Category: war on terrorism

From the Dept of “Ya Think?”

Senate Panel accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations.

Go read the story, and the go read the right wing spin, like from Jack Moss and the rest of Bush Cheerleaders.

The problem all that up there? Bush’s own Administration admitted that there were mistakes made. 

Reality bites, so bad for some, that they would rather live in some altered state of reality. It is truly a sad thing to watch, really. Some people just cannot admit, that their fearless, chickenhawk leader screwed up.

Blogs 4 Borders for Week of June 3, 2008

In this weeks edition…

Fisking Media Matters!

100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders, when will the madness end?

And you’ve been deputized!

Download for your iPod here.

 

Click on image

If you’d like to sponsor a show contact us here.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, deportation, vlog, podcast, open borders, paul waldman, media matters, fisking, rape, drunk driving, propaganda, lies, la raza, janet murgia

Cross-Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service

A perfect example of why the Democrats lost in 2004.

Is found right here….:

Quote:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."

Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn’t declared war," The Hill’s Sam Youngman reports.

Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."

Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts." – (via The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room)

Lawhawk over at A Blog for all, rightly calls Kerry on this rather stupid comment…:

Senator Kerry, would that be before 8:43AM ET? Or after the first plane slammed into the WTC?

Maybe an hour earlier when those planes were being boarded by the 19 hijackers?

The sad fact is that al Qaeda declared war on the US well before the USS Cole or 9/11, and were already killing Americans around the world and attacking US interests. Fatwas issued by al Qaeda spelled out their goals, and sought to defeat the US and its interests around the world.

For example, the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed more than 200 people. There was the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, which killed several dozen Americans.

On 9/11, the war launched by al Qaeda was driven home in the most gruesome and violent manner – attacking the US and its financial and military centers – the Pentagon and WTC.

That the US failed to respond to this war well before 9/11 is the fault of those in power to that point. That includes President Clinton who was Commander in Chief as the Cole was bombed, the embassies bombed, and even the first WTC bombing, which was carried out by the forerunners and kindred spirits to al Qaeda’s Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, as well as President Bush, who came into office just months before the attacks and was still in the process of figuring out the extent of the threat and what to do about it.

The Clinton Administration clearly didn’t understand the nature of the threat, and its ongoing response to terrorist activities was anything but a vigorous defense of US interests.

Now, we have Sen. Kerry issuing statements that only continue to show just how out of touch Congressional Democrats are to the threats facing the country – past, present and future, as Kerry is a major supporter of the Obama campaign and would be seen as a player in any such administration.

I do not think that I could have put it better myself. Unless Democrats get their collective "heads out of their asses" on the war on terror, this Nation will not be, as hard as it is for Liberals to believe, a safer place.

Neo-Conservative navel grazing….

This is about as close as I’ve seen the Neo-Conservatives saying, "We screwed up".

In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.

President Bush no longer stressed Saddam’s record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president’s credibility that had already been caused by the CIA’s errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power. "How Bush Sold the War" (via WSJ.com)

The problem was, they never found the WMD’s. They actually admit that, in this piece.

Feith goes on:

But the most damaging effect of this communications strategy was that it changed the definition of success. Before the war, administration officials said that success would mean an Iraq that no longer threatened important U.S. interests – that did not support terrorism, aspire to WMD, threaten its neighbors, or conduct mass murder. But from the fall of 2003 on, the president defined success as stable democracy in Iraq.

This was a public affairs decision that has had enormous strategic consequences for American support for the war. The new formula fails to connect the Iraq war directly to U.S. interests. It causes many Americans to question why we should be investing so much blood and treasure for Iraqis. And many Americans doubt that the new aim is realistic – that stable democracy can be achieved in Iraq in the foreseeable future.

To fight a long war, the president has to ensure he can preserve public and congressional support for the effort. It is not an overstatement to say that the president’s shift in rhetoric nearly cost the U.S. the war. Victory or defeat can hinge on the president’s words as much as on the military plans of his generals or the actions of their troops on the ground.

The sad part about all this is, The Neo-Conservatives have so badly damaged the Conservative movement, that it will take years, if not decades to fix the damage done. All because of a single piece of flawed CIA intelligence. All because Bush, in his blind arrogance, did not follow the simple Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." There is even talk, among some circles that Bush even went as far to attempt to smear or destroy those who dared to challenge him. Valerie Plame is a good example of this. Although, there are those who dispute her story with varying degrees of vibrato.

Others: via Memeorandum 

Iraq violence falls to four-year low

This is a good thing….But!

Quote:

The U.S. military said Sunday that the number of attacks by militants in the last week dropped to a level not seen in Iraq since March 2004.

About 300 violent incidents were recorded in the seven-day period that ended Friday, down from a weekly high of nearly 1,600 in mid-June last year, according to a chart provided by the military. – via LA TIMES

This is not a time to gloat, but rather a time to pray for the stability of that country. Because, quite frankly, it could all come ripping apart at any time. Not to sound like a critic or a negative person.  But the security of that country is hanging by a thread.

I have seen the comments on the left, and yes, they have some valid points, but at least give it a chance. It is all those people in Iraq have.

I think everyone that believes in God should utter a prayer this week for the country of Iraq and our Brave men fighting there.

Ouch.

You know, stuff like this right here, makes me quite sad. Sad

Yes, that’s a harsh headline for this piece.

But I’ll ask you to forgive me because, as a Veteran, there isn’t a day on the calendar that causes my hatred — and I do indeed mean hatred — of George W. Bush to bubble over the top more than Memorial Day.

"On Memorial Day, we honor the heroes who have laid down their lives in the cause of freedom, resolve that they will forever be remembered by a grateful Nation, and pray that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made," reads Bush’s official Memorial Day proclamation, issued by the White House on Thursday.

The Chickenhawk-in Chief says a lot of things that make this Vet’s blood boil but stuff like saying that he prays "…that our country may always prove worthy of the sacrifices they have made" is almost vomit inducing. – Dead Troops Remembered By President Who Had Them Killed- (Via The Huffington Post)

Now unlike Jack Moss, AKA Macsmind, I won’t skewer this guy. I can see his anger and outrage over this War. The fact is, The United States did go into Iraq on bad intelligence. The United States was absolutely wrong as how the war would go. People like Bob have every right to be angry. Only people that feel that he doesn’t have a right to be angry or would say he is wrong are the Bush and Republican Party apologists, like Jack Moss.

I will be honest with you all, this type of seething anger is what is tearing this Nation apart. I do not believe that it has been this bad since Vietnam.

What America needs right now, is someone that will bring the American people back together, because whether you’re a Liberal, Conservative or a Libertarian/Constitutionalist like me, you are still an American. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all in this together. The quicker we all figure that out, the better that this Nation will be for it.

Other Opinions at Memeorandum

Iraq's The Grand Ayatollah tells the United States, no deal….

This is of interest…’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’ (via press TV)

The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.

The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.

The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.

While the mainstream media keep mum about the accord, critics say the agreement would virtually put Iraq under the US tutelage and violate the country’s sovereignty.

The source added Ayatollah Sistani, however, backed PM al-Maliki’s government and its efforts and that of the nation to establish security in the country.

The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki’s government is under US pressure to sign ‘a mutual security agreement’ which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq.

Washington’s plan has so far faced fierce protests by religious figures including Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Haeri, another senior Shia cleric, and it is expected that other religious figures join the efforts to prevent the deal.

The US has signed similar agreements with countries like Japan and South Korea and thousands of US troops are now stationed in the countries.

While he is alive. You know there, Mr. Camel Jockey, that can be arranged. Devil Nothing a hellfire missile and come spy work wouldn’t cure. Of course, the defeatist, Military and America hating Liberals will run with this and try and say, "See they don’t want us there!, We need to pull out tomorrow!" Which is so typical of the bastards. But this is one man, and truth me known, HE is the one that is telling these terrorists in Baghdad to blow themselves up.

This is further reason why I think we should have never went in there in the first darn place, because now, we’ll have to contend with idiots like this. Should be interesting.

Update: Gateway Pundit is reporting that this story was bogus and was generated by Iran PSY-OPS. Only reason I grabbed it, was because it was on Memeorandum. (H/T to reader Ken)

Chuck Baldwin officially launches his campaign website….

I received some great news this morning in my e-mail inbox. Dancing

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has officially launched his Campaign website.  

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he more represents the American values that I, as a Christian, as a Libertarian and as a Constitutionalist, hold very dear.

He might not win, but I will know that my vote went for someone who still believes in the old Paleo-conservative values that I hold dear. I will also know, that my vote did not go to a third term of George W. Bush, a Neo-Conservative, Globalist, Shill or a Socialist, Marxist, Liberal. 

This notion that if you don’t vote for John McCain, that your vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama is the biggest lie and the great travesty ever heaped upon this Nation. Heaped upon it by warmongering bastards who want to send this Nation into a pit that it will never get itself out of.

I ask you today, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Republican, wake up and realize that this Nations only hope, is found in this man.

Check out his Website, Forum  and go to his "Money Bomb" page.

Let’s get American back on the right track, vote for Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin Says: OPEN BORDERS PROVE "WAR ON TERROR" IS SUPERFICIAL

Taken from Here:

The American people were led to believe that America’s fine men and women in uniform were sent halfway around the world to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a "war on terror." Of course, everyone now knows that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I am sure that most everyone also remembers that the vast majority of the terrorists who participated in those attacks were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Yet, Saudi leaders continue to enjoy the coziest of relationships–and, dare I say, friendships–with President George W. Bush.

Does anyone besides me remember when Bush said that countries had to decide whether they would be friends with either terrorists or the United States, but that they could not be friends with both? Well, Saudi Arabia has probably financed, supported, and befriended more terrorists in the Middle East than any other nation in the world (except perhaps Red China), yet they continue to be "friends" with the United States.

Another glaring inconsistency regarding the "war on terror" is the fact that for some seven years since the 9/11 attacks, our nation’s borders and ports are as open and porous as ever. These open borders make the argument that "we are fighting them over there, so we won’t have to fight them over here" look absolutely disingenuous–even laughable.

If foreign terrorists want to bring the fight to America’s streets again, they still have plenty of opportunity to do so. In fact, we have no idea how many potential terrorists have already slipped across our borders and are right now living among us. Furthermore, we have no idea how many potential terrorists continue to pour through these wide open sieves that we call borders.

How can this administration look the American people in the eye with a straight face and claim that it is fighting a "war on terror," while it does almost nothing to secure our borders and ports? As Marcellus said in Shakespeare’s Act 1 of Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Amen. Something is also rotten in Washington, D.C.

Besides, why should al Qaeda attack us now? The U.S. occupation of Iraq is the best recruiting tool they ever had. Do the American people not realize (I think most of them actually do) that, thanks to our protracted occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda might actually be stronger now than it was when we invaded that country in 2003.

f the Bush administration was serious about fighting a war on terror, it would absolutely, resolutely, and immediately seal our borders and ports. It is nothing short of lunacy to send our National Guard forces to Iraq for the purpose of protecting that country’s borders, while leaving America’s borders wide open!

Not only does the Bush administration not secure our borders and ports, it wants to provide a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. It allows tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, and medical care. It offers birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. And it prosecutes and imprisons Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting (but not seriously enough to prevent his escape back into Mexico) a known illegal alien and drug trafficker.

No wonder the flood of illegal aliens has skyrocketed since George W. Bush became President of the United States.

And is there anyone who does not understand that a John McCain Presidency will be more of the McSame? A McCain White House promises a 100-year occupation of Iraq along with continued open borders and ports. Plus, McCain will also push forward with his plans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

In addition, when it comes to illegal immigration, amnesty, etc., there will be no relief from an Obama White House. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are pro-open borders, pro-amnesty twins.

Instead of fighting a "war on terror," the Bush administration (and numerous administrations before it) is allowing our troops to be used as the personal militia of the United Nations and for the commercial benefit of international corporations.

Remember, soon after our troops invaded Iraq, President Bush explicitly reported that the reason for the invasion was to defend "the credibility of the United Nations." But this has been the pattern of White House behavior ever since the U.N. was created back in 1945. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly injected U.S. troops into copious conflicts and wars, all for the purpose of enforcing and augmenting the policies of the United Nations.

In fact, the last constitutional conflict that the U.S. military fought was World War II. Virtually every war since has been a U.N. manufactured and manipulated conflict. The war in Iraq is no different.

I ask the reader, If you were President, and you sincerely believed that you were fighting a war on terror, and that you had to take the drastic action of sending other men’s sons and daughters to fight and die in order to wage this war (not to mention the prospect of potentially bankrupting the country to fight it), would you be so careless or indifferent as to not close the borders to the threat of terrorists who might actually decide to attack us? I doubt that there is a reader who would not agree that anyone who took such a task seriously would–at the very minimum–do this.

So, I repeat: the fact that George W. Bush refuses to seal our borders and ports proves that whatever else he thinks he is accomplishing in Iraq, he is disingenuous when he proclaims that he is fighting a "war on terror." (Again, the country that had the closest connections to the 9/11 terrorists was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If fighting the terrorists was the focus, why did Bush not attack Saudi Arabia?)

And that means John McCain is disingenuous when he says he wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years so "we won’t have to fight the terrorists over here" while, at the same time, promoting amnesty for illegal aliens (which does nothing but promote even more illegal immigration).

No, my friends. The real war is not a "war on terror." The real war is a war against constitutional government, personal liberty, and national sovereignty. It is a war against the fundamental principles of America’s Founding Fathers, that America should be a friend and trader with all, but engaged in entangling alliances with none. It is a war against the Bill of Rights. It is a war against the Spirit of ’76, the spirit that says America is a free and independent country, subservient to no international entity or interest. It is a war against the principle that would put America first. It is a war against the very heart and soul of everything this country has stood for ever since our patriot forebears stood on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge. And this war is not being waged from Baghdad or Tehran. It is being waged from Washington, D.C.

Chuck Baldwin’s Website

Elect Pastor Chuck Balwin to be President of the United States of America.