From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
I've been reading sporadic (I use that term loosely) posts/articles on last night's debate today. I've found that most reactions are either disappointed that Rudy didn't do well, critical of McCain being "over the top," or cautious of extending too much praise on Mitt Romney.
Why are some folks cautious about Mitt Romney? Let me list a few ....
He's too handsome. He's too smart. His answers were "canned." He looked more like a movie star about to play the role of a president. He's Mormon. He's like a cardboard cut-out. He's too "slick."
Let's be patient while the nitwits catch up.
For those with an IQ above 65, check out this article. I'm not familiar with the writer's name (Michael Graham). He's probably handsome and smart, so those who were turned off by Mitt Romney last night probably won't appreciate Michael's insight.
No matter how many boneheaded, irrelevant questions were thrown at them by MSNBC Thursday night, the Republican candidates for president were really only there to answer one: Can you beat Hillary Clinton in November? (Bonus question being asked by viewers across America: "Will you walk over and beat Chris Matthews right now?")
If Thursday's debate had truly mattered, the performance of Chris Matthews and his Politico.com posse would be an outrage. Can anyone imagine Brian Williams asking Sen. Barack Obama "What do you dislike most about America?" Would Fox News have been able to get away with overtly antagonistic questioning linking Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to Cindy Sheehan and Al Sharpton, the way Matthews and Co. pushed the Republican candidates on Karl Rove and Scooter Libby?
No way.
But the media's pro-Democrat bias is part of the "Can you beat Hillary?" equation. Whoever the Republicans nominate will have to fight their way through the mainstream media to get to Sen. Clinton, should she (as she almost certainly will) win the Democratic nomination.
Republican primary voters know this. They fear this. And so they're aren't watching events like this debate asking "Can McCain beat Giuliani?" They want to see these guys prove they can walk on stage in some future forum, look Sen. Clinton in the eye and say "You're goin' down."
What Republicans are looking for, in other words, is a contender. Going into Thursday night, there were two. The good news for the Republicans is that there now may be three. The bad news is that the top contender is clearly not ready to go 15 rounds.
First, let's dispatch the seven non-contenders with two simple words: Rick Lazio. Lazio was a fine New York congressman and a decent candidate who was blown away by Hillary Clinton in the worst campaign she is ever going to run in her life. Republicans aren't going to pick another lightweight. They need a heavy hitter, and they know it.
Giuliani is, without a doubt, a political heavyweight. National polls show he can take out Hillary, and Republican voters know it. He's got the big name, he's got the leadership credentials, he's got the bipartisan appeal.
The question raised Thursday night was "Will he show up?"
Rudy's debate performance was Rocky II before Adrian woke up. He was mentally flabby, his answers were sloppy, and he appeared largely uninterested by the entire event. Giuliani being unprepared for a question on abortion is like John Edwards forgetting his hairbrush. It should never happen.
Getting elected president is hard. It's tough questions all day, every day. The only thing Giuliani accomplished Thursday night was raising doubts about his desire to fight.
Sen. John McCain, on the other hand, was all "Eye of the Tiger." He came out swinging, left the stage swinging, and — based on his performance Thursday — is probably being restrained by his aides in a hotel room somewhere as he flails his arms screaming "Lemme at 'em! Lemme at 'em!"
McCain appears to have learned the lesson of the last war — the 2000 South Carolina primary — and is determined not to lose again on the Right. And McCain has apparently concluded, "conservative" is synonymous with "really angry." So McCain came out angry. He was angry about the mishandling of the war. Mad about pork barrel spending. About taxes, abortion, global warming. He was mad as hell, and he's not going to take [insert debate topic here] anymore!
And it's true that, whenever John McCain is around conservatives, they're angry. Why shouldn't' they be? He's spent the past eight years pandering to the same mainstream media that mocks them, while working against conservatives on issues like immigration amnesty, and campaign finance.
Conservatives aren't mad, Sen. McCain. They're just mad at you.
However, if given the choice between an uninspired Giuliani and a hard-charging McCain, Republican primary voters may well choose the latter. McCain annoys conservatives more than Giuliani, but the fact is he's to Rudy's right on almost every issue. As long as polls and public perception show that McCain can beat Clinton, he's probably the frontrunner to win the GOP nomination.
But the winner Thursday night was clearly Mitt Romney. Before the debate, Romney looked like a candidate strong enough to win the nomination but too weak to win against Hillary. He's still a relatively risky choice to put up against Sen. Clinton in 2008. But for the first time on a national stage, Mitt Romney looked big-time.
His answers were smarter than Giuliani's. His passion was more tempered than McCain's. He was the one major candidate who benefited from the presence of the non-contenders. He was Brad Pitt at a Trekkie convention — the cool, good-looking guy who kept drawing your attention.
On the "Go GOP! Beat Hillary!" chart, Romney was the only candidate who moved up. Which means he was the only candidate who helped himself with the majority of Republican primary voters.
OK. If you clicked the link and saw his pix, would you settle for cute and smart? I'm referring to Michael Graham, of course.
I've logged Mitt Romney articles and comments too long NOT to expect him to dominate the debate tonight (although there was little actual debate in involved). HERE are some significant videos. There will be more, no less.
I didn't watch the dem debate, so I'm not sure how to rate hand-raising or yes/no vote tallies. Seemed rather elementary school-ish.
What liberals (Shrillary, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid, et al) should be concerned about is how easily the Republican candidates (well, most of them, anyway) handled the "softball," Mickey Mousey, leftist "loaded" questions offered by MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
My observations:
* First, Chris Matthews. He's a whiny-voiced weasel who has spread his anti-conservative spew forevah. From my perspective -- if he didn't "like" the answer a respondent was giving, he interrupted to interject a follow-up or re-direct .... Why was this low-ball loser even selected as a moderator?
* As for the "public" questions from the Internet ----- who the heck selected these??? They were infantile and relatively irrelevant. I'm still wondering where that "What do you hate about America" question came from ....
* Over-all, the questions focused on liberal talking points. Too bad the democrat candidates didn't have the same softballs.
Wait.
They did.
They bashed GWB, the WOT, the culture of corruption. Blah. Blah. Blah.
* I tuned in early enough to hear Keith Oberblubber-man define conservative. He really is a hate-mongering self-serving egotist, isn't he? Within thirty seconds, I saw him two times.
First and last.
* With utmost respect to him, Sen. McCain appeared (and acted) as if he did not feel well ..... All I heard him say were sound bytes and re-runs of recent stump speeches. He can lay it on the line, alright, but the line doesn't run all the way to the fence. If you know what I mean ....
* Giving him similar respect, Mayor Rudy appeared as if he expected his commendable reputation to speak for him. Not so. He mumbled. Bumbled a few lines. Got caught in some re-definition of his abortion position and generally failed to connect. Nice guy, but IMO -- in this race, nice guys better have their thoughts together before stepping up to the mic. I had the feeling he hadn't practiced in a group setting ... [Someone on some blog mentioned that Rudy is a lot like Shrillary. Both do well when they're the only one on stage, but they have difficulty in a group setting.]
* In all honesty -- I don't know what most of those guys were doing on stage. I was not impressed by either their delivery or their content. They represented a jumbled blur of sound bytes and camera-angles that too often spanned Chris Matthews' pudgy-faced grin as he unsuccessfully delivered his talking-points. He appeared really proud of himself .... Hot questions, Chrissy: Scooter Libby .... Clinton in the WH .... GWB ..... Carl Rove .... True gages of conservative thought. Oh yeah -- I almost forgot -- Iran and Iraq.
* The non-candidate candidates: Thompson and Gingrich. Neither one would have survived the first round.
Fred! would have taken too long to collect his thoughts before responding [BUZZ]. I'm almost convinced that dems are the ones actually pushing him to throw his hat into the ring .... He has little but "southern charm" and a great speaking voice to bolster his candidacy. Hey -- I'm not being cruel. Google his career as a legislator and tell me what he actually did to qualify him as President of the United States.
Newt would have asked for more time to include all the parenthetical references to his response -- while ensuring us that he hasn't decided whether or not he will actually run ..... Which he won't.
Prediction: Fred! won't run for President. He'll wait for the candidate with the best set of cue cards to invite him to run as VP. I like the guy. Problem is -- I don't care what he or his doctors say -- he does not look healthy.
Does anyone else recall how (back in November) Democrats began ranting about Iraq (especially Murtha) without knowing the distinction among Iraqi Kurds, Sunni and Shiite factions? It took several study sessions for Murtha, Reid and Pelosi to master those basic terms -- and even today, they hesitate in pronouncing the names of respective Iraqi leaders ....
---------------------------------------
As he has done for months, Romney speaks in details about Jihadists and the religious elements of terrorism. In this article, experts weigh-in on Romney's grasp of the problem and it's global implications. (Bold added for emphasis.)
------------------------------
Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., has sought to confront the religious element of terrorism.
"They are terrorists, yes, but more directly they are Jihadists," the White House hopeful told ABC News. "That has broad implications."
Romney's determination to avoid referring to America's enemies solely by the tactics that they use is earning praise from some foreign policy specialists.
"I think it could change the entire center of the conversation," said Mary Habeck, a professor of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
By identifying America's enemies as Jihadists, Habeck thinks the United States would be better positioned to wage an ideological campaign to "portray these people as the extremists that they really are" and to "drive a wedge between them and the vast majority of the Islamic world."
In her new book, "Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror," Habeck argues that Jihadists are not merely angry about U.S. policies. In Habeck's view, Jihadists are at war with the United States because they view America as the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate.
She told ABC News that if you refer to them as terrorists, "you have no idea what holds them together as a group or what gets them to join up as a group."
Romney's determination to go beyond the "terrorist" label has also met with approval by a Democratic member of the 9/11 Commission.
"The governor is on the right track," former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., told ABC News. "I continue to believe very strongly that a war against a military tactic [terrorism] is not likely to be very satisfying in the end."
Kerrey is concerned, however, that the root word jihad has multiple implications.
"I would not use the word jihad because there is a peaceful jihad," said Kerrey.
The former Navy SEAL, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam, would prefer to see the United States declare war on al Qaeda.
Romney acknowledges that there has been a "big debate" in academic circles about the meaning of jihad, with some people believing that a spiritual jihad was never intended in the world of Islam to be militaristic.
He says, however, that "there is no question" about what jihad means to the Islamic militants fighting the United States. Nor does Romney think there is any question that Osama bin Laden would like the world to see him as a potential caliph.
"The old statement 'know thine enemy' is appropriate," Romney told ABC News.
Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an "armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan." Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a "far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction" with a "very 8th century view of the world."
Based on his reading of books such as "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us," by Steven Emerson, and "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America" by Walid Phares, Romney believes the Jihadists want to "retake the ancient Muslim lands and unify umma, or the world of Islam, under a caliphate."
To support his views, Romney points to a memo that Ayman al-Zawahiri is believed to have written to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on July 9, 2005, in which Al Qaeda's number two tells Al Qaeda's top agent in Iraq that their mission must not end with the expulsion of Americans from Iraq.
The letter, Arabic and English versions of which were posted in October to the Web site of the director of national intelligence, lays out a four-part plan that begins with expelling the Americans from Iraq but also includes establishing an Islamic authority over the Sunni areas of Iraq, extending the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, and clashing with Israel since Israel, in Zawahiri's view, "was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."
Romney believes Jihadists are just a "very narrow and very extreme sector" of Islam. But given that there are more than one billion Muslims in the world, he warns that "a small percentage of a very large number is still a large number."
One outgrowth of Romney's focus on Jihadism is his support for increased surveillance in the United States.
In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation last year, Romney posed a series of rhetorical questions about domestic intelligence gathering.
"We have 120 colleges and universities in Massachusetts, roughly," he said. "How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who come from terror sponsored states? Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them? How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on? Are we seeing who's coming in, who's coming out?"
The comments drew fire from Muslims and advocates of civil liberties in Massachusetts while being praised by some conservatives.
Romney told ABC News that it was not his intent to suggest wiretapping mosques, but he has not backed away from wanting to wiretap extremist individuals.
"I would wiretap individuals wherever they are who are preaching doctrines of hate," he said.
"It's important for as many of us as possible to understand the nature of those who are our enemies in this war," Romney told ABC News. "They are Jihadists -- an extreme and tiny slice of the world of Islam. They will be defeated by military might and by the forces of modernity and moderation within the world of Islam."
Step back and apply Romney's holistic vision of extremist Jihad to what is now happening in the Middle East: This weekend a million Turkish citizens protested their government's "move" to enforce Islamic law. Last week, a "9/11-type" attack was foiled in Saudi Arabia.
Have you heard any other candidate assess the meaning and implications of the Jihadist movement toward a caliphate? No. And you won't.
Why do I (and most of my associates) support Mitt Romney?
Because it is truly time for a change --- a re-thinking of how to protect and safe-guard America and her resources.
"Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America."
"American values are at the heart of America's historic rise to world leadership. These include, among others, respect for hard work, sacrifice, civility, love of family, respect for life, education and love of freedom. To remain a superpower in the world we must continuously and vigorously reaffirm these key components that have led to America's greatness as a country."
"I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Today's schools are falling further and further behind world standards. It is time to raise the bar on education by making teaching a true profession, measuring progress, providing a focus on math and science, and involving parents from the beginning of a child's school career.
Because It's time for proven leadership outside the traditional box that has been crafted by self-serving electioneers promoting -- not national interests -- but their own petty, personal political vendettas.
The Federal government must stop its borrowing and spending binge. The debt is a burden on our economy, our currency, our foreign policy, and our future. This is beyond pork barrel spending. We must address entitlement programs - not just to save money - but to give Americans confidence in their future.
"I don't want to add entitlements. I want to find ways to reform our entitlement programs."
"Every legislator and politician knows [special interest] spending can't be justified, so why do they do it ? Because it gets politicians praised -- and re-elected. There's no courage involved in spending more money. Drawing a line on spending is hard and fraught with criticism."
Because Mitt Romney is a person of faith, driven by the passion to serve -- untainted by the passions of greed or self-aggrandizement.
Because Mitt Romney's personal and professional career reflects unwaivering loyalty and commitment to the achievement of objectives and goals.
Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999 the event was running USD$379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis. The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.[10]
On February 11, 1999 Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake City Games.[11] Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget.[12] Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million. Following the conclusion of the Games, President George W. Bush praised Romney's management.[13]
Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated his $825,000 salary to charity.[14]
Because Mitt Romney's tenure as Governor of Massachusetts is a testimony to his leadership prowess and capabilities in bringing a state from the brink of bankruptcy to a state which, in four years, replenished its monetary reserves, cut duplicitous and excess funding, expanded its social welfare services, developed "universal" health care for citizens and strengthened its law enforcement presence -- without raising taxes.
Because Mitt Romney understands the role of economic growth -- nationally and internationally -- as critical to our nation's welfare and future.
"America's tax code is a labyrinth that imposes an enormous and unnecessary burden on our citizens and employers. Keeping taxes low and simplifying the code will grow the economy and enhance our competitiveness."
"I said no to a tax hike; raising taxes hurts working people and scares away jobs. I also said no to more borrowing; borrowing just shifts our problems to the backs of our kids . . . Instead, I went after waste, inefficiency, duplication, and patronage."
China and the rest of Asia are on the move economically and technologically. They are a family oriented, educated, hard-working, and mercantile people. We must be ready and able to compete. This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity. Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.
"We have to keep our markets open or we go the way of Russia and the Soviet Union, which is a collapse. And I recognize there are some people who will argue for protectionism because the short-term benefits sound pretty good, but long term you kill your economy, you kill the future. What you have to do in order to compete on a global basis long term is invest in education, invest in technology, reform our immigration laws to bring in more of the brains from around the world, eliminate the waste in our government. We have to use a lot less oil. These are the kinds of features you have to invest in, you have to change in order to make ourselves competitive long term."
Our national investment in technology comes from both the private and public sector; however corporations today spend more on tort liability than they do on R&D. While the government already invests heavily in defense, space and health technologies, it is time to invest substantially in technologies related to power generation, nanotechnology, and materials science.
Because Mitt Romney recognizes that global unity against jihadism is founded in our military might and in expanding our diplomatic relationships.
"Radical, nuclear Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity. It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated."
"The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."
"As our military men and women fight against violent, radical Jihadists in Iraq, the Democrats need to stop pleading for surrender. At last night's Democratic debate, and in yesterday's vote in the United States Senate, Democrats waved a white flag to our enemies and our troops."
- ExpandingAnd Accelerating Actions To Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which was launched last year, was a good start. Yet our efforts need to be greatly accelerated and expanded. Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism needs to be a top Presidential priority.
- Empowering A Senior Ambassador to Lead Efforts To Prevent Nuclear Terrorism. Governor Romney would appoint a new Ambassador-at-Large to Prevent Nuclear Terror. He or she would have the authority and resources needed to work across government agencies and departments to ensure that our strategies both here and abroad are coordinated.
- Making Nuclear Trafficking A Crime Against Humanity. Governor Romney would promote an international initiative to develop a new body of international law making nuclear trafficking a crime against humanity, on a par with genocide and war crimes. With universal jurisdiction, charges can be brought up in any court, preventing traffickers from hiding in complicit or weak countries. Already, people have been caught attempting to smuggle nuclear materials for sale on the black market. Their acts should not be dismissed as routine violations of the law.
- Creating A Gold Standard For Nuclear Security. Nuclear power can be inexpensive and clean. Countries seeking to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes should reaffirm their commitment to non-proliferation. For years, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has been at the centerpiece of this effort. But because of recent technological and political developments, we need to update our efforts for the 21st century, including a new commitment to stringent security regimes.
- Frank, Direct Efforts With Russia On Containing This Threat. Governor Romney believes we must engage Russia in a frank and open discussion about the serious and disturbing turn of events in their country. At the same time, we must continue to partner with Russia in securing their vast amount of nuclear material. Russia must play a central role in any effort to prevent nuclear terrorism.
- Removing The Incentive For Dangerous Civilian Nuclear Capabilities. The United States should take the lead in organizing and financing an international fuel bank to guarantee low-cost supplies of nuclear reactor fuel to countries willing to adhere to heightened security and safety standards. Working with the International Atomic Energy Agency, this initiative would promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy while providing new safeguards against diversion of fissile materials to terrorists.
Because Mitt Romney IS from a "data driven, highly analytical, debate intensive background" ... concentrated on ensuring that this great country remains the world super power."
Mitt's message (paraphrased): 'I'm an executive. I'm for lower taxes and lower spending. I'm against activist judges. I'm tough on terrorism. I'm an American optimist. (Also, I'm handsome and charismatic and I can speak passionately without sounding shrill and nasally.)"
"To me, the bottom line is this: Which of the candidates is the most qualified, has the strongest record, will champion our conservative values, will make needed changes in Washington, and has the best chance of leading our party to victory in 2008? That person is clearly Mitt Romney."
But ... but ... but .... (ala Instapundit) -- There was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. So critics of the WOT say .... yet --
The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.
Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.
So who you gonna believe -- the dems or your lying eyes? How about your eyes or the lyin' dems?
...he was a key al-Qaeda paramilitary leader in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, and between 2002 and 2004 led efforts to attack US forces in Afghanistan with terrorist units based in Pakistan.
I await the day when the administration reveals ALL the evidence they possess that refutes the criticism of our involvement in Iraq -- particularly as it relates to the Iraq-Saddam-al Qaeda connection AND the attack on September 11, 2001.
Mitt Romney elevated his position among candidates this week by proposing to appoint an at-large ambassador to monitor nuclear trafficking and to suggest that selling nuclear materials should be equated with genocide and war crimes.
Republican Mitt Romney would appoint an ambassador-at-large to prevent nuclear terror if elected president, arguing that avoiding a terrorist attack with unsecured nuclear weapons should take on heightened urgency in the United States. The Republican candidate, in a speech planned for Thursday night at Yeshiva University in New York, says such a person would have the authority and resources to cross agency and departmental boundaries, ensuring nonproliferation strategies are coordinated at home and abroad. "Further, I would promote an international initiative to develop a new body of international law that would make nuclear trafficking a crime against humanity, on a par with genocide and war crimes," according to a text of Romney's remarks provided to The Associated Press. "By allowing for universal jurisdiction, charges can be brought up in any court preventing traffickers from hiding in complicit or weak countries." Romney says the acts of black marketeers trying to sell so-called loose nukes "should not be dismissed with the kind of nonchalance that accompanies routine violations of the law." Details of the speech emerged Wednesday, the same day a rival GOP candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, formally launched his presidential campaign with a speech in early voting New Hampshire. The Romney speech is part of an ongoing effort by the former Massachusetts governor, who has only served four years in elective office, to outline his foreign policy views. He has made several overseas trips, including one-day visits to Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In his planned remarks at Yeshiva, a 7,000-student research university rooted in the traditions of Jewish law and life, Romney chides former President Carter for suggesting a security fence in Israel prevents peace in the Middle East. Carter, a Democrat, shared the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for, among other international efforts, helping negotiate a peace settlement between Israel and Egypt. "What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand: Whether it is Hamas or Hezbollah or al Qaeda, there is an overarching goal among the violent jihadists that transcends borders and boundaries," Romney says. "That goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the world." Israel began building the barrier in 2002, saying the complex of concrete walls, razor wire and trenches was intended to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of Israel. The Palestinians say the barrier, which dips into the West Bank in many areas to include Jewish settlements on the Israeli side, is an Israeli land grab that locks them up in enclaves, robbing them of a future state. The barrier, designed to stretch 430 miles, is about two-thirds complete.
FROM Hyscience .... A compelling post and open letter to Joe Lieberman:
Our country is divided today in a manner not seen since the Civil War. Rogue far-left fanatics, socialists and anarchists, and all those who despise and hate America and would wish it dissolved and replaced by a Marxist multi-culturalist commune of relativistic moral values where all depravities are permissible and the only allegiance is to one's self, and answering not to the will of the American people, but to a "Socialist, Secularist 'Internationale' World Order," have taken over the Democratic Party!
Perverting public opinion with an unrelenting campaign of propaganda in the face of public apathy and complacency, much as the Nazis did in the elections of 1933 in Germany that brought Adolf Hitler to power, the Democrats managed to marginally win elections in 2006 , in some cases winning local elections by merely a few hundreds or a few thousands of votes in constituencies of millions of people, and abrogate the reigns of power from the silent majority!
As a result, in these most dark and dismal times in our nation's history - and even as we are engaged in a savage 'War on Terror' for the very survival of our nation against a fanatical, barbarous, and determined enemy sworn to our destruction and that of our form of self-government and our way of life; an enemy that values death more than life and has no compunctions or constraints, even enthusiastically using their bomb-strapped children as weapons of terror and mass destruction; indoctrinating them from their cradle to hate and murder us, and that use 12 year-old boys heinously decapitating a human being in front of a camera as propaganda as we have recently seen - we see House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat traitors trying to put in place a "Shadow Government," and trying to set up their own "Foreign Policy" and negotiate our surrender with our enemies in defiance of the State Department's Official Foreign Policy, the policies of the President and his Administration, and in blatant betrayal of our troops dying in the battlefield and of our country; now claiming, as has "Al-Qaeda" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (pun intended), that "the war is lost" while working feverishly to undermine our troops, deny them the very bullets to fight with for their survival, and achieve our total and humiliating defeat in Iraq at the expense of our brave young men and women in the battlefield!
That is why I would like to take this opportunity to hold Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to his word for the sake of our troops and the very survival of our nation. Thus I write the following open letter to Senator Joe Lieberman:
Dear Senator Lieberman,
In this most crucial time in our nation's history, and even as our troops lie in harm's way while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does everything in his power not only to encourage Al-Qaeda and our enemies, telling them that "the war in Iraq is lost," but doing everything in his power to ensure and achieve said defeat at any cost - even at the expense of the blood of our Servicemen by denying them the very bullets with which to defend themselves - I besiege you Senator Lieberman to keep your word and switch sides and become a Republican, in the dire necessity of wresting power, and the Senate Majority Leadership, from Reid and his defeatist Democratic ilk.
Those of us concerned for Israel also realize, from the actions of Senator Reid, House Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Murtha, and their Democratic cohorts now in power in Congress, that it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that they would leave Israel to its fate, were Israel to have need of us surrounded by a sea of hostile enemies as it is, with as much enthusiasm as they now work to achieve our defeat and for us to cut-and-run in Iraq, have tried to appease Syrian dictator Al-Assad in flagrant violation of established State Department and Administration policy, and keep making overtures of appeasement to a hostile Iran fueling the insurgency in Iraq and defiant of the world community in its dogged insistence on developing nuclear weapons!
All of us concerned about our troops and our achieving victory in Iraq, with the safety and survival not only of Israel but our own as well, and with the direction our country is taking under this present Democratic leadership - with the resulting dire consequences not only adversely affecting our nation's future, but verily the consequent course of history and the future of the world and Western Civilization - see it as imperative that we take the reigns of power from their hands... and only you can do it, Senator Lieberman!
I would like to remind you, that though you become a Republican out of the present exigencies we face as a nation, that at heart you will always be a Democrat in the proud tradition of FDR, Truman, and Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, that it is the Democrats who repudiated you and made you run as an Independent in 2006 because you were not enough of a "leftist" and a "defeatist" for their tastes, and that it is this Democratic Party hijacked by the far-left, the peaceniks, anarchists, and other fringe groups, which has left you and betrayed you, much as it has America's traditional conservative Democrats!
America is at a crossroads, Senator Lieberman, it faces one of its darkest hours even as our troops in the battlefield are being used as "political pawns," at the risk of their safety and their lives, by such power mongering, unscrupulous, demagogues as Senator Reid, and or betrayed by Democratic leftist ideologues in Congress! The fate of our nation, of Israel, and of Western Civilization hangs on the balance. The Islamofacist terrorist enemy must be defeated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever it rears its ugly head of intolerance, oppression, and death, or we let it fester at our peril. It will come knocking at our door once again, much as it did on 9/11!
The time is now, Senator Lieberman! Fulfill your promise, and your commitment to our troops in the field, switch Parties now, become a Republican, end the impasse about the war funding, and wrest the Leadership of the Senate from infamous Harry Reid, the Democrats, and America's enemies!
Our future is in your hands!
Sincerely,
AR
I would prompt all who are concerned for the safety of our troops and for the future of America, and that wish that once and for all Senator Lieberman would come to the rescue of our troops and our nation by becoming a Republican, thus removing the Senate Majority from the Democrats and the Senate Leadership from nefarious Harry Reid, to please urge him to do so!
Let us flood his offices with calls, faxes, letters, and e-mails, urging him to have the courage to fulfill his promise, switch Parties, and wrest the power of the Senate from Reid's hands!
Here are Senator Lieberman's addresses and numbers:
Washington, DC Office 706 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4041 Voice (202) 224-9750 Fax
Connecticut Office One Constitution Plaza 7th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 549-8463 Voice (800) 225-5605 In CT (860) 549-8478 Fax
You can e-mail Senator Lieberman from his official website at: http://lieberman.senate.gov/
For our troops!!!
If Sen. Lieberman chooses NOT to switch to the Republican party, my hope remains that he at least caucus with the Republicans.
