McCain will lose primary (not Bush's fault)

McCain will not lose the primary because he supports Bush - perhaps the general election, but not the primary. McCain will lose because the GOP base remembers the McCain - Feingold Act and his criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq war on Meet The Press.

And when the base was encouraging Republicans in congress to rewite election procedures to enable a majority in the Judicial committee to approve nominees. there was McCain and his gang of 14 subverting the process and he did the same when torture legislation was before congress. He sided with Ted Kennedy (shutter) on water boarding and immigration reform.

The GOP has a long memory. Go on any conservative Internet message board and mention McCain, AKA McShame as he is normally refereed to, and not one post will cite his support of Bush in the negative.

Don't believe those pundits that championed Maverick McCain when he supported their agendas. Surely those righteous acts couldn't be the reason McCain is DOA. It must be Bush's fault.

McCain will lose the primary because of McCain.

How dumb is NYT's Thomas Friedman?

In a column written by Thomas Friedman for the New York Times, he asks "How dumb are we? It's your typical Bush hit piece, but one of his assertions caused me to up chuck my oatmeal.

George Bush, Dick Chenet and Don Rumsfeld think you're stupid.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry - a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Bush and Cheney never ran away from combat service- and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.(bolf type is mine)

The person that is really stuck on stupid is Friedman. Despite
"Christmas in Cambodia", a purple heart earned for a scratch which was one of three that helped Kerry escape Vietnam after seving a short three months and the fact that Kerry has never released all his military records, he, Friedman ought to CYA where Kerry is concerned as have many Democrats.

And Friedman conviently loses his journalistic cynicism when he states that Kerry "is not even running for office."

Can I get some odds on whether Kerry runs again?

How Terrorists REALLY Recruit Followers

The Democrats are touting the Iraqi war as the cause celib of al-Quad recruitment but, a Golden Carp agent recently attended an al-Qaeda jobs fair and found the truth.
The scene: several would-be recruits are being addressed by, Saddam, an al-Qaeda leader, He proudly points to a PowerPoint presentation and speaks:look, here is a story from AP, which we refer to as the "al-Qaeda Press," -- see, they confirm that we are not terrorist but freedom fighters and that our organization has expanded worldwide. They also provide valuable employment for several of our members.

.

Without a doubt we are winning our battle in Iraq. It is only a matter of time and the results of the US 2006 election before the Great Satan redeploys from Iraq with his tail between his legs. Read these headlines from those great tellers of truth, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Boston Globe and many, many others.

Here is a story that US congressman Murtha, may Allah protect him from chief terrorist Bush, is helping us against the Crusaders. He is only one of our many US supporters. They are called Democrats.

With their help we soon will be able to once again transfer money and make telephone calls to our warriors in the US without fear of detection. We will be able to pay for our agent's gym fee, clubbing, flight lessons, and cell phones.

And my little warriors, there is no downside if you are killed, remember all those virgins, plus your family will be well paid with the best dollars that can be printed.

FATIMA, cover your foot, Ali is looking.

But what if we are capture, asks Muhammad. Oh, my little suicide bombers, that is the best of all. Many important US senators believe that they must claim the moral high ground in the world, but as we know, the infidels do not have morals, just look at this fold out page from Penthouse - how decadent.

But back to your question Mohammed, if you are capture by the US you will be given a vacation in Cuba where you can enjoy the gentle breezes from the gulf of Mexico, 3 meals a day and many other activities.

What if we are tortured, asks Apoo. Ah, my little bomb maker, the US does not torture -- no cutting off of heads, contamination with menstrual blood or woman's panties, no dogs and, (shutter), no women interrogators. Sometimes they give you a Big Mac or take you out of the hot sun and give you a cooler room, but never fear, our powerful protector is one, John McCain, may Allah protect him from that devil Giuliani.

Bush, may jackals eat his young, thinks he is the powerful one, but McCain, may he live to see the 12th Imam return, is the true power in the US government.

It is only a matter of time before we are victorious. And if you fight hard and become famous, after the war, we'll get you a spot on Letterman or at least an interview by that Couric woman.

So, Saddam exclaims, who will join me in this glorious fight to convert all infidels and reclaim the "Golden Age of Islam?

Apoo, you have a question?

Can we..can we.. make copies of that Penthouse picture to constantly remind us of US decadence?

Learn to love the Democrats

If I step back and accept, as some cynics opine, that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans - what am I worried about in 2006/08? And besides the Democrats might be better for me personally with subsidized health care, social security etc. -- all the gimme benefits.

So am I just cheering for team GOP? I could be ambivalent and learn to love the Democrats, but then I think about Congresspersons Pelosi, Reid, Conyer et al., and they scare me.

This country was made great by capitalism and the "unblinking one" was once a member of the House socialist caucus as Conyer still is. And what is Conyer's shtrick? Our next would-be Judiciary committee chairman's all consuming passion is pay back for Clinton's impeachment. He's already held a Bush mock impeachment hearing.

Reid's claim that "we killed the Patriot Act" threatens my personal safety. If the Democrats win, they will owe the antiwar crowd their first child. Negotiation will be our policy and a democratic US is a lousy negotiator.

Clinton talked with North Korea and what happened - we sent them heavy oil and food so they could secretly spend money to develop missiles.

If I were Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, China, I would consider a win by the Democrats as the emasculation of the US. Just as Mogadishu encourages Bin Laudin, a Democrat win would encourage our enemies.

A Democrat US will talk and talk while our enemies plan for the next 9/11, but this time they wont just stir up the US. The object of their next attack will be so horrific as to destroy the US's standing in the world - so they will think and plan.

Kids don't forget how to get under your desks and put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye.

Dems Accuse GOP of Spinning (really)

Oh my gosh, the Democrats have accused the GOP of politicizing the thwarted airline attack.

The other morning a talk show host use of "politicize", prompting me to ask him the following question: if one expresses his/her passionate belief that islamofascists are a danger to the US and this attack is evidence, is this politicizing or is the accuser actually the politicizer?

Margaret Calson a lefty pundit was scandalized by VP Cheney's use of the attack to criticize Dems's weak antiterrorist stance.

My letter to Calson is as follows:

"Your op-ed, UK Terror Bust..., reminds me of a line from the movie Mash where Radar, during a football game, exclaims, Their ringer has spotted our ringer'.

You have spotted VP Cheney et al. using the terror bust to express their concerns for the safety of this country. I'm aghast.

Spewing your vitriolic claim, regarding Homeland Security, that 'a lamer agency has never existed' is not spin, it's 'speaking truth to power' as Democrats want to say.

And certainly it is not spinning for the Democrats to claim that because the terrorists are Pakistani, Bush is fighting the wrong war in Iraq.

But conversely we Republicans can say because the terrorist are NOT Iraqi, we must have them occupied so they can't commit terrorist acts in the US or England.

Touche.

It's a game Margaret -- don't waste our trees."

Conversation with a revisionist history professor

Dear Professor:
In your NYT's op-ed "What does North Korean want..." you state that the agreement negotiated by Secretary Albright "crumbled in the wake of the administration's preemptive doctrine and charges that a second nuclear program was up and running."

You seem to be blaming Bush for igniting the current NK problem, yet earlier in your opinion you state that NK produced several bombs from their enriched uranium stock pile. Was that part of the Albright agreement or violation thereof?

Dear Stan:
Bush failed to follow through on the missile agreement, something that Albright has complained about ever since. Michael Gordon wrote a full investigative report on all this on March 6, 2001 in the Times. Powell wanted to follow on with the agreement, but hardliners blocked him.

Meanwhile, the entire plutonium complex was frozen for eight years, until Bush (1) announced his preemptive doctrine in September 2002, saying NK was a target of it; and (2) he sent James Kelly to Pyongyang the next month to accuse them of having a second nuclear program in highly-enriched uranium. The North says screw you, leaves the NPT, gets their reactor back, plus the 8000 fuel rods that were put in concrete casks in 1994.
Result: North Korea still has all its missiles, may have 5 or 6 more atomic bombs, and may have a highly enriched uranium program--and they have paid no penalty for this. A catastrophic failure, if you ask me.

Dear professor:
As I understand it, NK secretly developed nuclear weapons from the get go. The devil is in the details..What did we have to do to follow up on the Albright policy -- pay NK more blackmail? Bush is sending aid to NK now. Albright appeased NK and now Kim Jong Il will not accept less. 2) I don't remember Bush saying NK must change regimes, although it was obvious even to The Clinton administration.

All Albright and Clinton did was kick the problem down the road for another president to handle. If Clinton had not shored up NK, who knows, perhaps there might have been a revolt and a regime change.

It's ludicrous to claim that join war maneuvers is the reason NK started this latest missile brouhaha.What has really pissed Kim off is the Bush administration's move against Kim's laundering of counterfeit 50s and 100s through a Macoa bank. Bush is messing with Kim's slush fund with which he buys loyalty.

Do you think that NK is justified in developing long range nuclear missiles. Do you think Bush should meet with Kim, unfreeze his bank accounts of counterfeit dollars and increase the amount of paid blackmail.Your bias against Republicans and particularly Bush is palpable.

Dear Stan,
Just a suggestion: how about learning something before entering a discussion you seem to know very little about? For starters try Michael Gordon's 3/6/2001 investigative report on the missile deal in the NY Times. Next look up RIMPAC-2006--running just between the dates when the Korean War began and ended.
Third, try to explain to yourself why Bush has failed in every important way with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--his very own axis of evil?

Dear Professor:
You didn't answer my question, Do you think the true villain in this recent brouhaha with NK is the U.S. and that Kim Jong has the right to develop long range nuclear missiles? Please answer. I challenge you to read the following en totus.

Evidently, the Wall Street Journal has entered an argument it doesn't know anything about either, Kim Jong IL's negotiating history, and ours. As it states: "The conventional view is that he (Kim Jong Il) wants direct talks with the U.S. leading to security guarantees, normalization of ties and an end to Pyongyang's economic isolation. And this, it is further said, is the happy state toward which North Korea and the U.S. were headed in the late 1990s until the Bush crew started talking about the "axis of evil" and pre-emption, thereby provoking Kim's current discontent.

"All will be well, moreover, if President Bush drops his gratuitously hostile attitude toward Kim and picks up where the Clinton Administration left off. The amazing thing is that serious people purport to believe this after 20 years of contrary evidence.

"Contrary to myth, the Bush Administration continued to honor the terms of the Framework, despite its obvious misgivings. In August 2002, Charles Pritchard, Mr. Bush's special envoy to North Korea, attended the groundbreaking of one of the reactors; State Department spokesman Philip Reedker praised the event as "tangible progress made in construction and the importance to the reactor project's ultimate success."

Albright's Agreed Framework was a bust from the start and Clinton refused to accept its failure. He just pushed the NK problem down the road to another president and the press went along.

"A 1999 congressional study determined that Pyongyang was cheating on the agreement, but Albright disregarded the warning and continued to claim that the Agreed Framework was a success."

"Ex-President Bill Clinton knew that North Korea had resumed its nuclear weapons program at least two years before he left the White House - long before he now claims -- according to former Clinton White House insider Dick Morris."After citing the Post report, Morris told O'Reilly: 'For [Clinton] to take the position he didn't know North Korea was cheating is absolutely disingenuous. Not only did he know, but while he knew, he was pressing Congress to give them food and fuel to honor his '94 agreement [with Pyongyang]."

Today's news tells us what Kim Jong ll is really pissed off about and it's not RIMPAC - 2006 (Pacific war games) as you assert. According to the LA Times "North Korea will return to talks on its nuclear program if the United States releases $24 million in frozen funds held in a bank in Macao, a senior diplomat said in an interview published today (7/8)....The Macao money has been a bone of contention between the United States and North Korea since September, when the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Banco Delta Asia, in the tiny Chinese enclave, of laundering proceeds of counterfeiting and other illicit activities on behalf of North Korea.
"Regarding the investigative piece in the NYT regarding Bush and North Korea: the Times has no credibility after the recent examples of their anti-Bush, ant-war, leftist agenda. As far as Bush's failure with the Axes of Evil; didn't I read somewhere that a despotic Iraqi leader was deposed - and regarding the other two evils, the "fat lady hasn't sung yet"

If Iran gets the bomb

Attention MS President. We have placed dirty nuclear suitcase bombs a in five major US cities. We will not detonate these bombs under the following conditions: 1) The US must not interfere with Iran's treatment of Israel 2) All Jews must leave Israel and all facilities must be turned over to us intact. 3) The US must withdraw from Iraq within 60 days. If these conditions are not met, we will detonate one bomb. If Israel or the US uses nuclear or conventional weapons against us, we will detonate all bombs. Checkmate.

It wasn't a light bulb that went off in my head -- it was a like a thousand halogen headlights. Iran will get the bomb and there is nothing we can do about it.

The MSM has so denigrated the Bush administration and the Iraq war that future presidents will be unable to act to protect the country. Thanks to the liberal media, we have lost the will to risk lives to protect our freedom. Not until thousands of Americans have been killed will a president once more be given power to protect the country.

In the above scenario, bombs and Iranian suicide bombers have been smuggled in from Mexico. Since the New York Times's expose of terrorist phone call monitoring and money transfers, terrorist now rely on much harder to detect couriers.

Meanwhile the EU, influenced by their growing Moslem populations, will do nothing. Russia will welcome the US emasculation with plans to supplant the US as the dominate world power. Russia, free of any democratic constraints, has no doubt it can match the ruthlessness of the Islamofascists at a later date, as Hitler once did to them.

The Democrat president tried to negotiate with Iran following the failed Clinton North Korea policy template, but Iran's bomb isn't about money or heavy oil, it's about power, pride and religion - and the return to the so called "Golden Age of Islam."

Never mind that the Moslem Empire's inherited the knowledge and skills from others - Persia, China, Greece and India. Islam wasn't then and isn't now about science or art, it's about religion.

Where is the Democrat plan to defeat Islamofracists? Many liberals don't think the Iraq war is really a war. And, of course the scenario above, should it happen, will be blamed on Bush who, as MS Clinton will assert, support in an unnecessary war. Never mind that we rid the world of an unstable dictator with - be it present or future - WMDs and a motive to use them against the US.

In military strategy, it is crucial that Iraq becomes a democracy where US influence flanks Iran and secures a source of oil. What will happen when the Democrats regain power and are faced with the same threats as President Bush? Will they push the problem down the road as Clinton did with North Korea or will they expose their hypocrisy and follow the same path as Bush?

Considering their ownership by the antiwar fanatics, my guess is they will wait for the next 9/11 to take the same actions for which they now so vehemently criticize Bush.

How reprehensible it will be, if Democrats cure their hypocrisy with the dead from another 9/11.

It's criminal that the Democrats can't see beyond their thirst for power and their hatred of Bush. A free and properous Iraq is the only defense against the Iranian bomb.