Friday, April 20, 2007

Senator Reid - "To be brief, your words are killing us."

Via Michelle Malkin,

LT Nichols in Baghdad:
Senator Reid: When you say we've lost in Iraq, I don't think you understand the effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they don't understand it. They don't know about the political game, they don't know about a Presidential veto, and they don't know about party politics.

But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists. They decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood, men that look the same to us, but are obvious to them as a foreign suicide cell.

To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we'll leave them unprotected in the future. They don't report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in a convoy. They don't report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect.

Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are winning, I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties if you help us. Will you?


LT Jason Nichols, USN
MNF-I, Baghdad

Friday, April 13, 2007

Addicted to Jihad in Iraq - Sunni Al Qaeda wants more dead Sunni Muslims

Regarding the Tal Afar bombing...

Back talk:
This attack was carried by al Qaeda, not Sunni insurgents (look it up if you don't believe me). Why would al Qaeda do that? Are they in a civil war with the Shiites, too? No. This bombing in Tal Afar, like many such bombings, was definitely not part of the civil war. Instead, it was an act of terror designed to provoke the Shiite militias back into the battle against the Sunnis. Do you understand the difference? The bombing is not an example of a retaliatory attack carried out by Sunnis against Shiites (that's the civil war schema). It is, instead, an example of Sunni al Qaeda trying to get Shiite militias to kill more Sunnis. And al Qaeda is doing that to further its jihadist objectives -- objectives that Sunnni insurgents do not share. I am just amazed that these virtually indisputable facts are not more widely appreciated.

Seeking Victimization

Jason Whitlock:
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

Saturday, April 07, 2007

NY Times Officially in Love With Obama

Who are they kidding? Is this is news or free advertising?
For most Democrats, Mr. Obama is the Illinois senator who riveted the Democratic National Convention with a keynote speech that marked him as one of the most powerful speakers his party had produced in 50 years. But as Mr. Obama methodically worked his way across swaths of rural northern Iowa — his towering figure and skin color making him stand out at out diners and veteran’s homes, at high schools and community colleges — it was clear that he is not presenting himself, stylistically at least, the way he did two years ago when he gripped Democrats at the Fleet Center in Boston.

He is cerebral and easy-going, often talking over any applause that might rise up from his audience, and perhaps consciously trying to present a political style that contrasts with the more charged presences of John Edwards, the former trial lawyer and senator from North Carolina, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

You want cerebral? See my 6.3 Obama Cliches Per Minute post.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Global Warming is a Neo-Religion

This topic has been a constant source of posts on this blog through the years and it is encouraging to see a lot of other opinionated folks are picking up on this as well.

See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

My question is, how did so many in this generation get duped into becoming so religious? And how come these people have the gall to call it undisputed science? It strikes me funny in the same way when I listen to the laughable "creationist scientists" (the folks who believe the "earth is 6000 years old and we have proof").

Just like the Church banned heretics in the dark ages, so too would the greens like to shut down dissenting voices. The mentality boils down to: "There is no debate - there is only consensus. Think otherwise, and you are going to hell." The environmentalists just have changed who is who.

God = Gaia
Messiah = Al Gore
Holy Spirit = The Atmosphere
Original Sin = man as consumer
Repentance = carbon offsets

There is ample proof that this movement, just like any other religion, is primarily a tool for controlling people. If carbon dioxide is the big worry, there is a safe, inexpensive alternative - nuclear power. But these people are against the most rational answer to their supposed problem. Until their religion gets behind nuclear power, nothing good will come of their prayers.

Not many people deny the greenhouse effect exists or that the earth hasn't warmed up over the past 100 years - that is science. What no one in the religious global warming community can answer is how much of that warming is due of mankind, how much is from the sun, how much is from cow farts. There is not a single model that can explain or forecast this phenomenon. When they figure that out, perhaps they will have something real to say on the topic. Until then, "100% consensus" type rhetoric/lies is meaningless and only serves the political elites who seek to command and control through fear.

The answer to my above question is:
Earth worship is perhaps the only place remaining for the old left to hide their agenda of command and control. And that is the funny thing about the old left - Marx recognized religion as the opiate of the masses. Communism kicked out the Church and put the State in its place. If global warming is the best God the old left can come up with now, I'm feeling pretty good about things.

The lesson of the 20th century is that free markets, private property, and individual rights is better than anything the left can serve, 100% of the time, on every last patch of earth, even where the ice is melting.

Update: The NY Times is even getting in on it:

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Cliches Just Pouring Out of Obama's Mouth

Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone:
Obama, on the other hand, can close his eyes and the cliches just pour out of his mouth in huge polysyllabic paragraphs, like Rachmaninoff improvisations. In this sense he's exactly like Bill Clinton, who had the same gift. He is exactly what is meant by the term bullshit artist. My usual instinct when presented with this type of Zelig-esque, Eddie Haskell, non-stick personality is to violently reject it. But over the course of the last few weeks I've found myself increasingly amused by the Obama phenomenon.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

"Guaranteeing Defeat"

By Donald Kirk via the NY Sun:
So great was anti-war pressure across America that Nixon, soon after announcing the foray into the communist base areas, placed a strict limit on the presence of American troops in Cambodia — no more than 60 days. Nor would they go down much beyond the Ho Chi Minh trail network which Hanoi had been sending supplies to for years.

That wasn't all. Just to pin down American forces still more tightly, the next January, our Congress passed the Cooper-Church amendment barring military operations inside Cambodia as a condition for the military budget.

The North Vietnamese suffered devastating blows while American troops were there but had plenty of time to regroup and mount a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam two years later — the Easter offensive — in which they were again thrown back, only to recover and return one last time in the winter and spring of 1975 when all American troops had gone.

Now Congress is playing the same game. Forgetting the lesson of 1970, the House and Senate want to set a limit on the duration of U.S. military operations inside Iraq.

The voting on this maneuver has broken down largely along party lines — the Democrats shouting down the Republicans, but you don't have to be a card-carrying conservative or a Republican to recognize this bid for legislative command of the armed forces as a betrayal of our troops.

We are not going to win a war, or get out with any semblance of honor, by telling our enemy to just lie low for a while and next month or next year we'll be gone. America lost in Vietnam as a result of anti-war opposition at home.

Read the rest.