."...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.".translated from Arabic Dec 2001
weakness is provacative !
Posted on 11/25/2006 2:59:49 PM PST by Mia T
."...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.".translated from Arabic Dec 2001
weakness is provacative !
I'm very concerned about all of the political damage that the Democratic majorities will successfully inflict upon all of us! I also hope that President Bush will finally be using his veto pen whenever it's truly necessary to use it! As long as the Democrats succeed in keeping their political majorities at every political level, this country may be heading in a much worse direction for everyone very soon. Amnesty for illegal immigrants, the creation of the very socialistic North American Union, tax increases, bigger government, more government regulations/red tape, and national security are my major concerns with the next Congress.
Many here think the best thing to do is give up. Or leave. Or deploy elsewhere. Whatever they call it, if we don't start massive carpet bombing, they want the troops out. So do you really believe the terrorists haven't achieved any of this? I think the Drive By Media, working for the terrorists, have certainly achieved their goal of getting a majority of folks to want to walk away.
bttt
In the war in Algeria, the islamic fascists, used tactics identical to those employed now in Iraq to drive civilised forces from North Africa, where millions of french citizens had lived for generations in relative peace and prosperity with an arab/muslim majority.
Decrying the evils of "colonialism" the small band(s) of islamic fascists made quick work of traffic cops, delicetessen counters, and bank offices conducting as much uncontrolled mayhem, murder, and carnage as they could in the name of "islamic independence".
The only groups punished more severely by the terrorists than the french nationals who were seen as part of the colonial system, were arabs/muslims who dared to question the wisdom of trying to move beyond colonialism by means of indiscriminant violence directed at those least associated with maintaining colonial domination. Thus, a small group of fanatics was taken to represent a leadership of the arab/mulim majority because desent was suppressed through ruthless violence.
In the inevitable cycle of escalating action and re-action that followed, horrible attrocities were launched by both sides, until de gaule seeing the matter as not worth the cost of victory abandoned french colonials and algeria to domination by the radicals.
It was never true in Algeria that the fascists had popular support. It was true that as long as the possibility existed that the terrorists might win, no arabs/muslims could dare to speak out against them safely, thus creating the illusion of popular support.
The kind of war necessitated by terrorist tactics is gruesome and not likely to win support from meddling liberals in third countries with nothing at stake.
Those not prepared to pay the price, as the French were not in Algeria, must be prepared to lose.
bump
bump
S
bump
The American Left today is no less ruthless nor deadly than the islamofascist terrorist.
Propaganda is the Left's weapon of choice. It can be disseminated globally, with ease, and in real time.
“The presidency had been transformed from a bully pulpit on Pennsylvania Avenue to a stage the size of the world” (Hugh Sidey)
Our fatal error was to surrender that world stage to the Left (and to the terrorists).
If a president can't communicate--and this one can't--you get a proxy. What could the Bush administration have been thinking all these years?
Mia T.:
As always, pure GOLD!
Thank you!!!
:O)
P
thank you, papasmurf :)
thanks, Twinkie. :)
"[T]he people must think you're the winner.... If they don't, they'll either avoid you or support the enemy...."
ie: The Rockefeller memo
(Or... How America must be defeated for Democrats to win.)
bump
It has been their objective all along.
It's not necessary that they be cheerleaders. But they could at least tell the truth.
They seem incapable of even that...
"What could Bush have been thinking...?"
Foggy Bottom Ascendant.
Colin Powell. Condi Rice, each in turn ensnared by the organization Nixon knew to hate because it sold out the US victory in WWII and has been selling out the US with its "world opinion - world consensus - our enemies can veto our policies" thinking/agenda for 60 years.
Indeed Nixon simply appointed a stooge as secretary of state and ran foreign policy through the NSA and Kissinger until he pulled off the greatest foreign policy achievement (until then) of the twentieth century.
Bush, believing that only meaningful objectives mattered was not distracted by pointless 1920's style Chicago gangland violence (St Patricks Day massacre has all features of Iraq violence including police uniforms) that could not affect the outcome of war except via influencing public opinion through over exaggeration of its importance by a duplicitous seditious media a la vietnam.
Bush was distracted, delayed and constrained by Powell/Rice and the Foggy Bottom types until he pissed away his political power without acheiving a victory that the American public could feel.
Bush never recovered from the loss of momentum after the WMD failed to be located. He had two choices. He could either meet the media onslaught with a counter attack, (no chance this president) or he could crush the enemy so solidly that Even Eisenhower who knowingly authorized up to 70% casualties among air assault troops, would forever be thought of as the combat soldiers general because when you win the war, casualties are forgiven, no matter how enormous. Bush chose neither.
He could still win the war quickly with the addition of only 10,000 german shepards, a curfew and about 5000 day and night surviellience cameras along with a newly robust rules of engagement.... but thats for another time.
Thanks, Mia................FRegards
|
MEMOgate: democrat party treason
|
||||||
|
Raw Data: Dem Memo on Politicizing Intelligence Wednesday, November 05, 2003 Following is the text of a memo written by a Democrat on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo was obtained by Fox News. Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows: 1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.) 2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment). 3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either: B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence. In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information. Summary Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods. |
||||||
|
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
thanx, gonzo :)
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.
e have been arguing on this site that MEMOgate reeks of the clintons, that MEMOgate's prime mover could not have been Jay Rockefeller.