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....
On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters. The truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. The Marine sentries at the gate were operating under their rules of engagement, which made it very difficult to respond quickly to the truck. By the time the two sentries had locked, loaded, and shouldered their weapons, the truck was already inside the building's entry way.
The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside.
About 20 seconds later, an identical attack occurred against the barracks of the French Third Company of the Sixth French Parachute Infantry Regiment. Another suicide bomber drove his truck down a ramp into the building's underground parking garage and detonated his bomb, leveling the headquarters.
Rescue efforts continued for days. While the rescuers were at times hindered by sniper fire, some survivors were pulled from the rubble and airlifted to the RAF hospital in Cyprus or to U.S. and German hospitals in West Germany[1].
The death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. [1] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed.[2]
This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima (2,500 in one day) of World War II and the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the 243 killed on 31st January 1968 — the first day of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam war. The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas.
The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.
"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.
In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.
At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.
"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."
It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.
Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.
"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."
In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.
"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."
As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.
In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.
But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.
In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.
"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."
In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.
Thanks, Betsy -- for your insight AND for reminding us how old-school libs (including Jimmah Cartah) continue to undermine, discredit and backstab our elected leaders.
I can't wait to see how libs/extremists turn and twist this one ....
The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.
Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.
Although the plan would not threaten Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
A senior Pentagon official involved in drafting the blueprint said that Iraqi officials were being consulted as the plan evolved and would be invited to sign off on the milestones before the end of the year. But he added, "If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment" of the American strategy in Iraq.
In his radio address on Saturday, President Bush emphasized that the administration was staying flexible in its planning and would “make every necessary change to prevail.”
Saying the goal of victory was “unchanging,”” he added: “What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that goal. Our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting their approach to stay ahead of the enemy, particularly in Baghdad.”
.... Can't wait to see how these "tactics" are interpreted .
I don't recall who said it, but in my reading this weekend, someone referred to the many "fronts" in the War on Terrorism:
In the Middle East, in jihadist cells around the globe, on our borders, in the halls of Congress and in mainstream media.
I tend to agree that these general fronts exist. Regretfully, it appears that the most dangerous battle fronts are on American soil -- among political opponents to strategies against terrorism, in clandestine cells across our nation and in the MSM.
I hold these home-soil fronts accountable for our inability to stand united and for subsequent attacks -- here and abroad.
Will this war-on-many-fronts be concluded before GW leaves office? No.
Barack Obama on reconsidering a run for President of the United States: "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."
Visions of John Edwards and Jesse Ventura flash across my mind's eye ..... egads!
Please, God. Don't give us another inexperienced (took office in Jan. 2005) DNC poster-boy who has yet to complete one term in a major political office or to be anything but window-dressing for Hill-the-Shrill's campaign.
Hope springs eternal at the Washington Post . It's the newspaper of hope , in the sense that Canadian Liberals (as Michael Ignatieff claims) are the party of hope.
What the Washington Post hopes for is the end of George W. Bush's presidency . Since that's probably two years away, the editors are praying that the mid-term voting on Nov. 7 will hobble him by putting the Democrats in control of Congress .
On Wednesday morning, they ran on the front page approximately their 93rd story predicting this happy outcome , "Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck."
You can hear the chuckles of satisfaction in the newsroom when they agreed on that head. Not just a lame duck but an early lame duck! Yes!
It's safe to say that millions of Americans would also enjoy that prospect . Hatred of Bush has become a popular emotion, almost as popular in the United States as in Canada and Europe. But have those who yearn to see him go, thought about how they will feel when they no longer have Bush to kick around?
For more than five years they have grounded their response to world events in their view of Bush as a uniquely malign force . They may not know it, but their emotional well-being depends on him.
In a time of danger and instability, Bush has provided a perfect whipping boy.
Andre Glucksmann , the French philosopher, summarized the European view of Bush in a recent article : "He is the cause of all our evils. If he disappeared, universal harmony would be re-established."
Glucksmann pointed out that Bush can be (and often is) blamed whenever Muslims slaughter each other, in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. It's his fault when Iran or North Korea builds nuclear weapons. Glucksmann considers that nonsense, a "fantasy of an all-powerful America and a satanic Bush."
Still, it's become a necessary form of nonsense, a perverse kind of consolation.
What will Bush-haters put in its place? My guess is that his departure will induce mass trauma.
Millions of people, all over the world, will pine for the happy days when they knew whom to despise . The place where they nourished Bush-hatred will contain nothing but a void, with a touch of nostalgia.
It won't improve their mood when they realize that the Post-Bush Era looks a lot like the Bush Era.
Militant Islam will still be militant.
Russia will still be ruled by an autocratic kleptocracy, likely worse than now.
China will still be trying to get rich without freedom.
The United Nations will be just as useful as it is today.
Iran and North Korea will still be real or incipient nuclear powers. Iraq will be a mess, as it has been for decades, a little better or a little worse than in 2006.
Robert Kagan, the author of Dangerous Nation , the first part of a two-volume history of U.S. foreign policy (he's up to the Spanish-American War), was at the Munk Centre in Toronto on Tuesday to talk about American power and related issues.
He believes that from the beginning of the republic Americans have found it natural to involve themselves in the affairs of others. As he puts it in the current issue of The New Republic, "America's expansiveness, intrusiveness and tendency toward political, economic and strategic dominance are not some aberration from our true nature. That is our true nature."
The Bush Doctrine , dealing mostly but not exclusively with Islamic terror, echoes the Truman Doctrine, which defined the U.S. as Russia's principal enemy in the Cold War. Bush's approach doesn't deviate from tradition; it's a style and mindset embedded in the American DNA.
Whether it improves the world, as it manifestly did in the 20th century, can only be judged case by case. And there are plenty of cases. In the period 1989-2003 the U.S. deployed combat troops or used aerial bombing on nine separate occasions, beginning with Panama.
It maintains a "martial tradition," particularly when compared with other democracies in this era. And its reliance on force increases as Europe edges away from foreign involvement.
Kagan, who lives in Brussels, says, "You cannot live in Europe today and believe that Europe has any answer to any of these problems," meaning problems of geopolitics requiring force.
"Europe is self-involved, much more even than a few years ago."
In the winter of 2009, when Bush is back home in Texas, obsessively clearing brush , the U.S. will still be the only military power of global significance. And, following tradition, will act accordingly.
Icon and bold type added by moi. Get used to it. I'll use such techniques as the Lame .... Blame Ducks start quacking.
Don't get me wrong. I neither "follow" nor agree with GWB on all issues or on a majority of the decisions he has made. Heck, I'm not even a Republican. Why is this relevant? It's relevant to me because I have a deep and sincere respect for institutions. Always have. Always will. Especially for the image and office of the Presidency.
Until the Clinton Debacle, that is.
Few "things" grate more on my proverbial last nerve than hypocrisy, graft, sexual deviancy and betrayal.
A succinct explanation (assuming I even have to provide one) for my "support" of GWB is that his very carriage and character represents what the Clinton image did not. IMO, the Clinton mystique consisted of little more than a polished and self-serving "good ole boy" who networked and connived his way into power, prestige and finally, the Presidency. And when Clinton's Camelot crumbled, relatively normal people -- still refusing to admit that the emperor wore no clothes -- mounted an assault on the one person who displaced their fantasy-king.
Others explain it much better than I, however .....
Bush Derangement Syndrome: "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush." -- Charles Krauthammer
What's so significant about BDS?
In November 2004, Dr. Sanity blogged about the psychology of hatred for George Bush:
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
Krauthammer mainly discussed our homegrown variety of Bush Haters. Since Bush's re-election, Bush Hatred has spread like a biologically deployed weapon of mass destruction, hitting individuals and entire countries, destroying their reason and impairing their cognitive faculties- probably beyond repair.
Take, for example, France. In that country, the citizens as well as their leaders welcomed Yasser Arafat as some sort of folk hero; and even go to the ends of the earth to protect him after death. They also welcomed Robert Mugabe the Zimbabwe dictator, responsible for untold deaths. Yet they have made it clear that President Bush is not welcome in their country, burned him in effigy and insisted he stand trial for "war crimes".
Take Canada. LGFlinks to an articledetailing how the enlightened "Peace Activists" of Canada, cannot rule out violent acts when Bush visits their country in the next week. And these are just a few countries that pretend to be "friends" of the U.S.
So, what is psychologically going on here? Besides the usual Leftist/Socialist/Communist bullshit, of course.
A post by Virginia Postrelsome time ago had some interesting thoughts about the psychological origins of Bush Hatred that I think are extremely pertinent:
"When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."
That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush. "
It is truly laughable at the number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world. He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that occurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting belief in Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE representatives of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's interests at heart.
This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement". One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe. How else to explain the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world? (e.g. here)
A very good example of displacement that comes to mind is the plot of an old movie called "The Seven Percent Solution",which is about Sherlock Holmes' intense obsession with Moriarity. In Holmes' mind (distorted somewhat by the use of cocaine) Moriarity is the master criminal who must be stopped at all costs. He is evil incarnate, and the source of all the diabolical events of the world (sound familiar?).
Not until the end of the movie, under hypnosis by Sigmund Freud, do we discover that in truth, Mr. Moriarity was Sherlock's hopelessly mundane math teacher, who happened to be having an affair with Holmes' mother and escaped when Holmes' father murdered her (with the young Sherlock looking on). This event in his youth apparently traumatized Holmes to such an extent, he was eventually driven to using drugs to eradicate it from his memory. And pursuing the mythical genius of crime--instead of holding his father or his mother to account.
I submit to you that this is exactly the same process going on now in the minds of many of the Bush Haters. They want desperately to forget that there is a tidal wave of terror reverberating around the world and to pretend that everything is America and Bush's fault. So what do they do? They lionize terrorists like Arafat. They explain away the horror and brutality of Zarqawi and his followers. They support Palestinian suicide bombings and vote for resolutions against Israel. They believe that Osama is a reasonable person, but that Bush is not. They threaten violence toward Bush and hold demonstrations; and implement Sharia Law in their country without a qualm. Hundreds of their fellow countrymen are murdered by terrorists, but they demand that their troops be pulled out of Iraq (thinking that if they hadn't cooperated with the evil BushHitler, their countrymen would have been spared).
Rather than blame the terrorists; rather than admitting they have to take action against them; their fear is transformed to anger and displaced onto President Bush. If everything is his fault, then the reality of what happened does not have to be faced (this also explains the intense psychological denial that these same individuals tend to have about 9/11). Bush thus becomes the "criminal mastermind", so devious, so evil, that everything he says is a "lie", everything he does is part of a vast global conspiracy. His family has intimate ties to Bin Laden and the Saudis; He is trying to avenge the insult to his father by getting rid of Saddam; He plans world domination etc. etc. I could go on an on, but you get the point.
What is most funny is that these psychologically naive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this criminal mastermind, a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it. The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.
They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick). They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!
BDS taken to the highest levels of irrationality:
(From the Urban Dictionary) .... Bush Derangement Syndrome (or BDS) is a loss of the capability for rational thought. This loss is often displayed over a period of hours, days or even months and years. The sufferer in all cases blames President George W. Bush for any and all types of disasters, human maladies, etc. despite abundant evidence of contrary causal effects. BDS is also manifested in many sufferers by a determination to label President Bush as the greatest single threat to democracy and freedom in the United States since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the presidency of John Adams. Also, closely related, see Karl Rove Syndrome (KRS).
Examples:
A person who refuses to remove the Kerry / Edwards bumper sticker from his / her car, believing that keeping such sticker will in some way alter the results of the 2004 election. This is the most common example of Bush Derangement Syndrome - especially in Blue states.
In close relation to the above example, a person who from time to time will comment that Al Gore was really elected in 2000 despite the fact that however anachronistic, the results of the Electoral College determines the result of presidential elections, not the results of the popular vote.
And in yet another related area, any person who insists that in 2000 that voter irregularity in Florida gave that state to Bush and /or in 2004 that voting machines in Ohio were tampered with by the RNC, again to throw the last, critical state over into the Red column.
A person who resolutely insists that hurricane damage is controlled from the White House and is routinely directed towards areas of lower income / high minority population.
Persons who routinely use terms such as "dictator", "fascist", "monarchy" or "Generalissimo" when discussing George W. Bush.
Persons who never had any problem with former President Bill Clinton attending Sunday worship services with Bible in hand, but who see in George W. Bush the man who would be Grand Mufti of the USA.
and ....
Symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome include: 1. Believing that Bush caused Hurricane Katrina. 2. Believing that Bush was behind 9-11. 3. Calling Bush stupid despite the fact that he has degrees from Harvard and Yale and is a trained fighter pilot.
Why offer a B.D.S. Brigade blog roll?
A. To reveal the displaced frustrations and irrational associations which some people make to mask their inability to accept reality.
B. To reveal the very nature of the "blame game" and those who play it.
C. To do so with fact(s) and (when possible) humor.
3. Notify me at jww2006 at gmail dot com when you have the image/code posted and I will add you to the blogroll! Remember to tell me your blog link!
You may also copy this icon and use it freely when you wish to "alert" your readers to a BDS incident. If you read this blog regularly, you'll be seeing it!
This is a realistic scenario of how government-controlled health care will work if liberals (especially Hilly Clinton) gain control of national health care legislation.
Two patients limp into two different Canadian medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement. The first patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and is scheduled for surgery the following week.
The second patient sees his family doctor after waiting a week for an appointment, then waits eighteen weeks to see a Specialist, then gets an x- ray which isn't reviewed for another month -- and finally has his surgery scheduled "within the next year."
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The first patient is a Golden Retriever; the second patient is an elderly man.
"Whatever?" WHATEVER? Bill Maher (with prettyboy-puppet Ben Affleck on his knee) is taken to task and intellectually whipped on his own show and all he can stammer is, "whatever???"
Those following YouTube's purging of anything-but-the-comedic-and-inane videos (and who aren't impressed by the over-statement, lies and/or hype of Bill Maher or Ben Affleck) should watch THIS video.
What a hoot -- a guest who has Maher and Affleck stumbling and mumbling ....
Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI. Her research areas include the Middle East, South Asia, terrorism, and weapons proliferation. While at AEI, Ms. Pletka has developed a conference series on rebuilding post-Saddam Iraq and a project on democracy in the Arab world. She recently served as a member of the congressionally-mandated Task Force on the United Nations, established by the United States Institute of Peace. Before coming to AEI, she served for ten years as a senior professional staff member for the Near East and South Asia on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
It must be terrible to be upstaged and outclassed by a conservative woman.
If the Party of *BDS wins next month, Americans are in for a bad season. And for good reason.
* Bush Derangement Syndrome "BDS: The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
Our economy is booming. The job market is the lowest it has been in years. National Debt has been reduced. There is progress in the fight against terrorism. Gas prices are way down. Our nation is more secure than it has ever been.
What's gone wrong?
Two fundamental, precipitating phenomena, in my humble opinion:
1) The Bush Derangement Syndrome has finally seeped through to middle-America.
While liberal media and talking heads have harped headlines and sound-bytes on the foibles of Foley-gate and Abramoff-gate (nevermind that these gates swing both ways), the party of hype and histrionics has dominated the media and the Internet. "Blame Bush" has also been the undertone from both sides of the aisle.
Can Bush awaken the nation during the next three weeks?
Yes, if he is allowed to focus on issues and rattle a few cages.
2) Americans FEEL secure. With security comes complacency. With complacency, comes low voter turn-out.
Low voter turn-out means that hype and histrionics will prevail.
Complacency at the ballot box also results in political laissez-faire, which, under the guise of band-aid diplomacy, has historically provided a fertile field for liberals to AGAIN front secret deals at taxpayers' expense and to AGAIN trade critical security secrets to appease our sworn enemies.
Think North Korea and Iran .... Think Clinton and his "secret deals" with China and Russia. Think Carter and his love-fest with North Korea and Chavez. Think Sandy Berger stuffing national security documents into his undies.
Think February 26, 1993.
Remember September 11, 2001.
I can't imagine an America that would vote for a party or congressional leadership that has YET to visit or commemorate the six victims of the first WTC attack in 1993: A terrorist attack that included unexploded biochemical weapons (which may be why Clinton did not visit the site) and a homemade 1,500-pound bomb that badly damaged the tower's inner support beams and caused $500 million in property damage. Yet the twin towers were repaired, cleaned, and reopened in less than a month .....
Amazingly, an MSM that devoted gallons of ink and immeasurable air-time to a forged document to discredit George Bush and HIS responsibility for 9/11/01 -- never investigated the responsibility of the Clinton administration or a correlation between the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 and the damages done to the structural integrity of the towers on 2/26/93 -- during the Clinton administration.
In addition -- I hold MSM responsible for feeding a growing anti-war frenzy; yet, neither the MSM nor its constituent Party of BDS have shared any viable suggestions (beyond the ole "cut and run" partisan puke) for how and when.
If the Party of BDS, the Party of Hype and Histrionics, wins in November -- we can blame ourselves for our own complacency.
And our inevitable self-destruction.
Vote, America. Have the foresight and resolve to vote.
.... lest we forget ....
: 
I can't wait to see how libs/extremists turn and twist this one ....
I don't recall who said it, but in my reading this weekend, someone referred to the many "fronts" in the War on Terrorism: 
Barack Obama on reconsidering a run for President of the United States: "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."
Save this image on your computer and add it in your sidebar. Link it