Monday, October 31, 2005

Happy Halloween!

My son's first Halloween. He went as a pumpkin.

I don't think he was too happy with the costume:


And when all was said and done, he decided to (in his own sneaky way) let people KNOW he wasn't cool with Mommy's plan to make him "cute" for Halloween:


(Close Up Of Above Image)

I tell you...this kid is out of CONTROL!

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Announcing:


I'm not really running...but if I WAS, that's what my ticket would look like! LOL!

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Iran softens anti-Israel comments

Last Updated Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:43:37 EDT
CBC News

Iran has backed away from remarks by its president that Israel should be "wiped off the map," following sharp criticism from the United Nations Security Council.

A statement released on Saturday by Iran's foreign ministry said the country stands by its United Nations commitments and would not use violence against another country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric prompted governments across the world to summon Iranian ambassadors to explain the comments.

Israel demanded a special UN session on Friday, two days after Ahmadinejad made his comments at a student rally in Teheran.

In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."

Ahead of the UN session, President Ahmadinejad stood by his "just" remarks and claimed that criticism of his statement "did not have validity."

While not specifically refuting the president, the foreign ministry said on Saturday that Tehran "has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force."

Source: Here
______________________________________________________________________________________

I guess the US, the Brits, The Israelis, and to a lesser degree, the UN, pulled Iran's "Punk Card".

That just goes to show you why I dislike Middle-Eastern Hate-Spewing Governments: They are, deep down where it counts, Cowards that will always back down when confronted by nations that have the resolve and moral courage to "tell them how it is".

Rednecks...

Do you ever get one of those emails someone forwards to like, everyone in thier address book?

Well, I got one today that is head and shoulders above the rest. I thought I'd share it with you, because it goes way past the usual goofy jokes.

Without further ado:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

You might be a redneck if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."

You might be a redneck if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a redneck if: You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."

You might be a redneck if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a redneck if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a redneck if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.

You might be a redneck if: You've never burned an American flag.

You might be a redneck if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a redneck if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.

You might be a redneck if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Holy Sheemoly...I guess I'm a Redneck!

Friday, October 28, 2005

Crooked, Crooked UN, Part II

Over 2,000 Companies Paid Oil-for-Food Bribes
Friday, October 28, 2005

UNITED NATIONS — About 2,200 companies in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, including corporations in France, Germany and Russia, paid a total of $1.8 billion in kickbacks and illicit surcharges to Saddam Hussein's government, a U.N.-backed investigation said in a report released Thursday.

The report from the committee probing claims of wrongdoing in the $64 billion program said prominent politicians also made money from extensive manipulation of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program in Iraq.

The investigators reported that companies and individuals from 66 countries paid illegal kickbacks using a variety of ways, and those paying illegal oil surcharges came from, or were registered in, 40 countries.

Click here to view the full report. (pdf)

Rest Of Article



____________________________________________________________________

Can someone please tell me when we're going to prosecute ANY of these people/companies?

Big suprise: most of the people/companies on the list are from countries that tried to derail efforts of the US and our allies to go into Iraq.

Israel Strikes Back (Kind Of)!

Israel cranks up pressure on Iran
Israel says it will launch a "diplomatic offensive" following calls by the president of Iran for the Jewish state to be obliterated.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Israel would call for a special session of the United Nations Security Council.

He spoke a day after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tehran should be expelled from the UN for its attitude.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday stood by his calls for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Mr Shalom told Israel Radio: "We have decided to open a broad diplomatic offensive.

"I have called on my counterparts through the world not to turn a blind eye and to stop once and for all the Iranian games."

Mr Shalom spoke as thousands of Iranian demonstrators took to the streets for an annual day of protest against Zionism and the state of Israel.

Mr Ahmadinejad, during a brief appearance at the rally, backed his comments, saying that opposition to the existence of Israel had been official state policy since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

"My words were the Iranian nation's words," he told the official Irna news agency.

His initial comment, at a conference in Tehran, prompted Israel's call for the UN to expel Iran and sparked widespread condemnation.

World reaction

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was "dismayed" by the Iranian leader's comments.

Western states reacted angrily, and Russia suggested the affair would deepen the row over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The White House said the Iranian remark showed the US was right to be concerned about Iran's nuclear programme.

EU leaders meeting in London issued a joint condemnation "in the strongest terms" following statements of concern from individual members of the 25-state body.

Iran later accused the West of turning a blind eye to Israeli "crimes".

'World without Zionism'

Mr Ahmadinejad, who came to power earlier this year, told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.

He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Source:Here
____________________________________________________________________

Could someone please explain to me what the hell a "diplomatic offensive" is? What ever happened to the good ol'-fashioned "offensive"? Iran has reached the limit, and someone needs to set them straight. If we wait for the UN or Europeans to do it, we'll be waiting a long time. If we don't do something soon, Iran will realize her nuclear ambitions, and that will make it harder to roll in there and "take care of business". We have a window of opportunity. And when I say "we", I just don't mean the United States. I mean the entire free world. Rogue belligerents like Iran need to be put out of business by the freedom-loving world commumity.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Earth To Cindy: 15 Minutes are UP!

Army mum arrested at White House
27oct05

US police today arrested Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq who has become a prominent war opponent, along with two dozen people for demonstrating without authorisation in front of the White House.

"Cindy Sheehan has been arrested with about 25 other people because she was demonstrating without a permit in front of the White House," said lieutenant Phil Beck of the US Park Police.

Sheehan became an icon of the anti-war movement when she camped outside President George W Bush's ranch in Texas during his August vacation, demanding he meet her for a second time. Sheehan had met the President earlier with a group of families of fallen soldiers.

She had called yesterday for civil disobedience around the country to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as the US military death toll hit 2,000.

Sheehan and the other protesters organised a "die-in" in front of the White House, lying on the ground to symbolise the US soldiers killed in Iraq.
Several dozen anti-war demonstrators applauded as Sheehan and others were taken away, while counter-protesters booed the group.

Source: Here
____________________________________________________________________

That's what Cindy Sheehan gets for not reading my Blog. I TOLD her her 15 minutes were already up. Funny how the only headline she made was in Australia! LOL!

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Bombing at Israeli Food Stand Kills Five

HADERA, Israel Oct 26, 2005 — A 20-year-old Palestinian blacksmith blew himself up at a falafel stand in an open-air market Wednesday, killing five Israelis and wounding more than 30 in the deadliest attack in the country in more than three months.

The bombing stifled faint peace hopes following Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip. The blast also embarrassed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who only hours earlier had scolded militant groups for repeatedly violating a truce.

The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying the attack was to avenge the killing of its West Bank leader by Israeli forces this week.

Source: Here

What the hell? The Israelis kill a West Bank based Islamic Jihad (read: Terrorist), and in return, Islamic Jihad kills five civilians and wounds thirty?

What is that, some kind of demented "Terrorist Math"?

Iran leader calls for Israel's destruction

By NASSER KARIMI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Source: Here

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August and replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve Iran's relations with the West.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza was already a part of Palestinian lands and the pullout was designed to win acknowledgment of Israel by Islamic states.

"The fighting in Palestine is a war between the (whole) Islamic nation and the world of arrogance," Ahmadinejad said, using Tehran's propaganda epithet for the United States and Israel. "Today, Palestinians are representing the Islamic nation against arrogance."

Iran does not recognize the existence of Israel and has often called for its destruction.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

What the hell is THIS all about? Everyone knows that Iran has always been hostile towards Israel, but these recent statements by Iran's President are harsher than usual. I would take them to be words to start a conflict.

So let me get this straight: Any Nation that "who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"? So I guess every single Nation in the UN that recognizes the soverignty of Israel is a target? "Iran against Everyone Else"? I guess all the neighbors of Israel (Jordan, Egypt, etc...) that have softened relations with the Israeli Government are targets as well? And "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world"? Does Iran have something planned for Israel?

I think we need to start stepping up the pressure, not only on Syria for it's murder of the Lebanese PM, but also on Iran for this dangerous new rhetoric. We need to take out any and all long-range strike capability, before Israel takes matters into it's own hands (Remember the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor that the Israeli Air Force bombed off the map back in the 80's?)

Israel is a proven military power, having both an overwhelming ground attack and a vastly superior Air Force. I think Iran should do itself a favor and read the history books. Remember 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973? Does the Iranian government want a thumpin'?

You know, to be honest, I am more interested in the American response when and if Israel is ever attacked again. We're already so firmly committed to some form of peace in the Middle East, it would be interesting to see if we'll put "our money where our mouth is". With a war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have to be something we would accomplish quickly, and with decisive initial force.

Put yourself in Iran's shoes for a second. They are in the unique position of having thier blood enemies (the US) on both thier left AND right flank, with the ability to move large manuever forces and create ISB (Intermediate Staging Bases) rather quickly and effectively. They should really consider shutting up.

Cindy Sheehan: Don't support Clinton unless she flips on war

"By MARC HUMBERT
AP Political Writer

October 25, 2005, 1:37 PM EDT

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Cindy Sheehan, who became the face of anti-war sentiment after her son died in Iraq, urged war opponents to thwart Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's political aspirations unless she comes out against the conflict.


Sheehan said Tuesday it doesn't appear Clinton is prepared to do that or call for a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"I believe that any candidate who supports the war should not receive our support," Sheehan said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "It doesn't matter if they're Senator Clinton or whoever."


Sheehan has become a de facto leader of the anti-war movement since she camped out near President Bush's Texas ranch while he vacationed there in August, requesting a meeting with the president. Her son Casey was killed last year in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq.

The former first lady voted in 2002 for the war resolution and has since supported troop-level expansions even while criticizing President Bush's handling of Iraq. She is up for re-election next year and leads national polls among potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidates.

Sheehan met with Clinton in Washington last month to discuss the war.

"After she met with me, she said she has to make sure our sons didn't die in vain," Sheehan recalled Tuesday. "That is a totally Republican talking point."

Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis declined comment on Sheehan's criticism.

One veteran Democratic strategist, California-based Bill Carrick, said he didn't see Sheehan's complaints as having much impact on Clinton's political future.

"I think (Clinton) represents probably a point of view shared by most Americans," said Carrick. "Right now, most Americans, regardless of their original position on the war, are of the view, `Let's try to create some stability and then start to withdraw our troops."'

Sheehan is in Washington this week to continue her protests. Her public criticism of Clinton surfaced earlier this month with a message posted on anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore's Web site in which she wrote: "I would love to support Hillary for president if she would come out against the travesty in Iraq. But I don't think she can speak out against the occupation because she supports it."

"Senator Clinton, taking the peace road would not prove you are weak," Sheehan added in her message, a reference to the belief in some quarters that Clinton wants to appear tough on defense issues to counter any claims that Democrats and women are "soft" on that.

In her interview with the AP, Sheehan said Clinton seems to care too much about how issues will play for her politically.

"I believe Mrs. Clinton is a brilliant woman who has a lot on the ball, but to characterize her as one of the leading liberals in Congress is absolutely false," Sheehan said. "With her position as a senator she's become more `let's see which way the wind blows, and what's going to get me re-elected or elected, or how am I going to benefit from this,' instead of truly voting from her integrity."

Sheehan told the AP she was a lifelong Democrat who voted for Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election "only because he wasn't George Bush."

"But I've regretted working for someone who wasn't stridently speaking out against the war," and for bringing the troops home, Sheehan said. "Now I regret that support of John Kerry and I won't do it again."

Clinton has been greeted by anti-war protesters at a number of events in New York and in other states. In December, about a dozen women demonstrated outside an event in Albany.

"I think it's perfectly appropriate if they want to express their feelings," Clinton said at the time.

"There's a lot of deep concern about the policies the administration has followed and their incompetence at executing any effective plan to either provide the equipment and protection that our troops need or a strategy that will be successful with a minimum loss of American and Iraqi life," she added.

Clinton did not stop and talk with the protesters at the Albany event. "

Source: Here

Is Cindy Sheehan really so presumptous that she thinks she could affect Hillary's March towards the Democratic nomination? I would bet MoveOn.org is having an anuerysm! Imagine thier dilemma: Do they support a leftist anti-war crazy that they have funded? Or do they back thier golden child - Hillary?

Note to Cindy: Your fifteen minutes are up. And they have been up for a loooong time now. With no hurricane fallout to attack, and the Iraqi Government coming along nicely...where does she lash out? At Hillary.

This is, if you will excuse the pun, Hillar-ious. LOL!

Seems to me like that the DNC, George Soros, and the MoveOn.org people are tearing themselves up from the inside...making our jobs that much easier.

Now could someone please get Hanoi Cindy and stash her away somewhere?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

US Senate Panel Says British Lawmaker Lied About Iraq Oil



25 October 2005
A U.S. Senate investigation alleges that anti-war British lawmaker George Galloway lied, under oath, when he denied benefiting from Iraq's scandal-plagued oil-for-food program. Mr. Galloway vows to go to court and fight any legal charges.

The Senate accusations stem from Mr. Galloway's May testimony before a subcommittee that
was investigating the U.N.'s oil-for-food program with Iraq.


Mr. Galloway denied getting any oil concessions from the Saddam Hussein regime. He accused the panel, led by Senator Norm Coleman, of attacking him because of his opposition to the Iraq war.

Senate investigators say Mr. Galloway and a charity he founded received allocations of 23 million barrels of Iraqi crude between 1999 and 2003. His estranged wife also allegedly benefited from the scheme.

Senator Coleman says Mr. Galloway was, "anything but straight with the Senate and the American people."

Mr. Galloway went on British radio, Tuesday, to denounce the committee's findings. He is urging the United States to formally charge him.

"If a Senate committee can go on the international airwaves - without putting this to you; without sending me an advance - and accuse me of lying under oath in front of a Senate committee, then I demand that they charge me with perjury and I'll be on the next plane to face it," he said.

Sources familiar with the investigation say Mr. Galloway could face charges of perjury - making false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Much of the Senate's new evidence stems from testimony by former Iraqi officials, including onetime Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, a longtime Galloway friend.

Mr. Galloway says those men are concocting allegations against him because they seek leniency in their own legal cases.

Source: Here

This guy was so "against" the war... I remember he was strutting and preaching in front of Congress. Turns out that the guy is just as crooked as Kofi Annan and some of the other people that benefited from the Oil For Food program. Only in this case, it was "Oil For Favors"...like trying to derail the UK efforts to aid/join the Coalition, who went on to eventually crush the Iraqi Army.

If he's so anxious to fight charges of perjury...I say we charge him.

Sunnis fail to stop Iraq from adopting draft constitution

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's landmark constitution was adopted by a majority of voters during the country's Oct. 15 referendum, as Sunni Arab opponents failed to muster enough support to defeat it, election officials said Tuesday.

Results released by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq showed that Sunni Arabs, who had sharply opposed the draft document, failed to produce the two-thirds "no" vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces to defeat it.

Nationwide, 78.59% voted for the charter while 21.41% voted against, the commission said. The charter required a simple majority nationwide with the provision that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces rejected it, the constitution would be defeated.

"Whatever the results of the referendum are ... it is a civilized step that aims to put Iraq on the path of true democracy," Farid Ayar, an official with the electoral commission, said before reading the final results.

Two mostly Sunni Arab provinces — Salahuddin and Anbar — had voted against the constitution by at least a two-thirds vote. The commission, which had been auditing the referendum results for 10 days, said a third province where many Sunnis live — Ninevah — produced a "no" vote of only 55%.

Ninevah had been a focus of fraud allegations since preliminary results showed a large majority of voters had approved the constitution, despite a large Sunni Arab population there.

Election commission officials and U.N. officials, who also took part in the audit, "found no cases of fraud that could affect the results of the vote," Ayar said.

The constitution, which many Kurds and majority Shiites strongly support, is considered another major step in the country's democratic transformation, clearing the way for the election of a new Iraqi parliament on Dec. 15. Such steps are considered important in any decision about the future withdrawal of U.S.-led forces from Iraq.

Many Sunni Arabs fear that the constitution will create two virtually autonomous and oil-rich mini-states of Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the south, while leaving many Sunnis isolated in poor central and western regions with a weak central government in Baghdad.

Some fear that the Sunni Arab loss in the referendum could influence more of them to join or support Sunni-led insurgents who are launching attacks across the country against Iraq's mostly Shiite and Kurdish government and U.S.-led forces.

Source: Here

Monday, October 24, 2005

Bumper sticker madness!

Seen on the way to work: "Guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat"!

Sunday, October 23, 2005

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

It's official, Hillary! I'm now a card-carrying member. Libs...LOOK OUT!

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Boycott Warner Brothers!

Anti-Americanism rears it's ugly head, yet again.

Coming off of a huge success in Europe (with help from the German Culture Ministry), the movie "Paradise Now", a movie romanticizing and glorifying (and perhaps, recruiting?) Palestinian Terrorist suicide bombers. Coming to a theater near you, 28 October 2005.

Make no mistake about it...I'm boycotting this movie, and it's distributor:
Warner Independent Pictures.

Shame on you, Warner!

Below text is from "Yahoo Movies": Here

"Two young Palestinian men, Khaled and Said, are both recruited to carry out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. The two men are allowed to spend what is presumably their last night alive with their families. However, since absolute secrecy must be maintained and they can tell nobody of their mission, theirs can be no proper farewell. The next morning, the men are brought to the border. The bombs have been attached to their bodies in such a way as to make them completely hidden from view. However, the operation does not go according to plan and the two friends lose sight of each other. Separated from each other and left to their own devices, it's up to them to face their destiny and stand up for their convictions..."
Join me as I boycott both this movie, and the liberal entertainment industry!


I Wish I Could Have Been There!

Friday, October 21, 2005

Crooked, Crooked UN

Isn't about time we pulled out of this God-forsaken criminal organization?

UN office doctored report on murder of Hariri

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.

The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, described the report’s findings as “deeply troubling”. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: “It is an unpleasant story which the international community will take very seriously indeed.”

But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

General Shawkat, also among the deleted names, is married to President al-Assad’s headstrong sister, Bushra, and was appointed commander of Syrian military intelligence on February 14 this year, the day Mr Hariri was murdered. Gen- eral Shawkat’s predecessor at Military Intelligence was General Hassan Khalil, the third name on the deleted list.

General Bahjat Suleyman, the fourth Syrian on the list, was until June the head of the internal affairs section of the powerful General Security Department, the main civilian intelligence service.

The only Lebanese on the deleted list is General Jamal al-Sayyed, the former head of the General Security Department in Lebanon. General al-Sayyed features prominently in the report and is alleged to be one of the ringleaders plotting Mr Hariri’s assassination.

Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday — a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.

At a press conference yesterday Herr Mehlis insisted that Mr Annan had not pressurised him into making changes. “No one outside of the report team influenced these changes and no changes whatsoever were suggested by the Secretary-General,” he said.

Source: Here


Exploiting The Dead, Part II

The poster below reads: "She (Merkel) Would Have Sent Soldiers".


Okay, for the record, I know that there is an intense Anti-American sentiment in Europe. And, once again for the record, I also know that the soon-to-be former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, used Anti-American hysteria to narowly defeat Edmund Stoiber, the Pro-American Opposition Candidate from Bavaria, in 2002.

So this should be no suprise.

Seems that Schroeder's Party, the SPD (or German Social Democratic Party), has once again been caught pouring gasoline on a raging fire. Were we so trusting, that we believed that Schroeder and his party were trying to mend fences with the United States?

I am of the opinion that Schroeder and his SPD are two-faced cowards, and even though my wife is a German citzen (albiet a conservative one), I am boycotting all German-made goods and services until Germany quits with the whole Anti-US thing. I know it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture (I mean, do my piddly Soldier's wages really mean a whole lot to the German Economy?), but perhaps it will serve to make one or two people that read this weblog to do the same. Spread the word. Together, we can make a difference.

I find it inexcusable and in the poorest taste to use the images of my fallen comrades, who have shed blood on your behalf, for some cheap, petty political stunt - especially considering Germany didn't have the balls...I mean,
"testicular fortitude"... to send troops to help in the war.

Read More About It: Here

Exploiting The Dead, Part I

By Ralph Peters
New York Post
October 20, 2005


We'll soon reach a total of 2,000 dead Am
erican troops in Iraq. You won't miss the day it happens. The media will pound it into you.

But no one will tell you what that number really means — and what it doesn't.

Unable to convince the Bush administration or our troops to cut and run, the American left is waging its campaign of support for Islamist terror through our all-too-cooperative media. And you're the duck in the anti-war movement's shooting gallery.

Breathless anchors and voice-of-God columnists will suggest that 2,000 dead is an exorbitant price to pay in wartime, that reaching such a threshold means we've failed and that it's time to "support our troops and bring them home."

All lies. Certainly, the life of every American service member matters to us. But the left's attempt to exploit dead soldiers and Marines for partisan purposes is worse than grave-robbing: Ghouls only take gold rings and decaying flesh; the left wants to rob our war dead of their sacrifices and their achievements, their honor and their pride.

Those who died in Iraq have not died in vain. Even should Iraq fail itself in the end, our courageous effort to give one Middle-Eastern Muslim population a chance to create a rule-of-law democracy has been worth the cost — for their sake, but also for ours. Without a transformation of the Middle East, we shall see no end of terror.

As a former soldier whose friends still serve under our flag, I'm especially disgusted by the pretense on the part of those who never served and who wouldn't dream of letting their own children serve that they speak for the men and women in uniform.

Our troops speak for themselves. By re-enlisting. And returning to Iraq, to complete the mission for which their comrades gave their lives or suffered life-altering wounds.

Two generations of politicians and pundits suffer from their avoidance of military service. They speak of war in ignorance and view our troops — whom they quietly despise — as nothing more than tools of their own ambitions. After deploring body counts during their Vietnam-era protest years, today our leftists revel in the American body count in Iraq.

The left has been infuriated by its inability to incite an anti-war movement in our military — forgetting that this is an all-volunteer force whose members believe in service to our country. The best the Democrats can do is to trot out poor Wes Clark, an ethically challenged retired general who will say anything, anywhere, anytime in return for five more seconds in the spotlight.

As for that "unacceptable" number of casualties, let's put it in perspective:
Our current loss rate in Iraq from combat and non-combat deaths is 765 per year. That's painful for individual families, but we would have to remain in Iraq, taking casualties at the same rate, for 76 years to rival our loss of more than 58,000 Americans in Indochina.

And Vietnam wasn't remotely as important to our national security. The terrorists we face today are more implacable than any of the enemies from our past. Even the Germans didn't dream of eradicating our entire population. The Japanese hoped to master Asia, not to massacre every man, woman and child in America.

We would need to continue our efforts in Iraq and the greater War on Terror for 532 years to suffer the 407,000 dead we lost in less than four years in World War II.

And what about our greatest struggle, the American Civil War? We would have to maintain the status quo in Iraq for 470 years just to rival the number of Union dead and for 729 years to equal our total losses, North and South.

Even our Revolutionary War, in which fewer than 5,000 Americans died in combat (many more, unrecorded, fell to disease) has to be judged in terms of the population at the time — just over 2 million. Equivalent losses today would be over 500,000 dead Americans.

The point isn't to play hocus-pocus with statistics. That's what the pro-terrorist left is trying to do — betting that you know nothing of military history. Two thousand dead isn't a magic number. Our first loss was as important as the last. We must not make a mockery of our fallen by treating them as political rag-dolls to be tossed around the media playroom. Great causes incur great costs.

In historical terms, our losses in Iraq have been remarkably light, given the magnitude of what we seek to achieve. The low casualty rate is a tribute to the skill and professionalism of our troops and their battlefield leaders. None of us should breathe a word that undercuts them while they're fighting our war.

If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves. Their irresponsible demands for troop withdrawals provide powerful encouragement to Muslim fanatics to keep on killing as many American service members as possible. On the worst days the terrorists suffer in Iraq, our "anti-war" fellow citizens keep the cause of Islamist fascism alive. Their support is worth far more to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi than any amount of Saudi money.

It would be wonderful to live in a world in which war was never necessary. But we don't live in such a world. And there are no bloodless wars. We should honor every fallen American. But we also must recognize that, on this maddened earth, only the blood of patriots shed abroad allows us to live in safety here at home.

Computer Tip: "My Google"

If you're like me, you don't like any "bells or whistles" with your internet experience. You want to get in, get the info you want, and get back out, and on with your life. That's why I am really into this whole "My Google" as my Home (Start) Page. It gives me the info I want, as soon as I open my browser. It also has the benefit of being a page that is very, very easy for your browser to render, eliminating the startup time of your browser while it loads up your current homepage. I'm going to show you how to do it:

1. If you haven't done so, you should really get Mozilla Firefox as your default browser. There are too many benefits to list here, but trust me, it's 10 times better than Micro$oft's Internet Explorer. (This step is optional).


2. Go to this website: Personalize Google

3. Click "Personalize Your Google Homepage" (In the blue box on the left hand side of the page).

4. A window will open up on the left side of your browser. It's pretty straightforward, all you have to do is click the stuff you want to add in, and click the "add" button. Be careful not to add TOO much, or else you'll have to scroll to see some of the info. Keep it simple and effective.

5. Click "Create A Section", and in the box, type (or copy and paste) this text: http://mikegulf.blogspot.com/atom.xml. Click "GO". Now you will get a link (on your Google Home Page) to each of my posts as soon as they are published. (Obviously, this step is optional).

6. When you're done, click the "Save Page" button (again, in the blue Box). You'll need a Google Account (but you will be prompted to create one on the next page).

7. Go through the steps of creating an account, or, if you have a gmail account, you can use that log-in and password. Make sure to click "Remember Me On This Computer" when you sign in, so you don't have to always log-in.

8. Last Step: in the top menu bar of your browser, in this case, Firefox, click Tools| Options, and where it says "Home Pages", click "Use Current Page". Click "OK".

9. You're done! Now, whenever you click the Home icon in your browser (or start your browser), you will go to your own personalized news and information!

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Astros Going To The 'Series!

Jubilant fans celebrate trip to World Series
By CHRIS DUNCAN, AP Sports Writer
October 20, 2005

HOUSTON (AP) -- Fans danced wildly, cheered and ran into the arms of total strangers Wednesday night, celebrating the Houston Astros' first trip to the World Series.

A crowd of several thousand gathered in a downtown parking lot on a breezy, balmy night to watch Game 6 of the NL championship series projected onto the side of a building. And when Houston sealed its 5-1 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals, the celebration began.

``That's it baby. That's it,'' one fan screamed as the final out was made. Other fans waiting for just the right moment unrolled a banner that read, ``Go Astros -- World Series Here We Come.''


Television cameras prompted a few revelers to rip off their shirts and twirl them like towels Somewhere in the chaos, a fan started beating a drum and triggered a chant of ``Houston!'' ``Houston!''

The only immediate disturbance appeared to be two soaked fans climbing on a traffic light. A police officer on horseback pulled one of the men down, and the other climbed down. While there was no immediate trouble, police in riot gear surrounded the lot and a helicopter hovered overhead.


The fans didn't want to go home, hundreds lingering in the area and drifting into a nearby intersection.

``This is just the happiest day of my life,'' Omar Rios said. ``It's the end of a roller-coaster ride.''

``I never thought I'd see the last 15 minutes of my life,'' said 47-year-old Bob Fretz, a lifelong Astros fan. ``The Astros are it. They have the heart of this city, I mean look at this.''

The NLCS victory was bittersweet for Jose Sanchez, who recalled going to Astros games with his father, who died 12 years ago.

``I would be standing next to the old man right now, and he'd be crying,'' Sanchez said. ``But this is super. Do you know how many times we've come this close and fallen short? We knocked and kicked and scratched the door, and now we've finally got in.''

Adam Loya had picked out a prime seat in the center of the lot for the game and predicted early on that an Astros victory would show the world what kind of sports city Houston was.

``We know it is a great sports city, but the World Series is like the Super Bowl. Everyone would know,'' he said.

About six blocks away, hundreds of fans watched the game at two bars across the street from Minute Maid Park.

``This is monumental. This is unbelievable. This is the No. 1 thing in my life right now,'' said Larry Gutierrez, who was wearing a throwback Astros jersey and watching the game on a big-screen TV.

David Ewell, 43, of Houston, said the city would embrace the Astros more than they did the Rockets in the mid-90s when the basketball team won two straight NBA titles.

``The Astros are starting to develop that tradition. The Astros are starting to have generations of fans. People are starting to bring their kids and grandkids. That's not the case with the Rockets or the Texans,'' he said.

The Astros had been one of only six teams to never advance to the World Series. They had been 0-5 with a chance to clinch the NLCS, including last year when St. Louis won the NL championship series in seven games.

Source: Here

All I can say is... "IT'S ABOUT TIME!"

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Saddam pleads innocent, gets into scuffle

Nancy A. Youseff
Knight Ridder Newspapers

An Iraqi judge on Wednesday adjourned the first case against Saddam Hussein until Nov. 28, but not before an animated first day in court in which Saddam and the judge battled for control over the proceedings.

Saddam and his seven co-defendants were lead into a cage in the middle of the courtroom around 12:15 p.m. to face charges for the 1982 killing of 143 people in the northern city of Dujail. Saddam allegedly ordered the killings after an assassination attempt.

The judge, Rizgar Mohammed Amin, began the hearing by asking Saddam to identify himself to the court, a formality he explained to the defendant.

But Saddam - carrying a Koran in his left hand - was defiant. He approached the podium and began reciting verses from the Muslim holy book. The judge interrupted him, and the two had a lively discussion.

Saddam said that he was the president of Iraq and that his rights as president were protected under the Iraqi constitution. He also told the judge that he did not respect the court - or how it came about.

Saddam never gave the judge his name, telling him instead "You know who I am because you are an Iraqi. "

Although the proceedings were televised, many could not hear much of the trial because of a poor audio feed. At one point, the judge recessed the trial for 10 minutes to fix the problem. Later, the prosecution could not present video evidence from Dujail because of technical difficulties.

Among those attending the hearing were; Deputy Prime minister Ahmad Chalabi, who called the trial a great day for his party, the Iraqi National Congress; National Security Advisor Muwafiq al Rubaiee; government spokesman Laith Kubba; and deputy Assembly speaker Hussein Shahristani.

During the hearings, the defendants were all asked to identify their lawyers and enter a plea; everyone said they were not guilty.

And the prosecution made an opening statement, telling the court that Saddam ordred the secret police to arrest and in some cases kill scores of people after a small group of men shot 12 to 15 bullets in the air as the president's motorcade passed.

While residents in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit carried pictures of Saddam in the street, those in Dujail carried the photos of those they said were killed by Saddam's order.

The case was adjourned after the defense lawyers said they needed more time _ and more experienced lawyers _ to prepare the case. In addition, the judge said the court needed time to convince more witnesses to testify.

Source: Here

This guy is in La-La Land. I see the death penalty for Saddam, although it might be too good for him. I was talking to an Iraqi last year, and I asked him what kind of penalty they should give Saddam if they found him guilty. The Iraqi said they should build a big plexiglass box and put him inside. Then, all the citizens of Iraq would be invited to walk by and pay $10 USD to spit or urinate in the box, until he drowned.

I said "That's pretty harsh, dude," to which he replied: "We would pay off a part of our debt, and he would get punished. But he deserves much worse."

What do you say to something like that?

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Hussein Faces Tribunal Today In First Trial for Actions in Iraq

By Jackie Spinner

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; A01

SULAYMANIYAH, Iraq, Oct. 18 -- Almost two years after U.S. forces captured a disheveled Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground on a farm near his home town of Tikrit, the former Iraqi president will appear Wednesday before a five-member panel of his countrymen in the first criminal case brought against him and seven Baath Party associates.

Iraqis blame Hussein for the deaths and torture of hundreds of thousands of citizens during nearly three decades in power. But he will face charges concerning a single incident, the execution of 143 men and boys from the predominantly Shiite Muslim town of Dujail, 35 miles north of the capital.

Prosecutors allege that Hussein ordered the killings as retaliation after gunmen fired on his motorcade in the town on July 8, 1982, in an attempt to assassinate him.

In addition to the executions, which occurred three years later at Abu Ghraib prison, more than 1,500 townspeople were arrested, prosecutors allege. Many were banished to desert prisons where families were crowded together in windowless cells for years. Bulldozers plowed over the fertile groves of orange and date palm trees that provided the primary livelihood for Dujail's residents.

Unlike Balkan leaders who have faced war crimes charges in a U.N. court in The Hague, Hussein will appear before the Iraqi Special Tribunal, a body established in December 2003 by U.S.-led occupation authorities. It will use a mixture of international law and Iraqi criminal law in conducting the trial.

The transitional Iraqi parliament, elected in January, has put its stamp on the court process. It approved minor revisions to the law that created the tribunal, but those changes will not go into effect until they are published in an official paper of record.

In a rare telephone interview on Tuesday, Hussein's sole attorney, Khalil Dulaimi, said his client would not get a "fair or honest trial at all." He questioned the legitimacy of the court.

Dulaimi said he was informed of the trial's start date only on Sept. 25. "I need at least three more months to be prepared for the trial," he said. Speeding up the trial was intended "to confuse the defense and deprive it from full preparations," he added.

"Psychologically, I am prepared and will go with full confidence," he said. But "it will be a show trial only."

In a report issued two days ago, Human Rights Watch raised concerns that the tribunal was not being impartial and independent. The report noted that the U.S. government had spent $128 million on investigations and prosecutions of members of Hussein's government.

The first trials before the tribunal will be "a litmus test for whether it is up to the task of delivering justice," the report stated. "Fair trials are not only the entitlement of defendants. They are also a prerequisite for acknowledging the experiences of hundreds of thousands of victims of the former regime in an open, transparent and publicly accessible way," it said.

Jaafar Mousawi, the tribunal's chief prosecutor in Hussein's trial, said the lawyers and judges intend to reply on Wednesday to accusations that the tribunal does not have proper jurisdiction because it was formed by the U.S. occupation authority.

"They have the right to say what they want," Mousawi said of the critics, "and we have the right and the power to reply. We are confident of what we have in this case, the evidences with the defendants' statements and documents with their signatures."

Asked what was going through his mind on the eve of the trial's start, Mousawi said he was "excited to achieve justice."

The other defendants in the case are Barzan Ibrahim, Hussein's half brother and the head of Iraq's intelligence service until 2003; Taha Yassin Ramadan, Iraq's vice president until 2003; Awad Haman Bander Sadun, former chief of Hussein's Revolutionary Court, which sentenced many of the Dujail men to death; Abdullah Kadhim Ruweid, a senior Baath Party official in Dujail who is accused of rounding up the local residents after the assassination attempt; Mizher Abdullah Ruweid, his son; and two other senior Baath Party officials in Dujail, Ali Daeem Ali and Mohammed Azawi Ali.

If convicted, all could face death by hanging. Under one of the revisions approved by the Iraqi parliament but not yet formally implemented, any sentence would be carried out within 30 days of a final appeal decision. That means Hussein might never be tried for other crimes of which he has been accused, including the campaign against the Kurds that killed at least 180,000, the deadly suppression of Shiite uprisings in southern Iraq following the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait.

Sources close to the tribunal have said that the proceedings that begin Wednesday will probably last only a day or two while the tribunal addresses motions and technicalities. Hussein's defense is likely to request a recess to provide more time to prepare, the sources said, and the tribunal will probably grant it. The sources expect the recess to last several weeks, perhaps until the first of the year.

When the trial resumes, the prosecution would begin outlining its case, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. That phase could last several months, the same sources said. But few expect it to drag out for years.

The trial will be held in the fortified Green Zone in a courtroom built specifically for these proceedings within Hussein's former Republican Palace compound. The marble-lined, chandelier-hung courtroom has a screen to protect the anonymity of some witnesses, according to the Reuters news service. Hussein and his seven co-defendants will face the five judges, though it is not clear if the judges' identities will be revealed. The tribunal will allow televised coverage.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces are on high alert for the trial, which some people anticipate will encourage renewed violence following Saturday's relatively quiet constitutional referendum.

Asked if he thought the Hussein trial would spur insurgent attacks, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari said: "Iraqis in general are not sympathetic to him. I don't think they will shed any tears."

Luai Baldawi, editor in chief of al-Mutamar newspaper in Baghdad, said most Iraqis were eager for the trial to begin. "Hussein represented all Iraq; that is why Iraqis put all the responsibilities to what happened to Iraq on Hussein," Baldawi said. Nonetheless, Iraqis seem split over the fairness of the process, he said.

In the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad on Tuesday, residents reflected that sentiment. "There should be an Iraqi court to try Hussein," said Muhanned Abbas, 30, who was buying gasoline from a black-market vendor. "The special tribunal is formed by the Americans and will not try Hussein as the Iraqis want but as America wants."

Mohammed Othman, 45, a pharmacist, said that no matter what the outcome, the trial would not change anything. "Hussein is gone," he said. "There would be no difference if he is tried or not. We should focus on how to build our country and how to be united. We should forget about the past and focus on the future."

Source: Here

This is just beautiful. Thank God that this monster is finally being brought to Justice for his crimes against his people, and humanity as a whole.

Grinnin' From Ear To Ear


If I was President Bush, I would have a huge Texas-sized grin on my face right about now. Let's look at the facts:

1. Turned over soverignty back to the Iraqis ON TIME last summer.
2. Held democratic Parlimentary elections ON TIME in Januray.
3. Voted on the draft Iraqi Constitution ON TIME this past weekend.
4. Saddam Hussein will be on trial starting Wednesday.

The Libs right now are scratching thier heads. Remember, if you will, they predicted that none of these things would happen. Maybe it's time to hang up opposition and work towars the common goal: Securing Iraqi Security and standing up a democratically elected government there so that we can bring our Soldiers home with the accomplishment of all our goals.

Perhaps that would be too much to hope for. The Libs HATE President Bush. I still haven't figured out why. Perhaps it's because he's a man of vision, a man of action and commitment to see his goals through to the end. Libs hate that.

Libs hate that because it's something they are unable to relate to. They have preached for the empowerment of people on the social rolls for YEARS, and have accomplished nothing but achor them even more to living off the government. They have preached about equality for all for YEARS, yet have done little more than to break people up into demographics; talking about "Mexican Americans", "African Americans", "Asian Americans", etc. Conservatives see Americans as one people, while Libs try to "Politically Correct" us to death.

This is yet another in a string of sweet victories for the President and his vision.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Sheer Terror

...That's what I felt when I was compelled (like an idiot) to play with my Blogger Template this evening. Terror is what I felt when my entire template was erased, and I had to re-code the template from scratch. I was near tears.

After a cold Corona and some brain-numbing coding... I'm back up. I wish I could have used FrontPage or Dreamweaver, and even though I have both installed on my computer, I had to be a tough guy and do it all by hand. Thank God I found a cached version of my blog on Google. All I had to do was upload the (very) old version, and then re-code the HTML line-by-painful-line.

I don't even know HTML.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Who is worse? Terrorists, Libs, or our "Allies"?

...I don't get it. Are the Palestinian Terrorists in the West Bank taking lessons from Gang-Bangers in East L.A.? No, that can't be, because drive-by shootings in the US target rival gang members, not innocent civilians.

Terrorists attacked a bus stop. Not a military checkpoint. Not a military barracks. A bus stop.

What if that was your kid, waiting for the bus, to go to the mall in suburban America? I'm sure that we'd all foam at the mouth, calling them "barbaric". But in Israel, far away from the United States, it's... the same thing. Barbaric.

Quote:
West Bank Shooting Leaves 3 Dead, 4 Hurt


Sunday October 16, 2005 8:01 PM
AP Photo JRL119
By ODED BALILTY
Associated Press Writer

GUSH ETZION, West Bank (AP) - Palestinian gunmen in a speeding car opened fire on a crowded bus stop Sunday, killing three Israelis and wounding four others in the deadliest attack on Israelis in more than three months, Israeli officials said.

Minutes later, militants carried out a second drive-by shooting elsewhere in the West Bank, seriously wounding one Israeli, officials said.

Also Sunday, Israeli troops shot and killed an Islamic militant and seriously wounded a bystander in the West Bank, Palestinian and Israeli officials said.

The violence was the worst since a July 12 suicide bombing in the northern Israeli town of Netanya killed five people. Israeli security officials have warned that following last month's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Palestinian militants would shift their focus to the West Bank.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militant group loosely affiliated with the ruling Fatah party, claimed responsibility for the shootings.

Source: Here

Why is it that in Iraq, or Israel, or Russia, or Indonesia, or anywhere where Islamic jihadists have a axe to grind, why is it that they attack civilian targets? Don't the Libs see that people like this: people that kill innocent people waiting for a bus on a street corner; these people need to be hunted down and exterminated? Brought to the same fate they are only too willing to inflict on unarmed civilians?

What was it Cindy "Hanoi Jane Wannabe" Sheehan said? Well, I'm only too happy to tell you:

"No, because it's not true," Sheehan replied. "You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country." Source: Here


Even our "allies" in the European Union think that bloodthirsty terrorists are "Freedom Fighters". These fools refer to the "Israeli Occupation", which is strange, considering that the founding of the Nation of Israel is a direct result of European Nations lobbying the UN for just that, because they refused to let Jews into thier OWN countries! Another quote:

A top European Union official held a secret meeting in Gaza with the leaders of Hamas, in spite of EU denials to the contrary, in which he praised the terror organization's work, blamed terrorism on "Israeli occupation," referred to Hamas militants as "freedom fighters" and failed to contradict claims Israel was responsible for the September 11 attacks, according to transcripts of the conversation obtained by WorldNetDaily. Source: Here


Looks to me like the only people in the world that "talk the talk, and walk the walk" are the United States and the countries that have stood by us in the Coalition in Iraq.

I am really getting sick of all of this "justifying" of what these terrorist bastards do. But I don't know what makes me sicker: the terrorists that insist on killing innocents, or the Liberal snobs all over the world that romanitcize them.

Words Of Wisdom - MG Israel Tal

"Each man will charge forward to the very end, irrespective of the cost in casualties. There will be no halt and no retreat. There will only be the assault and the advance." - Gen Israel Tal Israel,1967

Friday, October 14, 2005

The Curse Of The 72 Virgins

...Okay, so I'm listening to talk radio this morning, and the host is discussing suicide bombers in Iraq. He mentions on how they kill dozens of people in order to terrorize people into doing what they want. The whole time, I'm thinking, "Why would anyone volunteer to be a friggin' suicide bomber!?!?!?!?!"

Then the host starts discussing how these suicide bombers are promised everything from money for the surviving members of thier families, to the fabled "72 virgins". Supposedly, if a guy blows himself up in the name of "jihad", he'll be rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven.

72 virgins.

Then the little gears in my head start turning. Are these poor, dumb bastards so whacked out on Arabic water bongs that they aren't thinking straight? Without further ado, my rationale for why 72 virgins would NOT be such a "reward", or what I fondly refer to as "The Curse Of The 72 Virgins":

1. 72 virgins = 72 birthdays you have to remember, or else you risk the wrath of the 72 virgins, which would then become the "72 Nagging Wives".

2. 72 birthdays = 72 birthday presents, all which would have to be of equal value, else you invoke the aforementioned "72 Nagging Wives". It's also pretty damn expensive.
3. Who says the virgins are attracted to you? What if you're not thier type? Don't the virgins get a say-so in all of this matchmaking? Have you seen some of the losers that become jihadists? I mean...come on! For Example:
4. You'd better hope heaven has a good health plan. Can you imagine how much birth control would cost for 72 chicks? And "oh, by the way", Muslim women don't work? Good luck, buddy.

5. 72 virgins = 72 extra mouths to feed. And your broke ass can't even pay child support. Fugheddaboutit.

6. Flip-side to #3... considering "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", who says they're beautiful to you? What would happen if you ended up with 72 unsightly (by your standards) virgins? For eternity? You willing to (literally) bet your life on the chance you would get some good-lookin' virgins?

7. If you sleep with one of the 72 out of order, guess what...? You now have 71 pissed-off virgins.

8. I know some guys that can't handle ONE woman, and these guys wanna make a try at juggling 72? Good luck, dummy!

9. Ummm...last I checked, guys can be virgins, too. Are you SURE you wanna (literally) bet your life on the chance you would get 72 female virgins?

10. 72 virgins = 72 "headaches". If you couldn't get any "play" when you were some loser jihadist, do you REALLY think you're going to have any "game" when you DIE? Tip: you'd better bring LOTS of Tylenol up to heaven with you. Oh, yeah...and Midol.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Gore Flip Flops...Endorses Female For Prez!

Source: Here

I’m actually kind of sad. I would have loved to see the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” rip Gore to shreds. Now it looks like we’ll just have to prey on Hillary and John Kerry!

Seems that Al Gore denied rumors that he would run for President any time in the forseeable future.

"Hello?!?! Al?!?! You're not geting any younger, buddy!"

He also said that he thinks the US is ready for a female President, but stopped short of endorsing Hillary Clinton. As if there were another female that is considering a Presidential bid.

Condi?!?!?! Are you listening?!?!?!

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

"He Gets Knocked Down! And He Gets Up Again...And Again...And Again"

Gore would be an easy punching bag in 2008. …I don’t think we’re this lucky. Who knows? The Libs make some pretty lame-brained moves.

They See Al Gore by a Nose in 2008

Is Al Gore coming back? If allies we talked to have their way, the former veep will be the next president. "It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's. Our source--a top aide in the previous Bush administration--is planning meetings with Gore's team to push an early entry while Clinton runs for re-election in New York. It doesn't end there: The Gorebots want him to pick Sen. Barack Obama, the youthful Illinois African-American, as his No. 2.

Source: Here

Schröder announces his resignation (Justice Is Served!)

I guess it would be too much to ask for the German Chancellor to bow out with any class. Schroeder announced his resignation with a jab at the United States. Hopefully, the future without Schroeder will bring a dawn of better relations between the US and Germany.

Without further ado, the article from the International Tribune:

"BERLIN A leadership struggle started Wednesday in the Social Democratic Party after Chancellor Gerhard Schröder announced his resignation from national politics and lashed out at the relentless "Anglo-Saxon" economic model of the United States and Britain.
Speaking of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government in Britain, Schröder said that Germans "want a state that is not in front of their nose but at their side." And criticizing the Bush administration for its response to Hurricane Katrina, he said, "You can see what happens when there is no organized state."
Schröder, 61, who officially announced his exit from politics at a trade union congress in Hannover, marks the end of a generation of leaders who first tasted politics during the student demonstrations of 1968 and belatedly opens the way for a younger generation who will have to prepare the party for elections in four years' time.
A visibly moved Schröder, chancellor since 1998 but who ceded power this week to Angela Merkel's conservative union, said at a packed meeting in the trade fair center in his home town of Hannover that "I will not belong to the next government, definitely not."
Schröder's Social Democrats, which he catapulted into power in 1998 with the Greens as his junior partners, will join Merkel's government as part of a grand coalition since neither of the big parties could muster a parliamentary majority to form coalitions they preferred.
Schröder, who is Germany's first postwar chancellor too young to have served in the German Army during World War II, broke with tradition by openly criticizing the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, received rapturous applause and a standing ovation.
But once the applause ended, Schröder criticized both the Bush administration and Blair. He made a passionate defense of the German model of the strong state while strongly criticizing the "Anglo-Saxon" model favored by the United States and Britain and by Merkel. Britain is the current holder of the European Union presidency.
"I say to my British friend that people in Germany, in Europe, don't want complete denationalization, they don't want the privatization of longtime risks," he said. "They want a state that is not in front of their nose but at their side."
The delegates loved it and loudly applauded Schröder, who then went on to criticize the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.
"I don't want to name any examples of catastrophes, where you can see what happens when there is no organized state," said Schröder. "I could name countries, but the office I still hold forbids that - but everybody knows I mean America."
The crowds applauded again and laughed.
Back in Berlin, where the executive committee of the Social Democrats was meeting for a second day, the leadership contest started in earnest as the moderate and leftist factions competed for the eight ministries the party will have in Merkel's grand coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats.
Franz Müntefering, 65, the chairman and parliamentary group leader of the Social Democrats, will for the moment continue to lead the party, since he is one of the few people that can keep the factions together. His reappointment is expected to be confirmed at the party congress next month.
He is, however, already preparing to appoint younger people after their way up the party ladder had been blocked by Schröder and a group of people who started their careers in the party's Jusos, or youth movement, but who had failed to promote younger people. The ideological direction of the party will become clear when the eight ministers are chosen.
Müntefering has few young and experienced people from whom to choose as ministers who will have the double task of making sure the party can reap any of the successes of a grand coalition but at the same time ensuring that the party can carve out its own separate identity while in government.
Only a few of the ministers who served in Schröder's seven-year coalition of Social Democrats and Greens are expected to re-enter the cabinet.
Otto Schily, 73, the outgoing interior minister who is popular among Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, has his eye on the Foreign Ministry. Wolfgang Clement, 65, the economics minister, announced Monday that he was not going to seek any federal office again, and Peter Struck, 62, the popular defense minister is also a contender for the Foreign Ministry but is in poor health.
Peer Steinbrück, 58, the former finance minister and premier of North Rhine-Westphalia, is widely expected to become finance minister. If so, that appointment would tip the party in the direction of the reformers and underpin some of Merkel's ambitions to consolidate the budget, reduce the state debt and even introduce a tax reform.
The names being mentioned include Andrea Nahles, 35, who is recognized as one of the younger generation of leftist leaders but in practice is pragmatic when it comes to policy making."

From: Here

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Orwell On A Soldeir's Duty

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

"
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it."

"There is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one side stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction."

-George Orwell

I grew up reading books like Animal Farm and 1984. The mark of a great book is truth that stands the test of time, and is universal.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Why Am I Not Suprised?

Y'know, I always knew Bill Clinton was a sleazy dirtbag, but to put off bringing terrorist murderers of US troops to justice, in order to get donations for the Presidential Library? C'mon, even Bill Clinton should have some sense of decency. Or not.

Quote:
Former FBI director: Clinton undermined Saudi bombing probe
Freeh said president wanted better relations with Iran

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former FBI Director Louis Freeh on Sunday accused former President Bill Clinton of ditching the investigation into the 1996 bombing of a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia to pursue better relations with Iran.

In an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," Freeh said Clinton failed to seek Saudi cooperation with the investigation into the Khobar Towers attack, which killed 19 U.S. airmen. He said Clinton instead pressed then-Crown Prince Abdullah, now king, for a donation to his presidential library -- a charge the former president's spokesman and a former adviser told CBS was false.

"I was very disappointed that the political leadership in the United States would tell the families of these 19 heroes that we were going to leave no stone unturned and find the people who killed them, to give that order to the director -- because that's the order that I got -- and then do nothing to assist and facilitate that investigation, and, in fact, to undermine it," Freeh said.

Representatives of the former president did not return CNN calls seeking comment. But former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart said Freeh's accusation has been disputed by "everyone who was in those meetings."

"All he is trying to do is follow the right-wing playbook, which is to make up a bunch of charges about President Clinton and do it in a way that you can line your own pockets," Lockhart said.

Freeh is promoting a new memoir, "My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton and Waging War on Terror." He said his Khobar Towers investigation pointed to Iran, but said the probe was derailed by Clinton's desire to improve relations with the reformist Iranian government elected in 1997.

He said U.S. investigators only gained access to Saudi suspects in the bombing when former President George Bush, who sent American troops to defend the kingdom in the first Persian Gulf War, asked Abdullah for his assistance.

Asked why he did not resign and go public earlier, he said, "I had a different response. I said, 'This is too damn important for me to stop investigating it,' and I didn't stop investigating it. I wanted for a change of administration, which happened when this President Bush was elected."

Clinton named Freeh, a former FBI agent and federal judge, to lead the bureau in 1993 after the fiery raid that ended the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas. But Freeh's agents ended up conducting multiple investigations of his boss during the 1990s -- including the probe of the president's sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, which resulted in his 1998 impeachment and eventual acquittal by the Senate.

Freeh said those investigations dominated his tenure. But Lockhart said Freeh wasted his time pursuing allegations of wrongdoing leveled by Clinton's political opponents.

"No one made Mr. Freeh go around and chase political rumors and scandals, to go and get into the depths of the president's personal life," Lockhart told CNN. "He did that to win favor and curry favor with the far right wing of this country. What he didn't do was run the FBI."

In his book, Freeh writes that he realized the United States was in a global war with terrorists after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and responses to terrorist attacks in the 1990s were inadequate.

"We lacked the political will, the spine, to take military action against our enemies," he told CBS. "It was obvious for years that that's what our position had been."

The 9/11 commission report issued in 2004 credited Freeh with recognizing the terrorist threat early on -- but it also criticized him for failing to shift FBI resources to combat it. And the Justice Department criticized him for failing to improve the FBI's computer network, which investigators said kept agents from "connecting the dots" before the 9/11 attacks.

Freeh told CBS that he had to ask Congress for permission to reassign agents.

Freeh resigned in June 2001, less than three months before al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington. On his last day in office, he revealed indictments against 13 Saudis and a Lebanese citizen in connection with the Khobar Towers bombing, all accused of being members of the Iranian-backed Islamic militia Hezbollah. The indictment stated that Iranian officials directed the bombing, but none were charged.

He said he remained in office until 2001 because he didn't want Clinton to name his successor.

"I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director," he said. "I was going to stay there and make sure that he couldn't replace me."
Of course, Clinton's Spokesman, Joe Lockhart, says that Freeh is operating right out of the "Right-Wing Playbook" (whatever THAT is). Funny thing is...Clinton appointed Freeh in '93. So what gives?

Clinton soliciting foreign leaders for donations to his Presidential Library? The Presidential "Double Wide"? Nah...c'mon...not like we have any precedent for that. Clinton makes me physically ill.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/10/freeh.clinton/

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Astros advance after overtime

The Houston Astros won the longest playoff game in major league history on Monday, beating the Atlanta Braves 7-6 after 18 innings to clinch their second successive National League Division Series (NLDS).

Chris Burke cracked a solo homer off reliever Joey Devine to end a marathon contest which was equivalent to two full regulation games and to hand the Astros a 3-1 victory in the best-of-five series.

Brad Ausmus hit a home run off Braves closer Jeff Farnsworth to tie the game at 6-6 with two outs in the ninth frame.

Roger Clemens, the loser in Game Two in Atlanta, earned the win with three scoreless innings of rare relief pitching.

Houston, which began the season with a woeful 15-30 record before producing a storming finish to earn the wildcard slot in the playoffs, eliminated Atlanta in the NLDS for the second year in a row.

The Astros now face Central Division rival St Louis in the National League Championship Series for the second consecutive season.

The Astros trailed 6-1 heading into the eighth frame, with Atlanta doing most of its damage on a third-inning grand slam by Adam LaRoche.

But Houston closed the gap to 6-5 in the eighth with a grand slam from slugger Lance Berkman.

Source: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/617892

...I don't usually talk sports in my Blog...but you have to admit, this was a monumental game. EIGHTEEN INNINGS!

Saturday, October 08, 2005

The Future Of The Republican Party


This great country was built on a successful blend of different cultures from around the world.

Unfortunately, the left has worked tirelessly to "water down" our individuality. They want everyone to be "the same". In the left's eyes, there shouldn't be "rich" or "poor", "haves" or "have-nots". Why strive for "something better"?

There once was a political ideology that thought like that, where everybody was "the same". And it was called communism.

Our military power during the Clinton-era was gutted. I remember in 1993 and 1994, they were paying people huge bonuses to get OUT of the miitary. The Clinton Administration, while loathing the patriotism and personal sacrifice of the US Military, argued that since the Cold War was over, we didn't NEED a big Army. Some of the best and brightest, most experenced Soldiers, got out. In the blink of an eye, we went from a military that could literally crush anyone, anywhere in the world; to a military that was under-manned and whose different branches were in a constant struggle against each other for money. Now, we're in a situation where we could really use the size and manpower we enjoyed in the 80's. We need more people.

President Bush was just what we needed after the Clinton era. We needed a President that was, well, Presidential. I think it's deplorable that he is constantly persecuted for his faith. He has a very clear view of what is right and wrong, and he completely understands that sometimes the easiest path isn't the best one for the nation. After 9/11, we could have responded in the classic Clinton fashion, which is not at all. When presented with a threat to the Middle East, Saddam, we could have done what Clinton did...nothing, while Saddam lined his pockets and slaughtered his people. But we didn't do any of those things. We took the high road, and struggled to make wrong, right.

Now, President Bush is at a crossroads. He has to complete his agenda before he becomes a "lame duck". I agree with Wolf, he should have sold the Social Security Reform plan better. He didn't do a great job of making people realize they needed it. I'm still scratching my head over the Prescription Drug Benefit plan. Anti-War hysteria is at a boil. His recent Supreme Court Nominee, ironically enough, has more support from the Democrats than she does from the Republicans.

The razor-sharp focus of Bush 2001 is missing in Bush 2005. His vision on everything other than Iraq is fuzzy.

I think the "issues for 2006" will be immigration and the War in Iraq.

As for the future of the Conservative movement... I think it will swing decidedly even MORE to the right. The next candidate will sell himself as "Not Bush", claiming that Bush wasn't "Republican Enough". In the last two elections, President Bush has pulled more and more of the minority votes, this will continue in the future, as more minorites become financially empowered by the Bush Tax Cuts. Those same minorities will realize they don't NEED the Deomcrats to make themselves a better life. The Democrats had never delivered, anyway.

You will see the Conservative movement splinter into two factions, much like it did in 1992 (Perot faction - Bush faction). You will have the Right, and the Far Right.

I don't like John McCain. He's too shifty, and he likes to play both sides of the Aisle. I don't know who I would back in '08. My first choice would be Jeb (j/k).

I wouldn't worry too much about McCain or the Hildabeast (Hillary). Historically, Senators don't get elected to President. Name the last one...

Hillary is too polarizing. The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" will start destroying her canidacy in the Primaries. Plus, if she loses sight of the 2006 race, her opponent, (Ms. Pirro) will hand her her lunch. I think Hillary is underestimating Pirro. If Hillary loses in 2006, count her out of the running for President. Also, factor in that MoveOn.org will back her, and most of America HATES MoveOn.org.

McCain... I don't know...he fell so short the last time, I don't think he'll be able to pull it off, ever. His message will get diluted a little bit more, angering both conservative factions.

I don't think we've seen the Candidate for 2008 yet. I think it will be a Reagan Republican, grassroots style. Maybe Newt Gingrich. I'd back Newt, even after his "bi-partisan" Hillary courting. What we need, though...is the Hammer.

Even though Tom Delay is in trouble right now, it's political, not legal. They don't really have a case against him, but you can't deny that:

1. He's a staunch Conservative.
2. He's got experience wheeling and dealing in Washington.
3. He's a Congressional Leader.
4. He can bring in the $$$.

I don't know if he'd make a good President, but he'd make a hell of a V.P.

Another guy I'd like to see run...Dick Cheney. He's got alot of medical problems, but you have to admit, the guy is brilliant, and sticks to his guns. He's another Reagan Republican. We need that in the White House. If he ran, I'd be his biggest supporter.

Cheney-Delay?

Will never happen, but it's my dream ticket.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Words Of Wisdom

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

 

Ronald Reagan

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Women's Rights... Insurgent Style

Quote: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2009922005
Iraq's first female bomber kills five

MAHER AL-THANOON
IN TAL AFAR, IRAQ

IRAQ'S first female suicide bomber blew herself up outside a US military office in the northern town of Tal Afar yesterday, killing at least five others and wounding 53.

It marked the first time since an insurgency by Sunni Arabs began that a female suicide bomber had launched an attack.

The US military said the bomb had been targeted at Iraqi citizens applying for compensation at a civil military operations centre. Iraqis visit such centres to claim compensation if they lose relatives or suffer damage to property because of US military action.
I wonder if Hillary would approve. Women can blow themselves up, just like men. The ultimate in equal rights.

I think the insurgents are barbaric and immoral. Anyone that takes thier own life with the goal of killing others as well is a murderer. Does anyone that opposes the Iraq War in here see her as a *ahem* "Freedom Fighter" (quoting Cindy Sheehan, of course)?

Didn't think so.