Right Wing Lunatic

I was poking around snopes.com's site and found an interesting article that is as relevant today as the day it was written. It was written by a retired Air Force man, Dr. Tony Kern. In it, he mentions everything that will need to happen to defeat terrorism and what we must avoid to win. Unfortunately, many of his predictions are now coming true. I've highlighted them in bold for your reading:

Dear friends and fellow Americans

Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it.

This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.

These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing — better said anxious — to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long?

In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.

In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only superpower (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent counter-terrorist organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional body snatch, (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.

Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and is presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear centers of gravity to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft — this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.

Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned.

Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious sand in the gears tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our comfort zone forcing the average American to pay more and play less and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.

Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another, "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America

Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy

So now there are politicians asking if we can contain and deter a nuclear Iran?? What the fuck? They are trying to use the idea of "well we did it with China and Russia, so why no Iran". There's several problems with that way of thinking.

First off, China and Russia never supported terrorist groups who were bent on killing as many people as possible and who were willing to put bombs on buses and night clubs. Secondly, they didn't have any idiots in charge who thought the end of the world was coming and that it was their religious duty to make it happen. Third, they had a lot to lose if they started a fight, Iran doesn't.

What pisses me off mostly is that people are already resigned to the fact that Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon. That goes against everything that we've been trying to thwart for the better part of a few years now. If that were to happen, that means that they lied about wanting a nuclear program "for peaceful purposes". If they lie about that, we certainly can't trust them to not use a weapon or give it to Hezbollah.

That means that politicians are too fucking lazy to do anything about a real and growing threat. That means that Iran's tactics of supporting the insurgency that's murdering US soldiers is working and they'll do it again. You think that the insurgency would be as big as it is if it wasn't for Iran's involvement? Do you think it would even exist? Iran supported insurgents are taking pot shots at our guys all the while Democrats are saying we should just get out. They are afraid that poor Iran is going to get attack by mean old George Bush for doing nothing at all.

If ever there was a time for covert CIA assassinations, sabotage and misinformation, it is now. Failure to do so only puts this country at greater risk. If a nuclear weapon goes off that came from Iran, you can look at this moment in time and see the cowardice in everyone. Only then will Democrats want to actually do something about the threat.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ahh the one thing that people as a general rule are good at is complaining. Getting up and doing something about what you're complaining about is a whole different ballgame. But 45% of Americans favor George Bush's impeachment. Now, who's actually going to be the first brave politician and put forth the effort to do it?

There's already impeachment legislation working it's way through the halls of Congress for the impeachment of Cheney, but that's only got 10 co-signers and is likely to die off. Politicians (Democrats especially) feel that since Bush only has about a year and a half left on his Presidency that they should just wait out the clock.

Bad move idiots. If you feel that a politician has committed a crime that's an impeachable offense, you have a moral obligation to put forth the effort to remove them. When you don't, you look like power hungry hypocrites. When re-election time comes around your opponent is going to point this out that there was a "great wrong being done and this guy did nothing about it".

There's a reason why Congressional members approval ratings are in the shitter, people can see a bullshit artist when they see one and they are all feeling pretty pissed that they elected Democrats to get rid of the "culture of corruption" and they've proven to be so impotent at their job their approval ratings are lower then Bush's.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Oh this is awesome. Shirley Phelps, the irritating cunt who protests soldiers funerals and praises their deaths is being charged with negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, flag mutilation and disturbing the peace.

Phelps-Roper acknowledged she allowed her 10-year-old son, Jonah, to stand on the flag. She said the act qualifies as freedom of expression, and she promises to challenge the constitutionality of the flag-mutilation charge. She noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down laws forbidding flag desecration.

Unfortunately, I believe that she's right. The flag desecration certainly is protected free speech and there's nothing illegal about what she's doing. She will likely have all charges dropped against her. Now, that being said, you certainly wouldn't want to put me on the jury if someone beat the hell out of her and was on trial for assault. I might trip and fall and vote "not guilty" or something. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Never underestimate your enemy. That's a golden rule in the cut throat world of politics, and everyone is undercutting Hillary at every turn.

Hillary has a very large list of things that she needs to overcome to win the Presidency. One, she is a ruthless bitch. People can see that she's sneaky and various polls have said that they wouldn't vote for her. Two, her vote for the Iraq war when it was popular has made her deeply unpopular with her far left leaning constituents. Three, she simply isn't personable.

Take Barack Obama: The guy is running on charm fumes. He's very personable and speaks well. That's why he's as popular as he is now. However, if you corner him on specific ideas he's bringing to the table, he doesn't have any or his ideas would cost this country billions.


Either way, what we're witnessing now is a "throw and see what sticks" round. When you see your opponent get really angry about a particular issue, that's their Achilles heel. Then you'll see political researchers digging deeper and poking at their opponent until voters make up their minds. What really counts is the year or so before the election. Then you'll start to see things ramp up.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now that two "students" have been killed, Pakistan has no choice but to take a hard line against those who've decided that this would be a good idea.

"There will be no more dialogue," said Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim. "It has to be an absolutely total surrender, unconditional total surrender."

Islamic law is very strict, and when there's a murder that happens, generally speaking, a death sentence is what follows. If they surrender now, they'll likely get a death sentence. If they fight it out, they'll likely die in the gunfight. Either way doesn't look good for them. Let's get some popcorn and watch the fireworks.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Over the NSA spying program. I find it very odd though that they lost simply because they can't show that they were directly effected by the spying program. Isn't that what the ACLU is for? To protect people from various government interferences?

But they have the option of appealing, which looks very likely. The only real question is, does the NSA only spy on suspected terrorists, or are they spying across the board and looking for patterns in which to find terrorists and criminals? If they are spying across the board, there's definitely some asses that might get thrown through the ringer.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I told you all when Democrats start talking of leaving Iraq that it would embolden terrorists and they would try to use it for propaganda against the US. I told you all that Democrats are going to make terrorists think that if they just hold out, they will win. I told you all that terrorists won't go away in happy puppy land that Democrats like to portray.

Well I'm right YET AGAIN. You know people, I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of being right about these things. Just ONCE I'd like Democrats to be right on something. But knowing their track record, I doubt that will ever happen.

Al-Qaeda's #2 has this to say in his new video:

"You must be patient and steadfast," he says. "Rejoice, for victory is near, with Allah's permission, and the herds of crusaders have begun to split up and their sole concern has become searching for a way out."

So Democrats, tell me, if Iraq isn't important and it was all based upon George Bush's lies, how is it that the #2 guy in Al-Qaeda is laughing in your faces and showing you to be the cowards that you really are? How is it that soldiers in Iraq are telling you time and time again that Al-Qaeda is on the run, yet you don't believe them? How is it that this guy even NEEDS to tell his guys to "buck up" if they didn't need it? He's telling you flat out that all they need to do is wait the US out and liberals will do the work for them.

Fucking idiots. I'm disgusted with you all.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well at least these guys aren't pussy footing around. I wonder if people are going to try to spin this as propaganda since if the US claims that militants are using women and children as human shields, it is rebuffed as "George Bush's lies", but since it's coming from the Pakistani military, that might be a different ball game all together.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Support for a government safety net for the poor is at its highest point in many years -- roughly seven-in- ten (69%) now believe the government has a responsibility "to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves" -- up from 61% in 2002. The number of Americans saying that the government should guarantee "every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep" has increased by a similar margin over the past five years (from 63% to 69%); agreement with this statement is the highest it has been since 1991.

That's not how America works. If you want to prosper, you get off your ass and work. If you don't, you starve. Simple as that. I'm not saying let's be cruel and let women and children starve to death in the streets, but if people start thinking that they are owed something for just being physically in America, they've got another thing coming.

Only in America do people think this way. You certainly wouldn't hear people demanding to be taken care of in other countries and actually have it happen. Even disabled people have jobs. I've gone to stores and restaurants and seen people with Down's Syndrome, in wheelchairs, and on crutches, and my first thought is always: That's a REAL American. Someone who takes what life throws them and rolls with the punches. Someone who won't let adversity get in their way of having a job, being productive, and earning an honest days wages. Now, if you're old, why don't you have family taking care of you? My Korean friends all have grandparents living with them. They are in their 90's. They simply take care of family, no questions asked. That's how a family works.

As for the rest of everyone, there's already tons of government programs out there to help take care of people who can't take care of themselves. That doesn't mean that the government owes them a dime.

But take a look at who falls into this catagory. In the political leanings section, you'll notice a vast majority is Democratic. But of course, Democrat have no problem saying that the government should owe them this and that for free, but then they complain about "Big Government" when it doesn't suit them.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Wow. This from a guy who pardoned a known fugitive and tax cheat who in essence bribed his way back into legitimacy and members of a terrorist organization.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Clinton said during an interview on Des Moines news-talk station WHO.

Bush administration officials, he said, "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

That's a set of balls that this guy has to be able to say that with a straight face. Clinton had no problem with pardoning Marc Rich who, quite coincidently gave $1 million to Democratic organizations, who had no problem pardoning members of FALN, who had no problem pardoning his half brother, friends of his brother in laws, even his partner in crime with the Whitewater scandal.

But of course, all over the internet, you'll see people proclaim that Clinton's pardon was different because of this reason or that. Nevermind that Marc Rich's pardon was in essence a bribe, or how he pardoned his half brother. Nah, that's all coincidental.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Wait, I thought Democrats told us to listen to the commanders in the field? Well if the commanders in the field are telling us that the surge is needed, won't Democrat's poor heads explode?

I don't know about you, but just about every soldier I speak to is pissed about the lack of support from the American people. They are especially pissed at political leaders that undermine them at every turn saying that their efforts aren't working and that the war is "lost".

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now let me ask you all something, is this hate speech or telling it like it is? The guy does raise some good points and I would be leaning towards telling it like it is, but of course CAIR is involved, so you can imagine that they don't like it when you call out terrorist cocksuckers who are radical Islamics. They'd prefer that we act all nice and everything will just be peachy.

But you tell me, am I being a dick here for agreeing with this guy? He does raise very good points about threats and being politically correct about it.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Good God, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they still claim "An Iranian official slammed what he called "ridiculous and false claims" from U.S. officials about the "arrest of a foreign citizen in Iraq and his relation with Iran."

Now you can argue about various bits of evidence that we've brought up, but no one has to this day been able to account for the sniper rifles found on insurgents that were purchased by the Iranian government. When I get a reasonable explanation for that, I might ease up, but until then, the Iranian government is enemy #1 in my book for supporting the murder of US soldiers.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ahh how I love it when people get angry and say stupid shit. I've done it, you've done it, we've all done it. :) Well now Jesse Jackson Jr. has done it. He's pretty pissed about the Libby commutation:

”Since the president has intervened in this process, it is now the Congress’ obligation and responsibility to intervene in the executive process and begin an inquiry into these very serious crimes against the constitution of the United States,” said Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago).

Article II Section II:

The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

There ya go buddy, since you obviously can't be bothered to read the document that you're invoking, I thought I'd help you out a bit. Look, you're mad that the President commuted the sentence of someone you didn't think deserved it. It's the same as when Marc Rich was pardoned by Clinton.

Maybe you should do the same thing that the Move On.org people did:

MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

"move on to pressing issues facing the nation"

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

San Fransisco has lead the way towards universal health care. And of course, they are taxing small businesses who don't provide health insurance to pay for it.

Healthy San Francisco is estimated to cost $200 million a year and will be paid for through a mix of public funds, participants' premiums and co-payments and employer contributions.

The city is mandating that employers who don't currently offer health insurance to their employees contribute to Healthy San Francisco starting Jan. 1. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association has sued to block this component of the program, saying small business owners simply cannot afford it. Both sides are due in federal court Aug. 31.

So tell me, how is it fair for any business to have additional taxes to help pay for people that aren't insured? You can bet your bottom dollar that prices will increase to overcome these additional taxes. That in turn will make companies lose customers and possibly go out of business simply to have a feel good legislation that only benefits people who don't fall into one catagory or another.

Now, make no mistake, I'm not for being cruel to people. If someone needs emergency room treatment, I am all for them getting that, but it's not fair to ask people who run small businesses to foot the bill. Why weren't ALL businesses targeted for this program? Why not tax the general public instead of businesses? It makes me wonder what priorities that these people have as it's already extremely expensive to live, work, and thrive in San Fransisco.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Wow, if these allegations are true, (which they look to be), the size of the brass balls on the people that thought this up must make it very difficult to wear pants.

When Karen Armatrout died in 1997, her employer, Wal-Mart, collected thousands of dollars on a life insurance policy the retail giant had taken out without telling her, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

I must say that this is very creepy, just like the article says. For Wal-Mart to do something like this actually does make financial sense, but it feels very wrong. I am unsure of the legality of it, (I imagine they had their own lawyers look into it), but it does make me think twice about shopping at Wal-Mart.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Tell me this guy doesn't deserve Father Of The Year:

The Utah Jazz agreed to release guard Derek Fisher from his contract Monday so he can concentrate on finding the best care for his 11-month-old daughter, who has cancer in her left eye.

This guy is making a fortune playing basketball and he's giving it all up to care for his stricken daughter. Granted he's probably got enough coin in the bank to live comfortably for the rest of his natural life, but it says something when a man like this steps up and says "my baby comes first". There aren't many men like him around anymore.

We can only hope that his daughter's cancer goes into remission. Kudos to the Utah Jazz as well for doing the right thing and allowing him to do this. They could have easily said "fuck you" and made him play out his contract and they would be looked upon as cruel, but they did have the right to do it.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Wait, liberals have been telling me for years that we need to get to the root of the problem of terrorism. They told me it was abject poverty and crushing sanctions that were causing Islamic kids to turn to terrorism. They told me all we had to do was give them money and it was sunshine happy land in only a few hours.

Man, they have egg on their faces now. It turns out that several of the suspected terrorists were doctors. You know, successful, "help cure the sick", semi wealthy doctors. So what are liberals going to do to spin this one?

Well at least I am comforted by the fact that one or more of the suspected terrorists was badly burned during their attacks and will live. I don't know if you know, but being burned is far and away one of the most painful experiences you will ever feel. The pain doesn't go away for a very long time and even if you do manage to survive it, you can have infections and all sorts of other nasty things that you wouldn't think about. Your skin is an organ that protects your body from outside nasties, and when that's injured or destroyed, all sorts of fun can begin.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So Russian President Putin is in the US meeting with President Bush. Among the topics is our missile defense shield as well as the Iranian nuclear program. Perhaps we could be persuaded to move our missile shield to Putin's place of interest if they support crippling sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program? Perhaps as part of the deal, Russia agrees to sell oil to the US for $20 a barrel? All is up in the air right now, but it doesn't look good for Iran right now.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So "Scooter" Libby won't be going to jail after all. President Bush commuted his sentence so he can now avoid jail all together. However, he will still have his probation and his $250,000 fine in place. While many Republican's are cheering this, and of course Democrats are denouncing it, I think it was a wrong move to make on the part of President Bush.

Let me explain: Libby was indicted, tried, and convicted for his crimes. He was sentenced accordingly by a judge. Perhaps if the sentence was 10 years or something and Bush brought it down to 5, then I could make an argument about the commutation. However, since Libby will not be serving ANY time and a judge said there should be jail time and an appeals court said he should not be free while pending appeal.

It shows very bad judgment and gives the impression that he was pardoned because Bush and Cheney were in on the plot to leak the CIA operatives identity, or that Libby knows something and would go public if he were to go to jail. Either way it does not instill confidence in Bush's ability to remain fair and respect the letter of the law.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I'm telling you, every time I say "we should do X", a few months later, X starts happening. The only reasonable explanation is that there are very intelligent people in the government who think like me (which gives me an ego boost. :) ), or they are reading my blog and taking my ideas to heart.

Although, I must admit, from time to time, I do get a .mil address showing up in my stats when I check from time to time. I'm mainly popular on university campus' and major corporations. I do wonder why I'm popular with universities since they generally lean VERY left. My guess is that they are using me to say "See! Republican's are fuckers!"

Anyways, back to the subject. Back in January, I wrote about F-14 parts that were making their way back to Iran. I mentioned that all parts should be destroyed that can't be used by us or our allies.

Well now the government is doing just that. It's costing taxpayers $900,000 to shred old F-14 parts, but if it prevents even one of our planes from being shot down in case of conflict with Iran, it will more then pay for itself. Now if we only do the same thing for other military equipment, you'll notice other nations that have been exploiting these holes to start to panic and have to research and develop their own technologies, which they are very poor at doing.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

An appeals court denied the motion for "Scooter" Libby to remain free while his appeal works its way through the court system. He is now likely to face prison within weeks.

There's a bunch of people who are trying to get Bush to pardon him. I don't think that's very likely. It would push Bush over the edge of the thin amount of support he has and his approval ratings would drop to zero. Democrats would rightfully point fingers and imply that Bush or Cheney knew about the leak and approved it. It would be bad all around.

Let this be a lesson to you all, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Just like if I were to stick a gun into someone's ribs and rob them, I wouldn't really have much room to complain if they sent me to prison while I appealed my conviction.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I keep telling everyone that the Iraqi security forces are growing and doing better all the time, but they still need us for a bit. No one believes me and every prominent Democratic leader says that everything is "lost" and how we need to pull out now or within a few months.

Now, one of the commanders on the ground is saying the EXACT SAME THING:

"Do I think the Iraqi security forces are improving? Yes," said U.S. Army Col. Wayne Grigsby of the Third Infantry Division. "Are they where they need to be? No."

It's not a matter of us being there for years and years, it's just a matter of the Iraqi security folks being able to handle what we give them once we do leave. To do anything less will cause resentment and radicalism on a scale that you would not believe.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Actual headline: Hey idiots: the terror attacks prove OUR point, not yours.

I'm sorry, perhaps I've been unclear in the past. Have I not pointed out time and time again that terrorist groups need to be taken seriously and that we should go on the offensive to get them before they have a chance to attack innocent people?

The rise of homegrown terrorism inspired by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda proves that maybe--just maybe--we should have gone after them instead of starting a bloody civil war by conducting a botched occupation of what was a repressive and cruel, though secular, Arab dictatorship.

You mean like how Bill Clinton had more then 6 years, multiple terrorist attacks, and almost a 1/2 dozen opportunities to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden?

Because like I said above, the fact that terror attacks are happening--especially homegrown terror attacks like what Great Britain has been seeing--is, in fact, proof of the fact that Bush's Cheney's entire approach to terrorism has been an utter disaster, and that the "taking the fight to them" concept has absolutely no meaning if "they" are not a particular people in a particular location, but can in fact spring up right in your own backyard given the proper mix of social and economic conditions.

You mean to tell me that if Obama or either of the Clinton's were in power that there would be ZERO terrorist attacks? I am in complete shock over that statement. You state "the fact that terror attacks are happening", not "terror attacks are on the rise" or "terror attacks have risen higher then since X year". That's a blanket, bold statement that's completely untrue.

Or are you saying that terrorist attacks only started occurring because of George Bush's approach? Because if that is true, please explain the marine barracks attacks in the early 1980s, the Khobar towers attacks, the twin attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole attacks, the 1972 Olympic attacks, Oklahoma City Bombing. I could go on and on.

In short, my dear, right-wingers: Here on the left, we "get" terrorism. And one of the things we get is that you don't get it at all.

Oh I'm quite sure that you "get" terrorism in the sense that you understand what it is and how it works, but unfortunately my spineless friends, you don't take terrorism seriously and that's why terrorist groups and rogue nations have become emboldened in recent years and have started upping their attacks. Why do you think Britain was afraid that the US would drop a nuclear weapon on Afghanistan right after 9/11? Because they thought we would do it because we had a reputation as a fearsome enemy.

You have shown the world that parts of America are weak and easily fooled by propaganda. Now, do you suppose we'd have a lot of the problems we have currently if we dropped a 50 megaton nuclear weapon on Kabul or Khandahar? You can argue one way or another, but my money is that our enemies would be thinking: "America's not fucking around anymore".

Take a look around at your media spokespeople. Keith Olbermann consistently denounces attempted terror attacks such as the Fort Dix plots and the JFK fuel bomb plot as "unrealistic" and therefore not worthy of concern or added precautions. Now, had these attacks actually gone through and were successful, you'd hear Keith turn around and denounce the Bush administration for not doing enough to "connect the dots" like he does for the 9/11 attacks.

So you can't reasonably expect people to think you "get it" when you obviously don't. Hell, take a look at the comments in your own story, you can see with your very eyes how the left doesn't understand terrorism and why it needs to be taken seriously. Many of them think that the government had something to do with it. They think that the military or federal government planned 9/11 "with military precision", but on the same side of the coin, they think that the government is incompetent.

See, the meme constantly conveyed by Republicans to America through their media empire is that Democrats are just blind to the harsh realities of terrorism.

The funniest part of the "article" this moron posts about is when Rudy Giuliani rips into Democrats for their failed track record on terrorism. Please note, the guy doesn't dispute anything that Rudy is saying, he's just saying "they're picking on us".

or that we don't understand the threat that terrorism poses--despite the fact, of course, that the urban centers of population most likely to be hit by terrorists all vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrats, which should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that in a city of 11+ million people, that a large portion of them are Democrats. There's a big shocker. Democrats tend to live in larger cities such as New York and Los Angeles, while if you go to Texas and other rural areas, you'll find a very large portion of Republicans.

Do you know why terrorists don't attack Houston? It's a very large city with many high profile targets. Because almost everyone in Texas has a gun and will kill someone that is threatening them or another innocent person without thinking twice, WHICH SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING. It should tell you that the spirit of America lies within these kinds of people: Doing what's right, defending your fellow citizen regardless of skin color, nationality, or religion, and more.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

With more and more evidence mounting that high levels of the Iranian government are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq, when are we actually going to do something about it? We've captured a high level guy from Hezbollah and he admits involvement in the Iranian Quds forces.

If it weren't for the Iranian nuclear issue, would we be even close to crippling sanctions on Iran over their act of war? If Iran wasn't involved in the insurgency, would it be a "losing" war in the mind of Harry Reid? Attacks against US soldiers would certainly be lower, perhaps even non existent, we may never know, but supporting a group of people who have murdered US soldiers deserves a swift and severe response.

Nevertheless, we keep capturing and killing them as fast as they can send them. Sooner or later, we'll find a true smoking gun, and if Democrats have any balls, (which I've shown time and time again they don't), they'll authorize covert or overt action against the Iranian government.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I wrote about this young woman earlier. She is the illegal alien wife of a missing Iraq war veteran. Well today, she was given a greed card and can apply to become a US citizen.

While I would rather her husband come home in one piece, if he does not, she should automatically become a citizen. It is the VERY least that we can do.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ok, let me explain something to you budding leaders and managers out there. The first rule of management is: Everything is your fault. Successes, failures, and everything in between lies directly at your feet.

So when Nancy Pelosi notices that her Congress that she's in charge of has an approval rating that's less then President Bush's and what does she do? Blame absolutely everyone else but herself. Take a gander at comments like these:

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate."

While some of the things you hoped to accomplish during the first "100 hours" didn't happen, you can't blame Republicans entirely. Your campaign promises are what are biting you in the ass.

How about "ending the culture of corruption", but then promoting William Jefferson to a spot where he had access to classified intelligence?

How about your statement of Congress will work 5 day work weeks like everyone else, yet you haven't done much in enforcing that.

How about your claim that you're going to work with Republicans to show that you can turn the other cheek, but then impose the same exclusionary rules that Republicans did to your party, thus, showing you to be a hypocrite.

How about your statement of you willing to work with Republicans but bad mouthing them left and right?

How about your statement of supporting our troops, yet voting against a measure that would fund them with the equipment that you say they need so desperately?

So little has been achieved that Reid threatened to hold the Senate in session during the August recess, the congressional equivalent of torture.

My God, they'll have to work during August? Society as we know it might collapse because people elected to run this country may have to actually work! Unless you have a lot of vacation time saved up or you're very high on the seniority list, no one takes August off.

Pelosi acknowledged the rock-bottom poll numbers but argued that Congress has "never been popular." Just six months into her speakership, she was postponing many of her hopes to 2009, saying a new president could change things -- presumably assuming it wouldn't be a Republican.

"Congress is a big institution to turn around," she said. "A new president comes in, and he or she is given every opportunity, because we -- everybody wants the new president to succeed. A Congress comes in, and it's Congress. It's an institution that has not been popular."

Excuse me? Congress was insanely popular right after the November 2006 elections. You promised the American public that "during the first 100 hours" that you were going to change everything. You made promises that you knew you couldn't or wouldn't keep and the American public is pissed because you kept none of those promises and is only now starting to see through your bullshit.

At which point, Reid interjected, "Nancy, honestly, one other thing. Let's be realistic about this. The war in Iraq is dragging down people's confidence in what's going on in this country."

Yes, the war in Iraq is one pressing promise that Democrats made during the election to get back into power, but there are a ton of other things that were promised that you didn't deliver on: Ending the war in Iraq, getting rid of the "culture of corruption", working with Republicans, working 5 day work weeks, ending special interest groups gifts, and more.

The Democrats in their years in the minority made a filibuster-proof 60-vote supermajority -- rather than a 51-vote simple majority -- the threshold needed to pass any legislation in the Senate. Democrats routinely blocked all but the most noncontroversial bills. They created a Senate crisis in 2005 by filibustering Bush's judicial nominees, provoking Republican leaders to threaten to do away with the filibuster. That showdown was averted only by the intervention of a dozen moderates in both parties.

Republicans complained at the time, but many of them are happy now. They are wielding the filibuster weapon freely in a Senate where Democrats hold 49 seats and where their majority comes from the support of two senators who are independents. And one of the Democrats, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has been sidelined for months by a stroke.

Do you see what happens when you promise the world and do nothing about it? Do you see what happens when you try to pull bullshit on the other political party? They filibuster just like you did and your ratings go down the tubes because they have the power to do so. Elections are won and lost on perception, and Congress' approval rating is at 14-20% depending on polls. That's a very nasty perception to have.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com