by Kathy at Mister Politics

Chilling undercover investigation into the influence of Saudi Arabian religious extremism throughout the UK. Despite being considered Britain’s principal ally in the Middle East, this disturbing report reveals Saudi Arabian Islam – Wahabism – is spreading a message of bigotry and hatred to a section of Muslims and predicting an imminent jihad.

An undercover reporter joins Islamic worshippers.

By Brujo Blanco

I have been reading the Baltimore Sun and a few other such rags lately and I have noted the absence of war news except for news about civilians and US military killed in the conflict. We are at war what is going on?

My suspicion is that the MSM is not reporting good news about the war because our military is succeeding. I have regular contact with soldiers that have been to and from the war and they are astounded by the lack of accuracy in the MSM. One of my friends was in an area in Iraq where they walked around the towns and were greeted with smiles and handshakes. He was telling me that when Sadam was in power these were the killing fields.

Many of you may not have heard of a new vehicle called the Grizzly. This vehicle has been fielded and is highly effective in transporting troops and it is highly effective in protecting them from the IEDs. The good democrats (that do not support the war but support the troops) are withholding the funds necessary to field more of these vehicles. I saw this story on Fox news but not the Baltimore Sun.

I was asking myself why would they not field an item that would save American lives? My conjecture is that those in opposition to the war will be more successful if the military fails and has a good number of combat deaths. They are hoping for military failure overseas for political advantage at home. Of course this is only my opinion.

I also consider the current battle over the funding of the war to be a real catch 22. If the President accepts the democrat position and signs the current bill there will certainly be problems. One is that it would neuter the Presidency and the Congress would end up running the war by committee. The President, even if they hate his guts (which they do), is the Commander in Chief. If they change this Constitutional concept it will cost lives now and later under future presidents of either party it would cause problems. The bill as it is currently will place serious restrictions on the President and is a plan which may cause military defeat. The President would not be able to respond to an emergency situation without having to have a law changed. At times the military needs to jump and they only have minutes to make decisions. The training requirement for replacements for example would be a disaster. Congress would decide if the replacements are ready.

The democrats voted for this war and now they want to lose it. We should not go to war and plan to lose. We should go to war to win. This war will not go away if we leave Iraq. It will follow us back to the USA. (more…)

from Mike at Flopping Aces

Harry Reid has had his say. Nancy Pelosi has had her say.

Every defeatist, appeasing, Islamist enabling left wing loon has had their say with the freedom of speech that is ONLY available to them because a brave American soldier fought and died to protect that right.

But who speaks for the soldiers? Congressman Murtha?

Vick, a Sgt. First Class Ranger serving in Iraq, phoned the Neal Boortz radio program (streaming audio from links here). It quickly became an emotional call as this brave man was brought to tears by the sacrifice, honor and love for America he has witnessed among his fellow soldiers and the false story he sees around him when he comes home.

"Sir, I would like to finish my job. We have been given a very clear and defined mission: To set up a government that could sustain itself, defend itself and run itself by itself. I don’t know how you could make that any plainer.Nine members of my unit I have carried off in a black bag that I have zipped up. And I refuse to believe that I am going to have to come home and say that all of that was for nothing."

"I’m a RANGER. I do NOT fail!…I can do this job!"

Words do not adequately convey the power and emotion of Vick’s words. Gazing at the Flag came by this video (You Tube version) which I cannot recommend enough. It is a must see. But perhaps more importanly, a MUST HEAR!

by Laryn

I am not crazy. It was wonderful to find the email from Lorie Byrd, thought I’d gotten what Tenet said misconstrued as no one else picked up on it. Well thank goodness someone did:

Tenet Said Saddam Would Have Nukes By 2007

I didn’t see George Tenet’s interview on 60 Minutes last night, but Larwyn alerted me to the following statement by Tenet that the intelligence community believed Saddam could have nukes by 2007. Ian Schwartz got the transcript and is going to be posting video soon. (UPDATE: Video link here.)

SCOTT PELLEY, CBS’ “60 MINUTES”: January ’03, the President, again: “imagine those 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam’s Hussein,” is that what you’re telling the President?

GEORGE TENNET: No.

[narrating voice]

The Vice President up the anty, claiming Saddam had nuclear weapons when the CIA was saying he didn’t.

PELLEY: What’s happening here?

TENNET: I don’t know what’s happening here. The intelligence community’s judgement is he will not have nuclear weapons until the year 2007, 2009.

PELLEY: That’s not what the Vice President is saying.

TENNET: Well I can’t explain it.

Am I missing something or did Tenet basically say that if Saddam had been left in power, it is likely he would have a nuclear weapon today? Or in a year or two, anyway. I get that the point Pelley was trying to make (yes, some journalists try to make points in their interviews) was that the Vice President was citing numbers other than what he was getting from the CIA. Maybe he was relying on numbers Great Britain or some other entity had shared with the administration. Maybe Pelley and Tenet think we should have waited until 2007 to address that threat, then if our estimates were off by a year or three and Saddam had the bomb in 2004, then oopsie, tough break. (more…)

by Kathy at Mister Politics

On Sunday’s “Face The Nation” Democratic Congressman John Murtha talks to Bob Schieffer about the Iraq spending bill and the President’s theatened veto.

Defeatist John Murtha lists Impeachment as one of the ways to influence the President…

from Curt at Flopping Aces

For a look into our enemy eye’s take a look at this interview of Abu-al-Layth al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader inside Afghanistan.  The video was released yesterday on many Jihad internet sites.  Here is a 3+ minute cut of two important parts, english translation is in the video:

Here is a transcript of the pertinent parts:

al-Libi:  We tell the Americans: Although you have killed Abu-Mus’ab (ed. Zarqawi), there are generations created by him which you will continue to fight, and the life of Abu-Mus’ab will be better than the lives of his killers. The life of Abu-Mus’ab will also be longer, more blessed, and greatest than those of his killers. History is a witness and judge. God willing, those whom Abu-Mus’ab left behind will not leave you alone.

Interviewer: The jihadist movements have passed through several stages throughout the recent decades, and perhaps the current stage is one of the most important of these stages, as we, God be praised, have arrived at the beginning of the stage of picking fruits. This is one of the most difficult stages, so what are the steps which the mujahidin must follow?

al-Libi:  Yes, what was mentioned in the question is a fact which we are living in our battle with the enemy. By the grace of Almighty God, the mujahidin have come out of the bottleneck, and now the fields of Jihad are experiencing organized, advanced military action. Military actions are carried out in accordance with well-prepared and carefully-studied plans. Those who carry them out will tell you about the tactics they use and about the results they want from these tactics, and then the written hypothetical results are achieved by these tactics laid down by the mujahidin. This indicates that the mujahidin are at an advanced, developed stage. All praise is due to God, the military activities which are taking place in Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan, in steadfast Algeria, Somalia, and God willing, in Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and all Islamic countries and wherever Muslims are found, show that this stage and the current situation of the mujahidin in these jihadist communities is a stage which was produced by the first stages, and that they are now in the stage of establishing and laying the foundations of the Islamic state. And, by the grace of God, this state will not be empty hopes or mere dreams, but is a reality on the ground which, God willing, will materialize and will be seen by everyone.

But we’re really not at war you see.  If we would just run from Iraq they would really like us because we are so swell.

Sigh…

By Brujo Blanco

I was reading an article written by Dan Simpson of the Toledo Blade, titled The Disarming of America, April 25, 2007. This is interesting from an anti-second amendment perspective. Simpson is a retired diplomat and apparently very much an anti-gunner.

I find it curious that this liberal pundit would come up with his idea of disarming America in that he obviously had a career wherein he was protected by men carrying guns. In other words it was OK for him to have such protection but not the Joe Sixpacks of the USA. An average citizen armed with a gun is a poor man’s bodyguard. If the liberal elites, such as Rosie O’Donnell and Ted Kennedy, are protected by armed private security why is this not available for those of us in the trenches.

Simpson literally proposed the total disarmament of the general public. He wants a law passed giving us 3 months to turn in firearms. Then he wants to have special police units with unlimited authority (here goes the 4th Amendment out the window) to go door to door searching for and seizing guns. These searches, in Simpson’s mind, would be conducted on a random basis. Areas would be condoned off and searched.

This idea of Simpson’s is not far fetched. In New Orleans after Katrina there was some door to door confiscation of firearms. This was stopped when the city fathers determined that they were about to be nailed for their unlawful searches and seizures. I have noted that whenever these types of searches are suggested it is those on the left that propose such searches. They seem to vacillate when it comes to the civil rights of regular people vs. civil rights of the politically correct.

I can believe this guy was a diplomat and a well educated man. He is obviously educated beyond his own intelligence. He also has an apparent aversion to hunters as though they are mass murderers.
(more…)

Click Here.

by Haider Ajina

The following is an article form ‘Aswat Al-Iraq or “Voices of Iraq” from Apr 26, 2007

Al-Shuaiba airbase back to Iraqis for second time in 48 years

By Malik Saadon

Basra, Apr 26, (VOI) – Forty-eight years has passed between the handover of al-Shuaiba airbase from the British forces to the Iraqi Air Force (IQAF) in 1959 and its handover to the 10th division of the Iraqi army two days ago. During these 48 years the map of the world has changed, many concepts, ideas and theories have evolved, disproving others that scientists previously held true, but man’s will to remain free and to be the master of his own land has not changed.

The British forces on Tuesday handed over al-Shuaiba airbase, 40 km from western Basra , to the 10th division of the Iraqi army, after it having been a vital airbase for the British and Danish forces since 2003. A military parade was held during which the Iraqi flag was raised and the British and Danish flags were lowered in reference to the return of Iraqi sovereignty.

With the handover of al-Shuaiba airbase, the presence of the multi-national forces will be confined to two bases: the presidential palaces in central Basra , 550 km south of Baghdad , and Basra International Airport in the northwest of the city.

Al-Shuaiba airbase was first used by the British forces on March 9, 1915 after they won their battle against the Ottoman Turks in World War I, as part of what the British forces called ‘The Mesopotamian campaign,’ which means the campaign between the two rivers, referring to the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers.

“On November 6, 1914, the first British battalion of the 16th legion landed on Fao beach, raised the British flag and lowered the flag of the Ottoman Empire ,” Ali Jabir, a retired brigadier, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

“Under the command of Sir A. Bart, the British forces on November 23, 1914 managed to occupy Basra and staged a military parade, to which foreign consuls and prominent figures from Basra were invited, to celebrate what they called ‘the liberation of Iraq’ from the despotism of the Ottoman Empire,” Jabir continued.

Explaining the strong reactions to the British occupation of Basra , Jabir said that the situation turned upside down as soon as the occupying forces held sway.

“Despite serious conflicts at that time between the southern Iraqi tribes and the Ottoman government, which local residents considered their main enemy before the occupation, religious groups in Najaf called for fighting the new occupying forces,” Jabir said. Muhammad Saeed al-Habobi, a well-known love poet in Najaf, was one of the Iraqi men of religion who called on people to join al-Shuaiba Battle , where the British forces were on the verge of defeat had it not been for their intrigue. According to Jabir, al-Habobi could not bear the shock of the defeat. “He fell severely ill and was bedridden until he died in Nassiriya on June 16, 1915.”

After holding sway over all Iraqi provinces, the British forces started to build stable bases, among which was al-Shuaiba base. “In 1920, the Royal Air Force (RAF) set up a camp at al-Shuaiba where it deployed the 84th company, which was replaced in 1940 by the 244th company that fought the anti-colonial Rashid Ali al-Kilani Movement in World War II,” a British media source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

“Our backs were bleeding severely under the scourge of the feudal system in Missan’s rural areas. We could not afford to pay rent to the landlord of the land. My two brothers and I considered leaving and chose Basra as our destination. We arrived there after a five-day journey on foot,” Hajj Hassan, one of the workers at al-Shuaiba base during the British occupation in the 1930s, who is now over 90-years old, told VOI. (more…)

Is that what Ehrlich is doing at the firm, leading thousands of Marylanders?

I asked Anna Juby, media relations manager for the North Carolina-based firm that hired Ehrlich to open a local office. Just what is Ehrlich doing to earn his paycheck? Will he actually try cases? Or does the firm have some sort of commercial interest in simply keeping the Ehrlich buzz alive?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.vozzella27apr27,1,5135114.column

Those of you who have followed The Sun Lies since the beginning will remember that a year ago The Sun columnist Laura Vozzella claimed Gov. Ehrlich chatting with Oriole Brian Roberts led the second baseman to strikeout.

Now, Vozzella is repeating the Maryland Democratic Party’s press release for them.

Almost no one doubts the necessity for a tax increase next year or even sooner.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fraser29apr29,1,5983615.column

Meanwhile:

http://www.mdgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4019

The Maryland Senate Republican Caucus also issued a plan to avoid raising taxes. The Sun publishes C. Fraser Smith’s opinion editorials time and time again despite Mr. Fraser ignoring any resemblance of factual research.

The O’Malley administration has put $26 million into improving the juvenile system and is building the state’s first secure treatment facility in decades.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.juvy29apr29,1,982009.story

The Sun’s continues their O’Malley lovefest. Don’t expect any critical articles or editorials of Governor O’Malley. Remember, one of The Sun’s reporters used to drink with the then-Mayor on a nearly daily basis.

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

Hot Air’s Michelle Malkin picks up the pom poms to take on Harry Reid and the rest of the Defeatocrats.

by Regina Sztajer

Leaders of the Democratic Party are appearing to act like traitors of their own country by opposing the war in Iraq and refusing to fund the troops without a huge increase in pork barrel for their constituents added to a funding bill. Both Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are getting especially close to committing treason by their defeatist rhetoric and actions. While our troops and innocent people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan we have elected officials making statements that embolden the enemy.

Reid said Bush is in a “state of denial” over the war and he also said, “I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and….you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows.. this war is lost.”( www.townhall.com Tom Delay 4/24/07.) Bush has threatened to veto the funding bill which has a timetable for withdrawal. Reid has abandoned his pretense about caring for victory in the war on terror and both Reid, Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha are undermining the American mission in the Middle East. Their political actions are at the least suicidal for U.S. foreign policy. We can not surrender to barbarism!

General David Petraeus was in Washington this week hoping to build congressional support for the Bush policy in Iraq. The president said, ” I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn’t be telling generals how to do their job and I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal is a mistake.”
(www.townhall.com.)

Overheated rhetoric by Democrats is not the answer but rather an assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges that we face is the answer. Since Petraeus took command the U.S. and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on the Shiite- led sectarian violence that has paralyzed Baghdad and consolidating support from Iraqi Suniis especially in the Anbar province which until just awhile ago was hopelessly mired in insurgency. Progress is real but only beginning!

There is a deliberate attempt to undermine our gains by insurgents led by Al- Qaeda. They are the same extremists that have led attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey, New York and Washington, D.C. Al-Qaeda views Iraq’s capital as a central front in the war on terror and their strategy is clear to kill innocent people with spectacular acts of evil. They are trying to provoke a civil war in Iraq! Democrats who say the war is lost and demand timetables of withdrawal are helping Al-Qaeda to succeed.

Despite the violence of suicide bombings the Iraqi political leadership is holding firm while the American political center falters. We must not abandon the Middle East to Al-Qaeda barbarism by running away. But rather we must stand and fight. The West may be weary over Afghanistan and Iraq and complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11/ but the war on terror is not over.

If we leave Iraq radical Islam will not wither because it is plotting attacks which have been stopped periodically in Europe and the U.S. Stateless terrorists can be dangerous because they may have unconventional arms that can cause mass destruction. The nature of our travel by air has been obstructed by terrorism and water plants are vulnerable because they depend on computers and communications. Two oceans can not protect us any longer when the Internet has no boundaries. Our borders are open because of ships and air flights and spent nuclear fuel can be used for dirty bombs easily brought into the country. Nerve gas and germ warfare is a possibility and a strike on oil fields can be crippling. Efforts of denial will not help because Islamic terrorism is real and deadly. The Democratic lead Congress is bordering on treason and we will be the victims.

from Curt at Flopping Aces

Joe Lieberman – “A Deadline For Defeat”

One of the more important parts of Joe Lieberman’s speech today can now be seen.

You must watch this:

and Jon Voight – Rare Sensible Celebrity

It makes me feel all warm and cuddly inside when I find at least one hollywood celebrity with some common sense about the real danger we face.  Here is Jon Voight talking on the Bill O’Reilly show tonight about how our MSM is "defacing" our President and doing everything they can to make sure we are defeated in Iraq and the war on terror:

by James H. Lilley

A terrorist, by definition, is a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community. Seung-Hui Cho fits that description because his intent was to terrorize and intimidate the Virginia Tech College community. His violent action perpetrated against fellow students was not only an act of terrorism, but also Cho’s moment of glory when he held the lives of so many in the palms of his hands.

Cho’s reign of terror began with the execution of his first two victims, Emily Hilscher and Ryan Clark. But make no mistake; he knew exactly what he was doing when he went to Ambler Johnston Hall. These killings were a part of his scheme simply to create a diversion to keep police occupied while he set off to carry out his master plan. I don’t believe Emily Hilscher was an intended target, but a target of opportunity and convenience for Cho. Ryan Clark became a collateral victim when he rushed to her aid. Police called to the scene of the shooting were faced immediately with a number of problems. Was this a murder and suicide? If not, was there a suspect and description available? Indeed it would not have been an easy task to obtain these answers when students from the dorm are certainly racing through a range of emotions from fear and shock to hysteria. In this instance determining sufficient facts to clearly define the crime as a double murder would have been monumental. Once investigators discovered that they were dealing with a double murder the job of obtaining and broadcasting a suspect description takes more valuable time. This isn’t CSI or Law and Order. This is the real world where unraveling pieces to the puzzle and gathering facts requires much more than 40 minutes.

While police tried to piece together exactly what had happened, Cho returned to his room to complete his videotape, self-photographs and manifesto, which he mailed to NBC. Next, he calmly proceeded to Norris Hall where he chained the doors and fired the first shots of his planned bloodbath. Fearing for their very lives, some students jumped from second and third story windows, while others frozen in fear faced their executioner. Survivors described him as cool and calm while he pumped bullet after bullet into his victims. Police officers who responded to the reported shootings at Norris Hall suddenly found they couldn’t enter the building because Cho had chained the doors preventing entry. They tried to shoot through the chains and when this failed they ran to a side door. There they shot away a deadbolt lock and finally entered the building. But once inside their problems were just beginning. They couldn’t race blindly through the hallways searching for the shooter or shooters (the number was unknown). This looks good on the screen, but anyone with an ounce of tactical and common sense knows you can’t run about wildly, with guns drawn hoping the shooter will magically appear in front of you. You have to have a plan of action to effectively search for, locate and neutralize the shooter or shooters either by capturing or killing them.

I’m well aware of the procedures for tactical searches for armed suspects and I’ve taken part in more than one over the years. I’ve worked closely with SWAT teams in both training and actual operations during drug raids and searches for armed men. So I understand what they were thinking and feeling when they arrived at Norris Hall. I can assure you that those first officers who entered the building wanted to do everything humanly possible to put a stop to what was happening and as quickly as possible. Their adrenaline levels were off the scale, their hearts were racing and I’m sure they even had the urge to run through the halls in search of the shooter. But tactical and common sense dictated that in order to do their job effectively they had to take a few moments to formulate a plan of action. When they had their plan they went up the stairs and as they reached the second floor heard the final shot. That was the shot Cho fired to kill himself. Only after Cho stopped his madness with a self-inflicted gunshot wound did those officers have their first real opportunity to view the death scene Cho had left for them. It’s hard to begin to imagine the carnage they saw, but they’ll live with it for the rest of their lives and relive the events over and over in their nightmares for years to come. (more…)

from Curt at Flopping Aces

The Senate passed the surrender bill today 51-46 with two Republicans voting for it, Sen Hagel and Sen Smith.  McCain and Graham did not vote. Lieberman voted against it and made some great points in a speech:

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,” that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

On the notion that us pulling out will stop the violence:

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Meanwhile General David Petraeus tells us that rather then losing this fight we are kicking ass:

The U.S. commander of multinational forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said Wednesday that efforts to quell unrest in the western Sunni province of Anbar have made almost “breathtaking” progress.

Speaking to reporters about the new U.S. strategy to curb sectarian violence in Iraq launched two months ago, based on a U.S. troop increase, Petraeus said: “We are ahead, I think, with respect … to the reduction of sectarian murders in Baghdad.

“Progress in Anbar is almost something that’s breathtaking,” he added.

The general illustrated his positive evaluation by citing the killing Friday of an al-Qaeda kingpin, identified by the U.S. command as the “security emir” for the east of Anbar province.

He also pointed to the capture of the head of an important weapons network and advances in intelligence about Iranian involvement in the conflict.

And Bill Roggio details the latest Al-Qaeda strategy in the province of Diyala. 

But none of the successes bother the Democrats, they still claim defeat even though we have NEVER lost ground to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.  The reason they ignore this simple fact is due to politics:

As congressional Democrats move to force President Bush to veto a war spending bill that would start a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, they are simultaneously pursuing a carefully crafted offensive aimed at another target: Republican lawmakers.

In the charged debate over the war, the strategy aims to achieve Democratic objectives on both policy and political fronts, according to party leaders and aides.

Convinced that Bush will never listen to their calls to bring troops home, senior Democrats have concluded that they must force Republicans to vote again and again in defense of the unpopular war until enough plead with the president to change course.

But Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on the war will allow the party to expand its congressional majorities in next year’s elections by continuing to link GOP lawmakers with the president and his war policies.

As Bumbling Reid has stated, they are in this for elections…the security of this country be damned.  We run and show the world that we are cowards who cannot win a fight and our security will be compromised almost completely.  Doesn’t matter.  What matters is power.

If this isn’t treason then I don’t know what is.  They have emboldened the enemy, the same folks killing our soldiers.   To defeat the enemy you MUST rob them of hope.  Thanks to the Democrats their hope continue to grow daily.

(more…)

by Larwyn

Would love if the guy is great friend of Reid and big contributor to him and the DEMs!!! Read it all, the guy’ s roaming the streets, thanks to something,

When Moonbats Snap… Nut Threatens Republicans With Rifle!

“He pulled the rifle from the trunk of his Mercedes, removed the Bush & Cheney pictures from the office, and promised to be back if Bush vetoed the emergency war spending bill!” -Nevada Republican Party Executive Director Zachary Moyle.

Matthew Hunter Kramer said he would “take action” if Bush vetoed the spending bill.(FOX 5 Las Vegas)
FOX 5 reported:

A large cache of weapons were discovered inside of his vehicle — including three swords, a flare gun with .12-gauge shotgun shells and a .12 gauge shotgun. Las Vegas police did not reveal the particular bill that outraged Kramer, but said he told his victim he would kill everyone at the Republican offices when he returned… He originally asked an official there how he could join the party.
A man in Nevada threatened Republican officials with a rifle if…
BUSH VETOES THE EMERGENCY SPENDING BILL!

Drudge and the AP report:

A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said.

Matthew Hunter Kramer, 31, did not resist officers who arrested him on a warrant issued after the April 3 confrontation at state Republican Party offices in Las Vegas.

Zachary Moyle , executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress.

…Kramer also removed photos of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the wall of the office and threatened to harm staff members, Moyle said. Kramer left his cell phone number with office staff before leaving, police said.

He is charged with criminal syndicalism, assault with a deadly weapon and aiming a firearm at a person, police Officer Martin Wright said.

Criminal syndicalism makes it a crime to advocate sabotage, violence or terrorism to accomplish industrial or political reform, said Ron Bloxham, a Clark County prosecutor. It carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Nevada Republican Party Executive Director Zachary Moyle stands outside the GOP office on Sahara Avenue and Durango Drive on Tuesday. An unidentified man threatened Moyle with a gun and took framed photos of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the office. ( Review Journal)

Moyle said the man ranted about America’s dependence on oil and the Iraq war.

The man said he had two brothers serving in Iraq and didn’t want President Bush to veto the emergency war spending bill that sets a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

He then pulled out a hunting rifle and pointed it in Moyle’s face.

“If this bill gets vetoed, I’m going to come back,” he said.
(more…)

by Kathy at misterpolitics.com

European Parliament Passes Resolution to Take Homophobic Countries to Court

From Life Site News:

In a disgraceful debate in the European Parliament (EP) yesterday, Members of the European Parliament from France, the Netherlands and Italy, among others, vilified Poland as “hateful” and “repulsive” for refusing to allow promotion of homosexuality in schools.

A vote was held today to approve an EP resolution chastising Poland for ‘homophobia.’ The resolution – adopted by 325 votes to 124, with 150 abstentions – calls for a fact-finding mission to be sent to Poland, for “worldwide de-criminalisation of homosexuality” and for the Commission to take Member States to court if they breach their EU obligations.

At issue was a proposed law in Poland which would forbid “homosexual propaganda” in schools. Explaining the legislation earlier this year, Roman Giertych, Poland’s minister of education: “One must limit homosexual propaganda so that children won’t have an improper view of family”

Beginning the debate in the EP France’s MEP Rour Martine called statements in defense of the traditional family by Polish parliamentarians, “diatribes” and noted that they “must stop”, adding that they were “repulsive” and “hateful”. “These are not Europe’s values,” she proclaimed.

The statements from France were supported by Sophia in’t Veld of the Netherlands who also accused the Polish government of “hatred” and demanded action rather than words from the EU governing body.

Italy’s Giusto Catania joined in the attack on Poland adding an attack on the church as well which he said never stopped in expressing hatred toward homosexuals. (more…)

Dems rebuke Giuliani over attack comment

- Democratic presidential candidates on Wednesday rebuked Republican rival Rudy Giuliani for suggesting that the United States could face another major terrorist attack if a Democrat is elected in 2008. The former New York mayor did not back down.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) said Giuliani, who was in office on Sept. 11, 2001, should not be making the terrorist threat into “the punchline of another political attack.”

“Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Obama said in a statement.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a “superior Republican way to fight terrorism.” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said protecting the country from terrorism “shouldn’t be a political football.”
from the Pro-Terrorist AP

Wow, where do I start? First, notice the bias in the headline. The title does not say “Giuliani says the Dems are weak on terror” , or “Dem tactics Open us to Attack.” No, the lying, scummy media MISLEADS you in the first sentence. But that is not the point of this article.

The point of the article is if Giuliani has any truth with his statement. Apparently the Wall Street Journal agrees.

Harry’s War

From The Wall Street Journal

We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.

–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

Gen. David Petraeus is in Washington this week, where on Monday he briefed President Bush on the progress of the new military strategy in Iraq . Today he will give similar briefings on Capitol Hill, but maybe he should save his breath. As fellow four-star Harry Reid recently informed America , the war Gen. Petraeus is fighting and trying to win is already “lost.”

Mr. Reid has since tried to “clarify” that remark, and in a speech Monday he laid out his own strategy for Iraq . But perhaps we ought to be grateful for his earlier candor in laying out the strategic judgment — and nakedly political rationale — that underlies the latest Congressional bid to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq starting this fall. By doing so, he and the Democrats are taking ownership of whatever ugly outcome follows a U.S. defeat in Iraq .

This isn’t to say that the Administration hasn’t made its share of major blunders in this war. But at least Mr. Bush and his commanders are now trying to make up for these mistakes with a strategy to put Prime Minister Maliki’s government on a stronger footing, secure Baghdad and the Sunni provinces against al Qaeda and allow for an eventual, honorable, U.S. withdrawal. That’s more than can be said for Mr. Reid and the Democratic left, who are making the job for our troops more difficult by undermining U.S. morale and Iraqi confidence in American support.

In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that “nothing has changed” since the surge began taking effect in February. It’s true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington . The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.

So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki’s parliamentary coalition — a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn’t some grand “political solution,” which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq ‘s salvation. They’ve turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda’s strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad , or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad . The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid’s strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That’s also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East . Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran . But the reality (to use Mr. Reid’s new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq , and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles.

As for Iran , Mr. Reid’s strategy of defeat would guarantee that the radical mullahs of Tehran have more influence in Baghdad than the moderate Shiites of Najaf. It would also make the mullahs even more confident that they can build a bomb with impunity and no fear of any Western response.

The stakes in Iraq are about the future of the entire Middle East — and of our inevitable involvement in it. In calling for withdrawal, Mr. Reid and his allies, just as with Vietnam , may think they are merely following polls that show the public is unhappy with the war. Yet Americans will come to dislike a humiliation and its aftermath even more, especially as they realize that a withdrawal from Iraq now will only make it harder to stabilize the region and defeat Islamist radicals. And they will like it even less should we be required to re-enter the country someday under far worse circumstances. (more…)