but the cat is out
of the bag now isnt it. Terrorists the world over can
now change their practices because of your article.
For some reason I think that last sentence will bring
you guys pleasure. You have done something great in
your own eyes-you think you have hurt the current
administration while at the same time encouraging
freedom fighters resisting the imperialism of the
United States. However, I foresee a backlash coming
your way. I wish I had a subscription to your paper so
I could cancel it as soon as possible. But alas, that
would prove a little tough right now since I am in
Iraq dealing with terrorists financed by the very men
you are helping.
Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths
of my fellow soldiers. You guys definitely provide a
valuable service with your paper. Why without you how
would terrorists stay one step ahead of us? I would
love to hear a response as to why you deemed revealing
this program a necessity, but that will probably come
as soon as the government decides to finally put you
guys behind bars where you belong.
Tim Boggs
www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/25/2006 09:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
#3
Honestly, seeing Pinch, his minions, and Friends do the perp-walk would bring me greater pleasure than to hear OBL, Zawahiri, and any 10 other lowlife IslamoNazis had been killed or caught. The actions of Pinch and his ilk kill our people everday, day in, day out, without cease. General Sulzberger's Army of Lies has made America, itself, the enemy. (self) Hateful bastard.
Good luck and Godspeed to Tim Boggs and his compatriots. Come home to us - and run for public office.
#4
Good letter, but the NYT could give a sh*t. They hate America and all it stands for, then have the gall to piously attribute their actions to defending it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
