Well, perhaps SOME of the former republican leadership would have liked GWB to release this information prior to the elections in '06 to take the spotlight off their newly found liberal leanings, but my suspicion is that the U.S. military has detained Osama Bin Laden (OBL) somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan, and this information will be leaked as a last middle-finger from the Bush Administration to the U.S. media in the days prior to the election in '08.

This is the plan that seems most likely to me.  Osama is too much of a nihilist just to be so difficult to track these days.  Someone who is as self-centered as this guy is wouldn't want his name to fade from the papers and people's minds.  After 9/11, he kept releasing tapes with the help of his captors, more than likely, and the media bought this crap hook, line, and sinker since not having him in possession would always prove to be a black mark against the administration, and one in which the media would love to rub in the faces of the administration any time they chose to do it.

Right now, the republican party is making most of the dems' "best" candidates disassociating with their post-9/11 "yea" votes on military force in Iraq.  This is part of the plan.  By primary time, Mrs. Clinton will have said something in a speach that can be spliced together, and she will be saying that she voted for it before she voted against it, and it will be 2004 all over again. 

Another tack would be a republican commercial where the narator would be explaining something down the lines of,

"How can anyone support a candidate who thinks one thing one day, and then changes his/her mind the next day?"  There will be audio and or video to illustrate this as the narator is mentioning this point.  Do we really want somone so feebily-minded with his/her finger on the button?

Let me take these moments to explain to you WHY the Liberals are the way they are, Tom. IMHO, it is because some liberals want to see us (the United States) return to the glory of the FDR days (the 1930s)! FDR remains the penultimate liberal out there, i.e. no other president has been able to spend tax money, collected from U.S. citizens, on senseless projects like this president did prior to December of 1941 and then take so much credit for doing absolutely nothing about the U.S. economy due to the outcome of WWII all in the name of making America a better place. He DID make the world a better place to live with the defeat of the fascist states in Germany and Japan.

Kennedy and Johnson were getting close to FDR's level of respect among these liberals in the '60s, however, the commies in Vietnam took care of them at the expense of thousands of U.S. troops, U.S. hardware, and the legacy of a conservative president. Nixon became the bad guy with whom we all have been taught to associate with the outcome of the war due to him being left "holding the bag" and due to the media's collective efforts to rewrite history.

FDR's New Deal of the ‘30s was a wet dream for the liberals of the day and remains a goal to which they want to see American society return for many liberals out there today. The question for some liberals out there is HOW do we get to another day where it is only the federal government that can SAVE us?

FEAR! The hippies realized that they can use FDR's words against his supporters and the country as a whole.

Well, first they get everyone believing that the world is going to end tomorrow: Soviet nuclear destruction in the ‘70s (didn't happen) global cooling in the '70s (didn't happen), acid rain and loss of ozone layer in the '80s (didn't happen), or AIDS in the ‘90s (didn't happen), and global warming, bird flu, apocolyptic asteroid or tsunami destruction, according to the History and Weather Channel, respectively, in the '00s (aren't going to happen, either), and then that we are doomed unless we work "collectively" at the direction of these Chicken Littles to address these "problems."  In fact today the Weather Channel is declaring that the 21st century will see mass destruction due to weather!  This is like hearing me declare that the sun will RISE tomorrow morning!  Once there is such an event, they will declare it with great fanfare.

"SEE!  We were right!"  They declare that mass destruction is going to happen before it happens so that they can take credit for warning us before it happened.  Where were these crystal ball users BEFORE 9/11/01? 

If you get lucky while watching the History Channel, you may get to see a show that explains that 2012 is to be the year of apocolyptic destruction.  My tiny brain can't remember what event this show is foretelling that will lead to our demise, but we are ALL doomed.

Why is none of them declaring any threat of nuclear destruction from Iran these days like they forecast in the '80s while the Soviets had their fingers on their button?  Isn't Iran MORE of a threat today than the Soviets were near the end of the 20th century?  This is because Bush is in the White House.  The LAST thing the Iranians want is a Democratic candidate in the White House.  Let me explain.  The media will give him/her carte blanche to invade anyone's country and destroy anyone's country sans a peep since it is only a democrat who can do that sort of stuff.  From the Iranians' perspective, however, the elections in '08 are a lose/lose predicament. 

If we elect a republican, he/she will keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and help to develop a democratic country on BOTH sides of Iran, and the people of Iran are more likely to revolt.  If a democrat gets into office, he/she will be likely to remove the troops, and Iran will then feel unshackled enough to get a nuclear device into the hands of a terrorist group.  Then, we will get attacked, and the media will demand that the U.S. Armed Forces raze Iran to the ground and spur all of my fellow pale-skinned knuckle-draggers to think the same way too.

Since '01, The media have been trying to convince us that the U.S. economy was falling apart with Bush at the helm and his party in control of Congress when, in fact, it was gaining strength. The media polished the economic turd during Clinton’s administration, and we all had to endure a mild recession at the dawn of the Bush administration as the economy wiped its butt clean of Clintonomics - a recession on which the media placed the blame on GWB, of course.

Let me restate this. The media have been trying to use fear for the last 30 or 40 years to get us Americans to move in lock-step at the direction of these Chicken Littles like Algore or Larry David, for example. During the FDR administration, the world gave us fascism in Europe and Eastern Asia, and we responded with isolationism, initially. Britiain started its war with a fascist Germany growing too big for its britches long before it involved us. Britain, after Germany capitulated, then left us to defeat Japan on our own as it rebuilt London. This fascism in Europe and Eastern Asia and our isolationism were acceptable among the American public until the attack on Pearl Harbour brought this conflict to our shores.

Upon reaching the age of adulthood in the '60s, these hippies realized that they must frighten the American public since we, "have nothing to fear but fear itself," to the point where we will buy any of the crap that they are selling us. They learned from the master - FDR. They learned that it is fear that  they can use to get the American public behind their cause. It is this conflict between the hippies and and the FDR-types among the democratic party that generates much of what a smaller and smaller portion of America watches on the 6:30 news every night.

Some liberals are pursuing this "We are all going to die tomorrow" goal actively. The media, above all, want to see the United States return to those halcyon days where the government can do no wrong as far as they are concerned like in the mid-to-late '30s. This is what the Kyoto accords would have helped to do through senseless and unrepresented taxation on businesses. Since this is a representative government, the media must convince a majority of the voting public that there are problems that we, the public, cannot fix by ourselves through the decisions that we make collectively through what we do or don't purchase.  Were this Venezuala, all the media there would need to do is to convince ONE man - Hugo Chavez!  Chavez now can kill anyone who fails to agree with him for the good of the State. Thank goodness for the foresight of our Founding Fathers and for them developing the sound idea of a representative government. Count your prayers EVERY night, my friend!

Let’s characterize these liberal types who want to return to the '30s to rewrite the liberals' dogma as a New School Liberal (NSL), and the term hippy can also be applied to them as well. On the other side of the coin, we have the Old School Liberal (OSL) who holds the ‘30s dogma as sacred, and rewriting it as the NSLs want to do would be to him/her like letting someone re-write the Bible today.

This is a religion to OSL types. The OSL is reverent of his/her dogma and characterizes the NSL types as unwashed heretics, usually behind closed doors! We knew OSLs in the '80s as Reagan Democrats. The OSL wants to believe that FDR got it right, and he/she is usually pro-life. Granted, most of these people are passing away now due to their old age. So their days MAY be numbered. Get ready to be eating a lot more granola! Heck, these NSL types are already taxing fatty foods and banning the USE of some cooking oils because we, among the public, are too stupid to know what is good for us!  Pursuit of happiness be damned!  Many of the NSL types don't provide the right to LIFE to any unwanted and unborn infant which could be considered a good point from the conservative perspective because the NSLs are killing their own and calling it CHOICE.  Fortunately, many of the NSL types are nearing the retirement age. So they will be dropping away soon too.  For this reason they must hurry.

We (the viewing public) will never have these democrat intra-party arguments explained to us by the media, but you can see them sometimes if you know where to look and can read the stitches of the media fastballs. Limbaugh comes closest, and most conservative radio hosts have made prosperous careers out of making this point-of-view available to those of us on the outside – those of us too stupid to be living in D.C., Boston, New York, L.A., or San Francisco.

There was a similar battle like this one among conservatives in the mid-to-late '70s. The OSCs didn't want Reagan as their candidate in the post-Watergate election of '76 and his NSC ideals of a stronger military and smaller government to run the party in '76.  The powers-that-were for the republican party gave Ronaldus Maximus the boot when the primaries rolled around that year, and Ford the OSC lost to Carter the OSL due to Watergate.  Reagan came back four years later as a NSC, again, and wiped the incumbent off the electorate map, completely.

The NSLs (the hippy types) came close to reaching the level of FDR while Billy Bob was in office in the ‘90s, but he ends up coming in a close fourth or fifth in terms of respect among the liberal electorate, behind the likes of FDR, Truman, JFK and/or LBJ, mainly because there was never a war to associate with his administration. Kosovo was not a war – hardly a conflict. Do you remember the media TRYING to make it a bigger conflict than it was?  Truman's decision to drop the bombs in ’45 is what puts him on the list and makes him the BEST democratic president who ever lived in MY book. Some would argue, and there is a great deal of evidence to support the claim, that Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki saved my father's life.  So, for me, this is personal.

Do you remember hearing many of Billy Bob's former subordinates lamenting the timing 9/11/01 on 9/12/01? What upset them was the fact that this attack happened during GWB’s administration and not Billy Bob’s a year earlier.  Had this happened while Billy Bob drove the desk in the oval office between visits from Monica, there wouldn’t be too much left of the Arabian world.  Billy Bob would have seen to it, with the drive-by-media's permission, that all terrorists (and everyone within 100 miles of them) died, and this would have been his crowning achievement.  Granted, there would have been death and destruction all over the Muslim World, but the media would have explained to us that the terrorists got what they deserved. Much like what we did to Japan for its attack on Pearl Harbour.

Since the terrorist attack happened under his successor’s administration, Clinton will be remembered only for getting his knob polished in the oval office while working and punting on his responsibility to return the favor to the terrorists after their deadly attacks on the embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole, and the FIRST WTC attack.  He dumped those issues in the laps of Law Enforcement.

Some would argue, also, that it was his laissez-faire attitude towards terrorism that produced the likes of Bin Laden because the U.S. appeared to be tucking tail after these attacks on the embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole, and WTC '93 while he was in office, i.e. Clinton made no one pay with his life for those pre-9/11 attacks during his administration. He told us that law enforcement would deal with the issue. As all nihilists are wont, Billy Bob dismissed Bin Laden simply as just another nihilist wanting to read his name in the paper or see his picture on TV during the evening news. It always takes one to know one. 

"So, what we have here is a failure to communicate, and some men you just can’t reach." Forgive me for the quote from Cool-Hand Luke, but it seemed appropriate.

There may be some in-fighting among the liberals between those who want to see a return to the '30s to get a chance to rewrite the liberal dogma and those who don't want to see the country return to the '30s because they feel that FDR got it right the first time.

"If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" is their mantra.

Billy Bob was SO close to repeating the '30s in the '90s because during the '30s, there were types then, similar to the people, whom you saw just last weekend at those war "protests," who just wanted the U.S. minding its own business while a republican is running the country, the rest of the world be damned. These people are isolationists, for the moment.  Isolationism is fine, but you must be prepared to pay the consequences either way.  The premier isolationists, the Frogs (French), came crying to us after Hitler invaded Paris in the summer of 1940, and we could not remain isolationists while Germany had its way with its neighbors across the pond. Luckily, Japan gave us a means to justify entering the conflict raging in Europe.

Were a Democrat sitting behind-the-desk in the Oval Office at the time of the attacks in '01, the media's opinions would be 180 degrees from where they are now. Those protesters would be graying NSLs who would be singing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or whistling the Marine Hymn - not NSLs looking for their next hit of weed or what have you. Since a republican holds the office and has taken the battle to the enemy, the NSLs are crying about the "abuse" at Guantanamo, 500,000 dead Iraqis, and the Surge!

In their minds, the freedoms and the rights of the citizens of another country are not our problem. Heck! France made our revolutionary war its problem only to spite the British with whom they fought for many of the centuries preceeding the American Revolutionary War, but the world was so backwards then, and Colonial France, at the time, thankfully, was one of the most advanced countries in the world. Let's jump back to the first-half of the 20th century now. This ideal of isolationism was an idea rampant in Europe among the "learned" classes in the ‘30s that gave us Hitler. These people just told themselves, mistakenly,

"If we just give Hitler a little bit of land, then he will leave us alone. Not a problem." Many of the Jews in the '30s in Europe subscribed to this ideal until it was too late.

Hitler marched his military throughout Europe and N. Africa to little or no resistance. Today, these same sorts of people are telling us the same thing by saying, for the most part. Just replace Hitler with Ahmadinejad and land with nukes, and you will hear much of what the intelligentsia are telling us today.

These people also like to tell us,

"We don’t need to be too concerned with another terrorist attack because the 9/11 hijackers just got lucky. All those hijackers just needed a hug!" These same people said the same thing about the Soviets in the '80s and early '90s. Well, another attack like 9/11 is not likely for many reasons because no group of passengers is going to let that happen again. Any terrorist who announces to the passengers that he is going to hijack the plane is going to be met with a rush of passengers headed for the cockpit to wrest control of the plane from the terrorists. So, be prepared to endure either a dirty nuclear bomb or a nuclear attack itself. Never will there be another successful hijacking of a commercial airplane again.

Then if the terrorists attack again, and there is a democrat at the helm, the media will begin telling us that we must mow down these people and afford them no refuge anywhere in the world. THIS is my prediction. The days after 9/11 saw me listening to liberal-leaning toady friends, other than you, Tom, telling me,

"We need to know our enemy!"

No, we don’t! Our enemy has declared himself, and he is an Islamo-fascist.

The reason WHY she cut her locks was to do US a favor, you Gomers in the media!

She did it to get Anna Nicole off our TV sets!  Prior to the removal of her hair, Anna is all we could see on the T.V!

So, make of it what you will.  She is not going off the edge!  She is doing us all a favor and getting another tramp off T.V.

 

All the political news that is grating my nerves as we speak got me thinking this morning while attending church. My mind tends to wander some times, and this is the line down which one of its tiny thoughts took it.

Let's say that we get to the elections in 2008 sans any terrorist attacks here in the U.S. After all, GWB is making an honest attempt to keep these terrorists busy in Iraq as he tries to build a self-supporting and reliant democracy within the same country and in Afghanistan as well and fend off all the naysayers who stand in his way. Then GWB says goodbye to the Whitehouse and the trappings of his presidency. No problem. Then let's say we get attacked eight or nine months into the next president's term. On whom will all the liberals blame the attack?

Well, THAT depends on who is in the White House. If Hillary or Obama, heaven forbid, gets the nod from us collectively, then the Drive-by-Media (DBM) will blame it on President Bush's War in Iraq for stoking the flames-of-terrorism while he served as president. This thought smacks me as funny, and forgive me if you see me making fun of terrorism because that isn't what is happening here. Nine months into Bush's presidency, the media tried to blame him for 9/11 since he WAS the boss.

The media gave no concern for the lack-of-action outside that Oval Office closet by its prior occupant when it came time for him to step up to the plate and battle terrorism. Suddenly, GWB would be responsible for the second terror attack on U.S. soil as well as the first according to all the “smart” people in the media. Terrorists attacked us a number of times in the ‘90s and heckled our “lack of response.” Heck, the DBM are still trying to sweep the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa under-the-rug and hoping that no one brings them back into the light-of-day. Billy Bob (President Clinton) didn't do anything in response to those attacks and defends this decision to this day!

On the other hand, if we get a conservative in the White House, the DBM will, more-than-likely, try to blame him/her (Go, Condi, go!) AND GWB for the attacks.

You can bet that the next attack will not be anything like 9/11. We passengers will not let that happen again. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. My guess is that there will NEVER be another hi-jacked flight for the next 20 years, at least, because once these terrorists begin the effort, they will be mobbed by every non-terrorist on the plane. Heck, the only way a plane is going to be hi-jacked now is if most of the people flying on this particular flight are Muslim terrorists.

So be warned, America! Don't get onto a plane here in the U.S. where you would find yourself in such a predicament. It's preposterous to say this, but the 9/11 terrorists shot themselves in the feet BEFORE they killed everyone by doing what they did. There will NEVER be another flight that is commandeered by terrorists.

The next attack on American soil will be a nuclear attack. Will it be a nuclear explosion? It will probably not be. The equipment and skill required to pull that off are too great, regardless of what you might have seen in Fox’s “24.” So, more than likely, it will be a conventional explosion of radioactive material - a dirty bomb - set off in some large city to get everyone scared out of his/her wits.

 

Well, Tom, let me take these moments to explain to you WHY we attacked and invaded Iraq. Certainly, if a knucklehead like I am can figure this out, certainly someone as smart as you can see beyond the points you will read in this short note and make intelligent conclusions from them on your own. At the beginning, this note WAS not this long, but more points came to light as my tiny brain tackled all these issues.

In short, we attacked and invaded Iraq because Afghanistan has no access to oil and a democracy in Afghanistan is going to need all the financial and military help it can get from any fellow oil-backed democracies in the area that it can get, and it is better if the other supporting democracy is another Arab democracy – not a Persian one. No infant democracy, like Afghanistan's, would be able to withstand the attacks that Saddam's Iraq, with its oil-funded weapons, would be able to unleash on it had we, in the western world, made no effort to redirect its population towards democracy. Remember that S. Vietnam collapsed like a house-of-cards once we pulled out of there. It too had no oil, i.e. no manner of self-sufficiency!

If you consider the geography of the area, Iran is stuck between Afghanistan and Iraq, and if you put a thriving democracy on each side of Iran, you may get a freebie, eventually.

After all, Afghanistan is too poor, comparatively speaking, to defend itself against the likes of the unfriendly Arab/Persian nations on its boarders like Iran, for example. The LAST thing any self-appointed, or even “elected” in Iran’s case, leader is going to want is a democracy nearby because his people will see for themselves the freedoms under which this democratic country's citizens will be living and thriving and want these freedoms for their families and themselves.

In fact, this Iraq option WAS the path of least resistance (death) for everyone involved, but especially for the U.S.

Let me explain.

The libs are still wishing that GWB attacked and invaded only Afghanistan because that country would become a house of cards (again, like S. Vietnam was in the early ‘70s) that any leader over there with an oil-funded military could collapse (like the N. Vietnamese did to ARVN with Soviet support), and then liberals would be able to blame all the death and destruction during the subsequent collapse of Afghanistan on Bush as well. That's a two-for-one deal for them, and NO democrat is going to ignore THAT kind of deal.

Those wounds from Vietnam are still smarting for the liberals. The libs opposed the invasion of Iraq, after voting for it, because they realized that once Iraq goes democratic, its oil will KEEP it democratic. Libs came up with lame accusation after lame accusation like "no blood for oil!" or “W is fighting his daddy’s war” or referred to him as “Bushitler” or asked, "Where are Saddam's nukes?" to argue against Bush's Iraq invasion plan.

If we could count on a larger and more "stable" nation like Saudi Arabia, for example, to defend tiny, poor, defenseless Afghanistan, then we would be better off, but THAT is not going to happen! The people in Saudi Arabia are wearing the same shackles around their necks, ankles, and wrists as are all the other Arabs and Persians living in the area. The LAST thing the Saudi leaders want to do is to let their people get a whiff of the freedom under which we, in the western world, live and thrive. Now you can dig up Saddam’s cure body-by-body to the affliction of "freedom" in '91 and '92 after H.W.’s (daddy’s) Persian Gulf War in Iraq’s desert.

Of the THREE countries that GWB coined as the "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea), the lowest-hanging fruit on the terrorism tree was Iraq, and thus, Iraq was the easiest-to-pick, i.e. defeat militarily. Afghanistan did not make it onto this list because President Bush knew that the Taliban leadership would be a pushover for the U.S. military, as it proved to be. Remember that Afghanistan has no oil. Sure, there are still attacks in Afghanistan now and then, but the "war" in Afghanistan ended shortly after it began due to the disorganized nature of the Taliban's command structure and the wealth of the country. The citizens of that country are thriving now and very grateful for the removal of the Taliban’s shackles. The media will never explain that in the U.S., however.

Thanks to the conflict with Saddam's Iraq 20 years ago, Iran's army is too strong of a foe, still, to defeat easily, and there would need to be too much collateral damage, i.e. destruction of civilian infrastructure, to take down the Iranian leadership. On the other hand, attacking a communist little guy like North Korea is just as foolish because his much bigger and older brother (China) is RIGHT next door, and no Chinese leader, much like leaders in the Arab/Persian world, is going to permit a fledgling democracy to grow and flourish on his country's doorstep either.

The Chinese people will rid themselves of their communist shackles when they begin to understand and see that the great big world outside their doors is passing them by. The China "problem" will solve itself on its own. Will it be bloodless? It will not be. As it is written in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is the natural state for all humankind. No need for us to throw any fuel on that Chinese fire or to poke at it with a stick.

Thus, there is no way to defend an infant democracy either in North Korea or Iran easily. Liberals made NO effort to save S. Vietnam from the communist noose. Defending either of these two options would translate into a greater need for body bags for our soldiers, marines, pilots, and sailors. Sure, establishing a democracy in Iraq is going to have problems! Infant democracies ALWAYS have problems – present company included. You have the same manner of trouble-makers from Syria and Iran pouring over the borders into Iraq and Afghanistan to stifle these efforts. The Sunnis are nothing more than a cancer in THIS situation. Convincing them to align with the Shia and Kurd populations is the trick that GWB has yet to pull from his hat.

What saved the U.S. in the early 19^th century from many of the same troubles that Iraq is having today is that the U.S. is not as landlocked as Iraq is, and that the neighbors to the north and south did not have the financial power of oil to make the pursuit of liberty and freedom difficult for the U.S. citizens back then. If you will, imagine the Mexicans to the south or the French Canadians to the north trying to overthrow the U.S. back then as a "favor" to the British. Granted, the French hated the British, and the Mexican military did not exist back then. The British TRIED to fix the issue with the War of 1812 but they failed to make an impact and sailed back home with their tails between their legs.

No, this conflict not another Vietnam, yet. GWB did his best to insure of this by demanding those elections for the Iraqi people THREE times since the invasion back in the spring of ’03, and the Iraqi people responded by going to the polls while under fire from Iranian/Syrian/Baathist terrorists to cast their votes and to elect their future. If you ask me, there are people in Vietnam who are wishing that the liberal leadership of the U.S. Congress treated them the same way 30/40 years ago. No liberal was going to let a mass of “uneducated” Vietnamese vote and decide its own future back then in the mid-to-late ‘60s.

All libs were and still ARE FDR wannabes! You can bank on that. Give me ONE example where one liberal has ever thought otherwise! Remember, the libs gave us Vietnam – the wunderkinds of Kennedy and Johnson, et al, are to blame for starting and exacerbating the conflict in Vietnam, respectively. Did either of those goons or their administrations ever consider letting the S. Vietnamese vote for their future? Both had FDR dreams, but THAT can be put onto the back burner for now. It is an affliction in which the 60 years since have seen no cure, and leading democrats still fall victim to these same seductions today.

Sure, war is hell. You saw the hell in that short video. Would you want to be responsible for explaining to the parents of the soldiers, whom those terrorists would have killed, just why their sons are dead now? It's always easier to shoot an enemy from miles away than to shoot him up close. In the modern world, one no longer needs to see the whites of his target’s eyes before he shoots.

This was why those terrorists hid that gun. They hoped to draw the soldiers closer to them so they could take a few soldiers/marines with them, and only dead terrorists wave white flags in the dead of night to surrender. Remember, Clinton set an unfortunate precedent in that short war in Kosovo in the ‘90s simply by dropping bombs from 15,000 feet. Would you have the cojones to tell these soldiers' parents that the U.S. military made a mistake by letting those armed terrorists live long enough to get a bead on their sons and to take their sons with them before more of our soldiers could get a round or two into them?

Not likely.

Sure! This conflict is going to take a while. GWB told us as much before any U.S. soldier/marine fired that first shot or pilot dropped that first bomb. Since no liberal has ever written a book on how to build a democratic nation successfully and MORE importantly DOESN’T want President Bush being the FIRST to write this best seller, there are going to be setbacks and obstacles.

BTW, nor has a conservative written this book, but you don't hear too many conservatives bitching about the job that President Bush is doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. The libs can't STOP bitching about his performance. GWB is going above and beyond his call as president of THIS country to GIVE the people of Afghanistan and Iraq a stable footing on which they can build their nations and societies and become active participants in the progress of the modern world. The Democratic cornerstone is the toughest, always, for a leader to lay. Thank the Good Lord that we had George Washington! Any despot can build a nation on his own! The list of those is long. It took us TEN years if not longer, after WWII, to do it in Germany and Japan to moderate successes, but there are still U.S. soldiers in those countries.

Will we ever leave Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, looking at what the liberals in the house and senate gave us with Germany and Japan ex-post-conflicto, we may be in the mid-east for generations since we’re still in those two countries. The liberal congress of the 40’s and 50’s didn’t set the bar very high. Now we have liberal control of Congress again, but the President DOES have his veto pen.

Do you want your children living in fear of terrorism, my friend? Mac may be a little on the young side to remember 9/11. In fact, many libs out there hope children like yours will FORGET about the terror generated on that bright September morning in New York.

Another thing your “friends” don’t want you to realize is that it is SAFER to live in Iraq than it is to live in most large cities in the United States. The mortality rate is lower in Iraq than it is in most of America’s largest cities. Do you need me to say that slower? Sure! These Iraqis hate one another, and a better idea MAY be to split them according to these lines, but let’s give unifying them an honest and whole-hearted shot first rather than killing those whom we don’t like as Saddam was wont.

On another front, is the Earth getting warmer? Well, YES. It is. Is there anything we humans can do about it? Nope. It is getting hotter on Mars too, my friend. Perhaps your “smarter” friends haven’t explained that to you yet, or perhaps, they don’t see a reason to explain that to you since it would complicate their issue and make them look foolish as well. Maybe you will buy their explanation that solar winds are pushing the CO2 gases from our orbit, since the Earth's atmosphere is so dense with these, into the orbit of Mars, and thus, it is getting hotter THERE as well.

The sun is getting hotter, and those earth-warming clowns must believe that the sun’s output has remained a constant over the last thousand years for their silly explanations to make sense. In the last picture you see traffic in China! Urban planners here in the States would be crucified if this happened anywhere here. Riddle me this, Batman. Why did the Kyoto Protocol exclude China? Traffic congestion (pollution) like this demands China’s participation in the Kyoto process. India needs to be involved too.

Let’s get back to global warming. The sun's output is as dynamic, if not more so, as the wind here on the earth is. But then, again as your friends like to say, “It always depends on what your definition of "is" is.”