Boortz alert - KENNEDY AND HIS ILK TELL OUR TROOPS TO GO TO HELL.

And that's the way it is, folks. The ever-disgusting Democrat Ted Kennedy voted against President Bush's funding request for our operation in Iraq. He wasn't alone. John Edwards and John Kerry were right there with him, opposing Bush's $87 billion funding request for the continuation of our efforts in Iraq. Wesley Clark and Howard Dean say that they would have opposed the funding if they had a vote.

Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and every other politician who voted against this funding request was sending messages to our troops in Iraq, their families at home, Saddam Hussein and his supporters, Islamic terrorists and the international community.

To our troops in Iraq -- while we may pay homage to "supporting our troops" in reality, we don't. We are not going to provide the funds that are necessary to continue caring for you in the field. What's more, we do not approve of what you have accomplished thus far.

To Saddam and his supporters -- you had us pretty much figured out. Once you showed that you were willing to wage a war of attrition against our troops, killing a few here and a few there, we folded. We want out. You can now proceed with your plans to return Saddam to the seat of power in Baghdad. What's more, once you have achieved your victory over America you will be free to reinstitute your weapons programs as you see fit. There will be no more inspections, no more cruise missiles, and no more pressure from the United States to halt your weapons programs.

To the people of Iraq -- brace yourselves. As you may have suspected, America does not have the resolve and courage to stick to this campaign. Soon your ruthless dictator will return. This means that the midnight disappearances, the torture, the killings and the mass graves will soon return. If you cooperated with the Americans during our aborted attempt to rid you of this devil, we're sorry. You will most assuredly be targeted by Saddam's thugs and murdered. They have been watching, knowing that soon we would turn tail and run and leave you to their revenge.

To Islamic terrorists around the world -- the way is clear. We will no longer bring the war to you on your soil. We will simply wait for you to bring your jihad to us, or, if you like, we will do whatever is in our power to appease you at every turn. We do not have the stomach for a fight. Appeasement is by far our preferred course of action.

To the International Community -- The United States herewith withdraws from any responsibility to work with our allies in fighting terrorism. We are henceforth going to follow the path of appeasement. You would be well-advised to do the same.

And to the American people -- Brace yourselves. Islamic terrorists around the world will soon be celebrating the return of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to power in Iraq. We have abandoned the path of confrontation and eradication and have chosen instead the path of appeasement and withdrawal. Saddam will soon renew his production of weapons of mass destruction and his attempts to build nuclear weapons. At some time it is certain that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists, and eventually make their way to our country. This will undoubtedly increase the probability of a terrorist attack on our home soil. To prevent such an attack we will be taking even more draconian security measures in our homeland. In short order we will be issuing national identity cards which you will be required to have on your person at all times. You will also be subject to searches of your home, your automobiles and your person at any time. Sorry, but in the face of the terrorist threat we are going to have so suspend nuisances such as "probable cause" or warrants before we conduct these searches, or before we tap your telephone lines and internet computers.

This is the future waiting for America and the world if these appeasers ever regain their much-coveted political power in Washington. Our nation is in far more danger now than it has even been since the Civil War --- and the choice has never been more clear for the voters.

We either confront these Islamic terrorists and those who have and would support them, or we don't. We either confront them on foreign soil, or we enact draconian measures here at home to avoid the confrontation on our own soil. We fight or run. If the party of appeasement takes control after next year's elections many of you will be instituting your escape plans. The rest of you will be wishing you had one.

I guess this is just my day to feel contempt for Ted Kennedy. Of course, that's pretty much been every day since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to die trapped inside his car resting in a few feet of water while he paced up and down the roadside trying to figure out how to salvage his political future.

"The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from Al Qaeda. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not."

Never has a prominent politician made a statement so full of complete and unadulterated provable BS. We'll do some of that on the show today, but first I'm going to engage in a little cutting and pasting from a speech excerpt posted on the Internet:

This is part of a speech by the president outlining the reasons for going to war with Iraq. I am going to ask you to read this excerpt and then tell me whether or not you think the president made the case. Come on now. This is a serious matter ... give it a read. These are remarks made by the president prior to the beginning of the war to oust Saddam Hussein:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

So, what do you think? Did the president made the case? It may well be that you believe that this is just more of the lies being told by George Bush just to get us into a war against Saddam Hussein, all so he can enrich his big corporate friends. Well, you would be wrong. I can prove to you that these are not the lies of George W. Bush, because these are not the words of George W. Bush. These are the words of Bill Clinton delivered in a speech on the steps of the Pentagon on on February 17, 1998.

You tell him:) And lets remember that the economic impact and reconstruction costs from 9/11 alone may easily exceed the price of this appropriation. As you said, the no-fly zones cost millions of dollars...and so did everytime we launched an attack on Saddam, which included 4 times under Clinton. We can also add in the administrative costs (and fraud) of the embargo, and the continuos inspections. For those who wanted the inspections to continue; how much do you think it costs to keep an armed armada in the Persian Gulf or feed, house, transport and pay the inspectors? The administrative costs and fraud from the UN, alone, was staggering.

The Democrats want our troops home, but are unwilling to foot the bill to finish the job. These are the same Democrats who bitched and moaned about how we so quickly abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's...even though we made no committment to rebuild that country, since it was an insurgent movement to begin with. Or how about the Guld War and how they accused Bush I for leaving Iraq so soon, then? Democrats are oppurtunistic pigs that will take advantage of ANY sitation even if it is a detriment to the security of this country. Oh, sure they say they support the troops..but who in the hell do they think is going to take the brunt of Iraqi dissatisfacton when reconstruction is failing? The Troops. This is just another indication, for me, that the Democrats want the US to fail so they can damage Bush.

Think about this irony: Today, it is the Democrats who demand we get UN approval for war or any other international operation. Yet, in 1991, when we had nearly unanimous UN support for the Gulf War, it was still a majority of Democats who objected to it. At the same time we finally get a UN vote for international support in Iraq (which Democrats demanded), it is again, the majority of Democrats who object to this support from the US perspective. The Democrats don't care which side the UN is on...they only care which side a Repubican is on so they can take the opposing position. Hell, it was democrats who avoided the UN over Kosovo because they knew that Russia and possibly China would've vetoed that war. These people are dangerous.

You have my deepest sympathy.

Thanks. I have never been to your state or to the NE. Can you explain to me why the people keep re-electing him? Can't they see through his BS? Do you think they will continue to re-elect him or is there hope for the future. Thanks.

That is one of the great riddles of the universe. I can explain it, but I sure can't understand it! Of course, given the political climate here (I work in Amherst, MA, better known as Berkeley East) it is not too hard to see why they do this. It is a liberal rat's nest here, and they are working hard to brainwash the kiddies and send them out like little liberal cannon fodder. The faculty at the Five Colleges (UMASS, Amherst, Hampshire, Smith and Mt. Holyoke) are rabid liberals, and teach accordingly. Queer studies: yes. Conservative studies: who?

The hoards of "Camelot" Koolaid drinkers come out and vote for him, year after year, as though Ted were some kind of god, although I think he has milked the "dead brother" sympathy long enough. The Kennedy Crime family is believed to have some sort of genetic predisposition for political life, but Teddy seems more prone to genetically unable to resist abusing women.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.