[Bushbacker]

I vote for individuals, not a political party.

+++What if your "individual" is blocked by having an opposing party control the House or the Senate?



I support principled candidates who pledge to reduce the size of the federal government.

_____That is a principle of libertarianism, not conservatism necessarily.



If that happens to be a Republican, then I will vote for him or her.

_____No matter what other views they have?


But I will no longer donate my hard earned money to an "ineffectual party" that after over 5 years of control has still done NOTHING to end the progressive federal income tax system,

___It's certainly been on Bush's
agenda, but there's that little problem called the War on Terror.



or curb the growth of the Federal government bureaucracy, among other things.
You are free to do otherwise, if you so choose

____You object to having a Dept of Hoeeland Security?

[FBD]

You have asked some reasonable questions. However, before I respond to you again, what is the intent of your (f----u) tagline?

[fallujah-nuker]

"It's certainly been on Bush's agenda, but there's that little problem called the War on Terror. "

That is the problem, we are in a war and he has yet to identify who attacked us. Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, using the blitzkrieg, Britain did not declare war upon blitzkrieg, she declared war upon Germany. Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor using aircraft carriers, we did not declare war upon aircraft carriers, we declared war upon Japan.

Radical Islam used terror as a tactic against us, and we declared war upon the tactic rather than the enemy who employed the tactic. The IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers and a host of other groups employ terror, but not against us. Radical Islam employed terror against us, we should not refrain from employing terror against Radical Islam, like Patton employed blitzkrieg against Germany.

We have the means, the same means that LeMay, Spaatz and Eaker employed, by national leadership that knew who the enemy was and had the will to win. Will that is lacking today, judging by the hand wringing over terrorists having panties on their heads. In my book, if that sort of humiliation breaks the will of the enemy, who is not entitled to POW status, the only question is if "Victoria's Secret" or "Fredericks of Hollywood" panties are more effective.

You guys can post all "mind if I open up a can of whoopass?" photos you want, but I'd feel a lot better to see the glove come off and stop fighting a PC war. Reinstating a good man like Lt. Colonel West would be a good first step. My TI at Lackland AFB loved to quote Vince Lombardi, "winning isn't everything, its the only thing!" Dubya should get the same spirit.

In "On War" Clausewitz' wrote "War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will." PC war saps our will, using the enemies chosen weapon of terror will sap their will when we return the full measure and more. Much, much more. Radical Islam sowed the wind on September 11th, time to reap the whirlwind.