Archive for the ‘War’ Category

What’s More Important-The Message or the Photoshop?

September 30, 2007

Code Pink Advocates Murder

There is quite a brouhaha brewing at another site about this picture. It basically comes down to this: The picture is a photoshop illustration and was revealed as such at “Axis of Right” and “The Two Malcontents”.

However. The underlying message is quite accurate.

This group of pale communists (pink being the lighter shade of red) aligns themselves with the likes of Pelosi, ReidCo, Murtha and the looniest nut of them all, Sheehan.

Sheehan, who would jump into bed with Hugo Chavez if given a chance.

These nutbitches think nothing of espousing murder. After all, they supported Pelosi until Pelosi didn’t do what they wanted in “shutting down the war”.

If it’s bad for America and appeases zealot fanatics, which will lead to wholesale slaughter, these bitches are for it.

Yes, the picture may have been photoshopped. The message remains the same


Obama Jabs Czarina

July 25, 2007

The New York Sun

Senator Obama is escalating his criticism of Senator Clinton‘s record on the Iraq war, using a Democratic presidential debate last night to belittle her attempt to force the Pentagon to release plans for withdrawing American troops.

“I think it’s terrific that she’s asking for plans from the Pentagon, and I think the Pentagon response was ridiculous,” the Illinois senator said in a response unprompted by a specific question about Mrs. Clinton, before targeting her initial support for the Iraq invasion: “But what I also know is that the time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.”

It seems to me that the Democrats have “forgotten” (for political reasons) THE WHY this nation is at war.

Pentagon SLAPS Down On Hillary!

July 19, 2007

From my friend Spree:

Hillary Gets Pentagon Slapped

Stolen from Spree…this never ceases to amaze me either. I was just over at BlandlyUrbane’s place reading and commenting on another bleeding heart liberal communist pinko moron Andrew “Moosetwt” Sullivan. He is one of those wanna-be generals as well. These idiots never stop.



Pentagon Tells Hillary Clinton :She Boosts Enemy Propaganda


In The News:

It is about damn time the Pentagon tells the surrender crowd, especially Hillary Clinton, who changes her mind as soon as the “polls’ tell her to, how damaging their public desire to force America’s defeat is to our National Security and how it demoralizes our troops!!!

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.

A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote.

He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

Here is Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman Bio. I would say he is much more qualified to know what he is talking about, and shows perfectly, that Hillary, DOESN’T.


awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, Hillary is gonna complain to his boss because she doesn’t LIKE THE TRUTH.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called Edelman’s answer “at once outrageous and dangerous,” and said the senator would respond to his boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates would do well to tell her to kiss his ass, if she cannot handle the truth, then she shouldn’t be doing everything in her power to HELP THE ENEMY.


(If Gates has to show more diplomacy because of his position, well I don’t, sooooo HILLARY, KISS “MY” ASS“)


The “left” is atwitter with indignation…. How dare the Pentagon tell it like it is? Actually I think they are just pissed because, finally, years after they should have, our admin and our military are finally deciding to weigh in on the war in the media.


More on this from Fox News, (I am only adding this link cause it makes “certain” peoples heads explode)


In the meantime, we have the Sunni’s ending their parliament boycott, which brings Iraq one step closer to those political benchmarks that will be due in September.


In other news, our U.S Diplomats seem to be seeing progress in Iraq, which of course the left is completely ignoring, because it just doesn’t fit with their defeatist attitude.


We already covered General Petraeus and his fascinating interview telling us how much progress is being made in Iraq as well as showing us what difficulties lies ahead.


Take Our Country Back posted this morning here about the latest Centcom news.


If you missed it in the previous post, head over to USA Today to see exactly why Victory in Iraq is vital to the U.S.


On The Blogs:


Also remember to take a look at how the Iraqi citizens are banding together to help the U.S, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces to help route out insurgents and al-Qaeda members.


Amy Proctor from Bottom Line Up Front shows us that when a liberal MSM actually decides to leave the comfort of DC to embed with our troops in Iraq, they come away with a whole different attitude… CNN war correspondents are no exception. (3 minute video.)

Debbie Hamilton from Right Truth gives us more about the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq that we captured on July 4th, 2007. Seems he is singing like a little birdie.


Mike’s America has some awesome, related Quick Takes. Cartoons included!!!!! That first quote cracked me up.


Demediacratic Nation points out something I have mentioned before, the “progressive liberals” only want us to listen to the Commanders on the ground in iraq, IF those commanders are saying what they want. Otherwise, why listen to them?


Gazing at the Flag says there should be a special place in hell for those that try to scam others using our fallen heroes families.


Back to Hillary Clinton for a second, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance brings us some of her more memorable quotes.


Tanker Brothers brings us some words from a Gold Star Mother, for those unaware of that term, it means a mother who has lost a child in the military.


The Tygrrrr Express shows us some of the good, the bad and the ugly.


Woman Honor Thyself brings us Bur-Kas Bawling and Bellowing.


Finally, Heroes, from Yankee Mom.


This has been my look, so far, from around the blogosphere and in the news.


More might be coming.




And The Enemy Depends on American Democrats

Helen Thomas Doesn’t Trust Hillary

June 28, 2007

OK, I know it’s Helen Thomas, not exactly a person I would be disposed to quote favorably, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day, right? Anyway, here is what one of the most notoriously liberal journalists has to say about the former first lady:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has great political skills, but her war-and-peace compass leaves something to be desired.

Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that’s another story.

Hillary lacking principles? You don’t say. Blowing hot and cold on important issues? No! Its called nuance!

Thomas notes how fast Hillary can change her mind:

It doesn’t take her long to switch her stance on the war – even in 24 hours. On Tuesday, June 19, Clinton told a union audience that she favored keeping some troops in Iraq “to protect our interests” there after a major pullout. But the following day, she told an activist anti-war gathering that she wants U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq.

On that day, she dazzled the “Take Back America” conference by declaring: “We’re going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home.”

A woman has a right to change her mind. But we’re talking about war and peace. After dealing with the conflict, now in its fifth year, Clinton ought to know where she stands.

Yep. Clinton has been dancing around the issue and you don’t have to be a “journalist” like Thomas to notice. Not surprising given her far left sympathies, Thomas recommends “two California Democrats – Rep. Barbara Lee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi” as role models for Hillary.

But Thomas redeems herself by asking the right question to end her column:

The question still lingers: What does Clinton stand for?

Now that’s a good question. Even from Helen Thomas.

War Lies and Hillary Clinton

June 12, 2007

Star Parker at Townhall has a few items of interest to those with a keen Sixth Sense in regards to The Czarina, Hillary (Rodham or no Rodham?) Clinton.

I assume that Senator Clinton’s campaign hopes that most folks will not read “Her Way,” by New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., or the New York Times Magazine article adapted from the book, “Hillary’s War.”

Anyone that does will appreciate the transparently false picture that the Senator is transmitting about why she voted in 2002 to authorize going to war in Iraq.

That right there is a mouthful all in itself. A blogger could go on for pages and pages alone!

The Senator’s vote has become a point of discussion because of her reluctance to clearly explain her thinking then. Unlike Senator Edwards, she refuses to simply say she was wrong and express regret.

On the other hand, there has been no clear statement that at the time it was the right decision. One may assume that the latter is unpalatable for her because it would give credibility to President Bush.

God forbid that we should give credibility to the CIC in a time of war and send the proper message to the Islamists that desire strongly…NAY!…lustfully, yearn for America’s death. We wouldn’t want them, the enemy, to get angry at us or anything like that. Right? After all, they have been attacking America since the early 1970s. What’s one more attack in the light of political posturing for political gain at the expense of American citizens and their lives, safety and prosperity?

One last tid-bit from the article before I take up pages and pages of this blog just on this article. Feel free to jump in and comment AFTER reading the article. And don’t lie about having read it. I have been reading it for a day or so…I know what’s in it.

In one sense of consistency, we expect liberals to be allergic to personal responsibility and to seek every opportunity to be the victim. Here, Senator Clinton does not let us down.

Also see: 

Executive Order No. 12938

June 9, 2007

9th, 2007 — Miss Beth | Edit

We hear plenty of talk about hillary and WMD’s.

She thought Saddam had them, then she didn’t, then she did and on and on.

However, perusing a book I’ve had for quite some time, I find WMD’s were a part of her–and our–lives as far back as November 14, 1994.

What happened November 14, 1994? hillary’s husband, then POTUS, declared a National Emergency. It became known as Executive Order 12938. This order was extended by bill November 14, 1995, November 14, 1996 and November 14, 1997. As of this date, I can find no evidence of this Executive Order being rescinded, almost fifteen years later.

The purpose of this particular EO was quoted by a source close to the White
House who stated: “The President has empanelled a small, trusted group of
legal minds…their charge…to identify the options available or needed to
extend Clinton’s administration beyond its current term…”

The supposed results of this panel were the following points:

Step One: Extend a National State of Emergency as defined unter United
States Code, Title 50.

Step Two: Cause an event which is defined under this code (nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon threat). The event must be by use of a “weapon of mass destruction.” The event does not have to happen within the boundaries of the United States. (Kathleen Keating, “The Final Warning: Your Survival Guide to the New Millenium”)

EO 12938 doesn’t specify the exact nature of the national emergency. Below is the text of EO 12938 and can also be found here.

Executive Order 12938


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (”weapons of mass destruction”) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. International Negotiations. It is the policy of the United States to lead and seek multilaterally coordinated efforts with other countries to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such weapons. Accordingly, the Secretary of State shall cooperate in and lead multilateral efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Controls. As provided herein, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall use their respective authorities, including the Arms Export Control Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to control any exports, to the extent they are not already controlled by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that either Secretary determines would assist a country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this order.

Sec. 3. Department of Commerce Controls.

(a) The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit the export of any goods, technology, or services subject to the Secretary’s export jurisdiction that the Secretary of Commerce determines, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other appropriate officials, would assist a foreign country in acquiring the capability to develop, produce, stockpile, deliver, or use weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery. The Secretary of State shall pursue early negotiations with foreign governments to adopt effective measures comparable to those imposed under this section.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section will not apply to exports relating to a particular category of weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) if their destination is a country with whose government the United States has entered into a bilateral or multilateral arrangement for the control of that category of weapons of mass destruction-related goods (including delivery systems) and technology, or maintains domestic export controls comparable to controls that are imposed by the United States with respect to that category of goods and technology, or that are otherwise deemed adequate by the Secretary of State.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall require validated licenses to implement this order and shall coordinate any license applications with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take such actions, including the promulgation of rules, regulations, and amendments thereto, as may be necessary to continue to regulate the activities of United States persons in order to prevent their participation in activities that could contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, as provided in the Export Administration Regulations, set forth in Title 15, Chapter VII, Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 768 to 799 inclusive.

Sec. 4. Sanctions Against Foreign Persons.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign persons as provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 and the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign person with respect to chemical and biological weapons proliferation if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign person on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, knowingly and materially contributed to the efforts of any foreign country, project, or entity to use, develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire chemical or biological weapons.

(b) No department or agency of the United States Government may procure, or enter into any contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from any foreign person described in subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prohibit the importation into the United States of products produced by that foreign person.

(c) Sanctions pursuant to this section may be terminated or not imposed against foreign persons if the Secretary of State determines that there is reliable evidence that the foreign person concerned has ceased all activities referred to in subsection (a).

(d) The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury may provide appropriate exemptions for procurement contracts necessary to meet U.S. operational military requiorments or requirements under defense production agreements, sole source suppliers, spare parts, components, routine servicing and maintenance of products, and medical and humanitarian items. They may provide exemptions for contracts in existence on the date of this order under appropriate circumstances.

Sec. 5. Sanctions Against Foreign Countries.

(a) In addition to the sanctions imposed on foreign countries as provided in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and more 3 Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, sanctions also shall be imposed on a foreign country as specified in subsection (b) of this section, if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign country has, on or after the effective date of this order or its predecessor, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990,

(1) used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law;

(2) made substantial preparations to use chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law; or

(3) developed, produced, stockpiled, or otherwise acquired chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law.

(b) The following sanctions shall be imposed on any foreign country identified in subsection (a)(1) of this section unless the Secretary of State determines, on grounds of significant foreign policy or national security, that any individual sanction should not be applied. The sanctions specified in this section may be made applicable to the countries identified in subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3) when the Secretary of State determines that such action will further the objectives of this order pertaining to proliferation. The sanctions specified in subsection (b)(2) below shall be imposed with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury.

(1) Foreign Assistance. No assistance shall be provided to that country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or any successor act, or the Arms Export Control Act, other than assistance that is intended to benefit the people of that country directly and that is not channeled through governmental agencies or entities of that country.

(2) Multilateral Development Bank Assistance. The United States shall oppose any loan or financial or technical assistance to that country by international financial institutions in accordance with section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262d).

(3) Denial of Credit or Other Financial Assistance. The United States shall deny to that country any credit or financial assistance by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.

(4) Prohibition of Arms Sales. The United States Government shall not, under the Arms Export Control Act, sell to that country any defense articles or defense services or issue any license for the export of items on the United States Munitions List.

(5) Exports of National Security-Sensitive Goods and Technology. No exports shall be permitted of any goods or technologies controlled for national security reasons under the Export Administration Regulations.

(6) Further Export Restrictions. The Secretary of Commerce shall prohibit or otherwise substantially restrict exports to that country of goods, technology, and services (excluding agricultural commodities and products otherwise subject to control).

(7) Import Restrictions. Restrictions shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of articles (that may include petroleum or any petroleum product) that are the growth, product, or manufacture of that country. more

(8) Landing Rights. At the earliest practicable date, the Secretary of State shall terminate, in a manner consistent with international law, the authority of any air carrier that is controlled in fact by the government of that country to engage in air transportation (as defined in section 101(10) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301(10)).

Sec. 6. Duration. Any sanctions imposed pursuant to sections 4 or 5 of this order shall remain in force until the Secretary of State determines that lifting any sanction is in the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States or, as to sanctions under section 4 of this order, until the Secretary has made the determination under section 4(c).

Sec. 7. Implementation. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. These actions, and in particular those in sections 4 and 5 of this order, shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and, as appropriate, other agency heads and shall be implemented in accordance with procedures established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12851. The Secretary concerned may redelegate any of these functions to other officers in agencies of the Federal Government. All heads of departments and agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order, including the suspension or termination of licenses or other authorizations.

Sec. 8. Preservation of Authorities. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under the authority of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, the Export Administration Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act, Executive Order No. 12730 of September 30, 1990, Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, Executive Order No. 12924 of August 18, 1994, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994.

Sec. 9. Judicial Review. This order is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, or any other person.

Sec. 10. Revocation of Executive Orders Nos. 12735 and 12930. Executive Order No. 12735 of November 16, 1990, and Executive Order No. 12930 of September 29, 1994, are hereby revoked.

Sec. 11. Effective Date. This order is effective immediately. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

November 14, 1994.


Most people don’t know this; however, EO’s become law if not voided by Congress within sixty (60) days. To date, Congress has yet to repeal any EO.

Clinton began consolidating power under EO 12919 in June, 1994. Throughout his tenure as POTUS, he issued 364 EO’s. 364. And not one ever repealed.

So, how does this apply to hillary? She was right there as he instituted these orders. Over the next few weeks, I’ll show how, between the two of them, they did all they could to consolidate power into the CIC job–a job hillary desparately wants now. And it follows their socialist agenda.

Can you honestly think this woman and her philandering, lying, morally corrupt husband are good for this country? She would devastate this country–right after opening the floodgates to the jihadists.

Manufacturing an unspecified state of national emergency and continuing it through successive years is an extremely ominous sign. It leaves the door wide open to whatever and however she and bill choose to interpret “national emergency” (what does “is” mean?).

Posted in Clintons, Executive Order

Hillary’s Foreign Policy Tightrope Walk

June 6, 2007

The New York Times is once again highlighting one of the central themes of the Democratic presidential primary: can Hillary Clinton find a way to appease the virulent ant-war base of her party while still holding on to the centrist hawk reputation she has built up over the years?

The article, Is U.S. Safer Since 9/11? Clinton and Rivals Spar, highlights the jockeying of the D’s to be seen as the most anti-war anti-Bush candidate. Clinton, however, has worked hard to build a reputation as a centrist who isn’t afraid of using military force and who isn’t beholden to the loony left that makes up the base of her party. This reputation give her important credibility with the media and with the intellectuals and policy wonks that support her.

But this is not an easy balance to strike:

In a televised debate on Sunday night, Mrs. Clinton, who has tried to minimize her differences with her rivals on commander-in-chief issues, bluntly disagreed with a main rival, former Senator John Edwards, who had just said that the administration’s so-called war on terror was little more than a slogan.

“I believe we are safer than we were,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following.”

Nice moderate statement, right? Exactly, so the other candidates pounce:

The campaign of her other chief rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sent supporters and reporters a memorandum on Monday titled “America Is Not Safer Since 9/11,” which cited research from the State Department and other groups that described terrorism as an accelerating threat. Advisers to other candidates, meanwhile, argued yesterday that Mrs. Clinton might be misjudging Democratic primary voters, who are loath to credit the Bush administration with much of anything.

[. . .]

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards, Mark Kornblau, said yesterday: “George Bush’s disastrous foreign policy has made America less safe in the world, according to his own State Department. His long list of failures, topped by the war in Iraq, has left us with more terrorists and fewer allies.”

The article goes on to note that Hillary’s campaign believes that “the vast majority of Democratic primary voters, and Americans, would agree with Senator Clinton.” I am not so sure about that. I would agree that a majority of American’s would probably agree, but I wouldn’t wager that the “vast majority” Democratic primary voters think that way. To them Bush is a greater danger than terrorism; to them the country is well on its way to a theocracy built on the blood of innocents. Somehow I don’t think sensible moderate statements like this are going to go very far.

And there lies Hillary’s problem. How can she compete with Edwards for the anti-war base and yet continue her statesmen like pose? The answer could very well determine the outcome of the primary.

Hillary’s War

June 6, 2007

The Hill 

As a woman, as a Democrat, from the first moment Hillary Clinton were to take office as president, she would face the task of proving herself tough enough for the job. Even if foreign leaders and our enemies do not doubt her on this score, she will feel the need to prove herself. Any signal of weakness, such as a withdrawal from Iraq, would embolden our enemies and weaken her credibility.

Remember how President Eisenhower let Khrushchev threaten to “bury” the United States without pointing out our huge lead in missiles? As a former general with an illustrious past, he had no worries about his credibility on military issues. But former 2nd Lt. John F. Kennedy had reason to worry that his bona fides as a military leader might be questioned, and he hastened to tell the world that the U.S. had a huge lead in missiles (after winning the election of 1960 campaigning on the “missile gap”). The price for JFK’s insecurity was, ultimately, the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Khrushchev felt he had to close the gap Kennedy had publicized.

Hillary Clinton will not be able to pull out of Iraq.

These are the words of Dick Morris,  the one-time inside guy to the Clintonistas,  now having seen the light, as it were.

Hillary and other turkeys of the DNC and some of the RNC/GOP have stated that the Iraq War is Bush’s War.  How they have come to that conclusion is still a “mystery” seeing that most of them voted FOR it.  Must be one of those genetic flaws of cowardice they exume.

Hillary is going to be proven a liar…it has already been proven but only time will tell.