Kowabunga

Time Magazine has a new interview with Stephen King, Maestro of Horror, posted on their website. In it, King states that the Bush administration should water board Jenna Bush and ask her if she thinks that is torture or not. I am not surprised by this line of thinking. The Moonbats and Chickendoves on the left routinely call for applying different standards to the Bush daughters, like having them drafted into the Army and shipped of to Iraq in a front line combat role. I figured King to be a Leftie, but am surprised that he would spew the same kind of rhetoric that his Leftie fans regularly spout.

From Times.com:

Yeah. You know, I just filmed a segment for Nightline, about [the movie version of his novella] The Mist, and one of the things I said to them was, you know, "You guys are just covering - what do they call it - the scream of the peacock, and you're missing the whole fox hunt." Like waterboarding [or] where all the money went that we poured into Iraq. It just seems to disappear. And yet you get this coverage of who's gonna get custody of Britney's kids? Whether or not Lindsay drank at her twenty-first birthday party, and all this other [bleep].

You know, this morning, the two big stories on CNN are Kanye West's mother, who died, apparently, after having some plastic surgery. The other big thing that's going on is whether or not this cop [Drew Peterson] killed his... wife. And meanwhile, you've got Pakistan in the midst of a real crisis, where these people have nuclear weapons that we helped them develop. You've got a guy in charge, who's basically declared himself the military strongman and is being supported by the Bush administration, whose raison d'etre for going into Iraq was to spread democracy in the world.

So you've got these things going on, which seem to me to be very substantive, that could affect all of us, and instead, you see a lot of this back-fence gossip. So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture. And then the guy from Nightline said, "Well, obviously you've not been watching World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson." But I do - I watch 'em all!

As King served as a pitch man for the hard-left MoveOn.org during the 2006 election cycle, I guess it really shouldn't have come as a surprise.

At that time he claimed he knew scary. (allbusiness.com) "[G]iving this president and this out-of-control Congress two more years to screw up our future is downright terrifying." Just wait until we have either Hillary or Obama in The White House. Now there's some scary thoughts; the stuff of nightmares for potentially 8 years.

King does have a point though. The MSM spends way too much time focusing on celebrity frivolities, like Spears custody battle and Paris Hilton's jail time.

As for the Bush daughters, if King thinks they should be waterboarded as a case study, then he should also be prepared to undergo that same treatment. It won't change his mind any, but at least then he'll be able to say that he knows waterboarding just as he says he "knows scary."

King does deserve one additional acknowledgment for his call to waterboard Jenna Bush. Congratulations Stephen King, you are the latest recipient of the Moonbat Award. Does this mean you are the King of Moonbats?

Tags:

Liberal Stephen King MoveOn.org Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator Joe Biden has been busy brainwashing 4th graders in New Hampshire. From BreitBart:

How did the war in Iraq start? Biden compared the war in Iraq with the invasion of Afghanistan.

"Osama bin Laden set up camps there, and he was getting a lot of help from folks running that country called Afghanistan. And that's where he planned an attack on America to bring the World Trade Towers down and kill all those innocent Americans. We had a right to, and we should've gone, to Afghanistan to try to get bin Laden and those people who've done very bad things to America," he said.

"But the president, I think, he got a little confused," he continued. "I think he thought the folks in another country, way, way far away, far from here, it's also far from Afghanistan, called Iraq. He said, 'The guy in Iraq he helped bin Laden do bad things to us,' and he didn't. He wasn't a good guy, but he didn't help. So we used that kind of as an excuse to attack Iraq."

I doubt many of those fourth graders will be reading this post, but I think we need to set the record straight. Biden use "simple" talk to call President Bush a liar. That's the way what he said will be interpreted. Now, of course, the leftist mantra for years now has been "Bush lied, people died" even though the president never stated that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11. What bush did claim is that Hussein was a sponsor of terror, providing funding to terrorists throughout the region, especially amongst the Palestinians where the families of suicide bombers received substantial amounts of money. Hussein also provided a safe haven for terrorists to meet and plan, although there is no evidence that any of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Iraq.

Another reason that Bush gave for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power is that Hussein had a large stock pile of chemical and biological weapons, and was attempting to acquire materials for a nuclear bomb. We all know that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons; just ask the Kurds about that. Although we don't know what became of the bulk of the biological agents (there were reports that some viles containing botulinum toxin were recovered), over 500 chemical (not including the two used against U.S. forces by terrorist groups) have been recovered as well as tons of precursor materials that could be used for building more chemical weapons. Then there is also all of the missiles recovered capable of delivering chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads that were recovered, many of which were acquired in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement.

And let us not forget the occasional pot shots, also in violation of the cease fire, which the Iraqi military took at U.S. aircraft.

What we have here is a clear case of a Senator who would like to be president, who is lying to children. It is one thing to be a chickendove and disagree with the president on the necessity of war (didn't Biden vote in support of liberating Iraq back in 2002?), but it is a whole different matter to lie to children about what the president said, and to call the president a liar.

Congratulations Senator Biden, for your moonbatting to children about the reasons we went in to Iraq, you are now a recipient of the Moonbat Award.

Maybe I should design a certificate and send it to these whackos.

Tags:

Biden Bush Iraq Moonbat Chickendove

Posted by Sqotty at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Nancy Pelosi is Moonbatting about the military operations in Iraq yet again. From Yahoo News:

"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.

"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."

Let's see, we have about 160,000 troops there now with the surge fully implemented. General Petreus stated that we will soon be able to draw the troop levels back down to pre-surge level. So that will be a 20% reduction in our "footprint" which seems to be the only thing that San Fran Nan and her puppet-masters at MoveOn.org and Code Pink are interested in: getting our troops out and letting the Islamofacists and terrorists have Iraq.

That is the fundamental difference between those of us on the right and those on the left, like MoveOn.org. We want to achieve victory in Iraq and leave behind a functioning democracy capable of protecting the liberties of its citizens. The left wants to turn it back over to mass-murdering thugs who will then eliminate a million plus Iraqis in retaliation for their working with the U.S. led coalition that is attempting to establish said democracy.

This is not to say that peace is not patriotic. It is. Victory is also patriotic.

What would the world be like if, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded the Philippines, the United States said: Well, okay, we tried to save the Philippines, it was lost, we'll let Japan have it. And China as well. What would have happened if, after we lost our first battle with the German Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass, we said: Well, Germany is too tough for us to handle. Let them have Europe. The end result would have looked much like what happened to Southeast Asia after we abandoned South Vietnam, thanks to the Democrats. Millions died. Except it wouldn't have been just a few million but tens of millions.

This is true of Iraq if we abandon them at this point. A million people will die, while millions more will flee that country to avoid liquidation.

Pelosi rants about how this may lead to a 10-year involvement in Iraq. Guess what, Nancy. We've been in Kosovo for that long already. There is still violence occurring there on a regular basis. It just doesn't get the press that Iraq does. Yet the calls to bring our troops home, and we have thousands over there still, are not made.

We also have some 60,000 troops as an occupying force in Germany. Yet the left seems to be okay with that occupation, as it is with our troops in Italy, Japan and South Korea. How about we reduce our "footprint" in some of those countries? Or is it only Iraq that Pelosi and her puppet-masters despise our having troops in, because they are doing something truly honorable in that country.

As for the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, Pelosi has her own party leadership to thank for that one. They set the tone of hostility in the Senate while there was a Republican Majority by forcing the 60-vote threshold on judicial appointments. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it.

As for Iraq, I have no doubt that we can be victorious, The question has always been how to achieve. It sounds as though Petreus has things on a track that may well succeed if it is allowed to work. Remember he said it would take at least six months once the surge is fully in effect, As that took place in Mid-June, which means he should have at least three more months to achieve his goals.

Of course in a society that has become used to having instant gratification, that will seem like an eternity. It may also seem so to the troops serving in Iraq. But then they should be allowed to feel that way as they are shouldering the burden of success, not Chickendove of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Tags:

Pelosi Congress Iraq Petreus Vietnam chickendove Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Chickendove filmmaker Brian de Palma has shocked Venice audiences with his latest attack on the military, Redacted. Instead of making a film about the heroism of the men and women who have served our country honorably and well (unlike de Palma), de Palma instead chose as his subject matter a rape and killing that took place in Iraq.

This is not to say that all of our troops serve honorably without fail. We have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is an example, among others. Black chapters in our history.

From Reuters:

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

There are far more examples of heroism and good that has come out of Iraq, far more than the very few isolated incidents of criminal behavior. Those who have committed atrocities in Iraq have faced charges and are serving prison sentences with a future reduced to being branded Federal Felons when they have completed their sentences and subsequently discharged. In the case of the incident that de Palma depicts, four of the five soldiers involved have been sentenced to military prison for a period of 5 to 110 years. It is safe to say that a couple of them won't be getting out of prison any time soon.

Instead of focusing on the good deeds that are done every day, form giving toys and sports equipment to kids and the reconstruction of a country, de Palma and his Hollywood chickendove cronies prefer to focus on the evil perpetrated by a very few punks. Instead of showing the brutalities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, and the courage of the troops that liberated a country that had suffered horrible degradations and mass murder, we get a detailed movie focusing on an isolated incident.

There are too few movies produced that show the good and honorable deeds of our Armed Forces. Hollywood would rather make films depicting American atrocities, rather than heroism. They would rather make films like Casualties of War rather than The Great Raid, We Were soldiers or The Green Berets.

This is not to say that ugly things did not occur, and, in fact, the incident de Palma focuses, the rape of a young girl and murder of her family, did happen. We know this to be a fact. We also know that the perps are in prison, serving very long sentences.

We also know that Al Qaeda in Iraq has perpetrated many horrendous crimes against the people of Iraq. One of the best documented incidents was written and photographed by Michael Yon, and published on his website. Why are we not seeing Hollywood produce a film depicting these important incidents? When they do, I will cut chickendove moviemakers like de Palma a little slack. Not much slack, but a little.

The film is listed as being slated for a limited American release and is expected to play better in Europe. No surprise there!

Tags:

dePalma Hollywood Iraq Redacted

Posted by Sqotty at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

I received an email from Senator Barbara Moonbat Boxer the other day. To my (lack of) surprise, she is once again showing her complete and total ignorance of what a U.S. pull out from Iraq will mean to the millions of Iraqis, as well as a complete lack of knowledge of the impact of the U.S. withdrawal and consequent abandonment of South Vietnam.

In Boxer's email, she writes:

Did you hear President Bush last week talking about Iraq? Instead of listening to the vast majority of the American people on Iraq, President Bush is talking about how wrong it was to leave Vietnam.

I hate to break the news to you, but Bush is right about Vietnam. When we pulled out, the North Vietnamese moved in (just as Iran will do to Iraq the moment we pull out). Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were put in gulags, and tens of thousands of people were murdered.

Things were worse in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge liquidated over a third of the population, over two million people were murdered, while the rest of the population were used as slave labor.

That is what happened when we abandoned South Vietnam, at the insistence of the Democrats who ran Congress.

Democrats like Boxer are not ashamed of what happened in Vietnam, and, obviously, are willing to sacrifice millions of Iraqis to a similar fate, this time at the hands of a brutal totalitarian theocracy. Should we abandon Iraq, as we did Southeast Asia, the millions of Iraqis that have supported their liberation from tyranny and aided the formation of a democratically elected government will be forfeit.

Well, just a reminder to this President: U.S. troops stayed in Vietnam, in the middle of a civil war, for more than ten long and painful years. More than 50,000 of our young people died, countless wounded mentally and physically. Suicides and homelessness still follow too many of our Vietnam veterans. How many more would have died if George W. Bush had been President in the 1970's? How many more of our troops and innocent Iraqis will die if we don't finally end this war?

Yes, over 50,000 Americans died, and many thousands more were injured in Vietnam. As for the "suicides and homelessness" of Vietnam veterans, it is thanks to the hard-left that took control of the Democratic Party in the late '60s and early '70s that we have to thank for that. Instead of a hero's welcome, they were spat upon by the chickendoves, and called baby killers; even John Flipper Kerry referred to them as being nothing more than killing machines and war criminals.

Although how many Americans and Iraqis will die if we continue to work with Iraq in ending the terrorism and sectarian violence is valid, it is also valid, and critical, to ask "how many Iraqis will be murdered should we let the terrorists win?" We should also ask how many Americans will die at the hands of terrorists if we surrender to them now, as they will be greatly emboldened to carry out more and bloodier attacks against the U.S.

Boxer clearly doesn't understand what is at stake in Iraq, nor does she care.

Congratulations Senator Boxer, you are a Moonbat. I think we'll start calling you Senator Moonbat instead.

Tags:

Iran Iraq Boxer Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Obama is showing that he is way out of his league. From MyWayNews:

Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall Blair stating anything along the line that the war in Iraq was a lost cause or cannot be solved militarily, as Obama implies.

Obama is rather funny, as he recently stated that he was sick of the tit-for-tat goings-on in politics, yet here he is, bloviating about the British pulling out a part of their force, even as they announce that they will be boosting their force in Afghanistan and how if Cheney says that is good, then there must be problems.

On the upside, if Obama keeps pushing rhetoric like this, he'll be giving Hillary a good run for her money.

Tags:

Iraq Obama Cheney

Posted by Sqotty at 8:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Susan Estrich is proving, once again, that she is a clueless Moonbat. From Blue Streak on FoxNews:

What's the point of a non-binding resolution that the president has already said would not affect his decisions?

How do you send a message to a person who isn't listening?

It is pretty presumptuous of her to assume that because the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as already stated that the troop escalation in Iraq will take place, does not mean that he is not listening. More likely than not, he is listening to representatives from all points of view. He is, however, in the position where he has to make the decisions in regards to ongoing military operations, not just in Iraq, which is the primary focus of the anti-war crowd's angst, but also in Afghanistan, Kosovo (we still have military operations there), and other hot spots around the globe.

He has listened to the leadership, and has chosen a course of action. It is the President who makes the decisions of where our armed forces are deployed. Not Congress. And not the anti-war crowd, who are attempting to turn Iraq into a 21st century Vietnam.

The resolution affirming support for the troops and opposition to the surge won't really do anything, notwithstanding the heated debate about whether to pass it. It won't stop the war, save a life, or slow the surge. Nancy Pelosi says the president can't completely ignore "the voice of the American people," but my bet is he'll try.

The reason the resolution matters is not because of its impact on the president, but on Congress; not because it will goad the president into action, but because it will force Congress to face its own fears.

The resolution matters, certainly, but not in the context that Estrich would have us believe. Such resolutions send a signal to the terrorists of al-Qaeda that America is losing its will to persevere in Iraq. The ayatollahs and mullahs of Iran are also listening, and see such resolutions as a green light to continue arming terrorists and sectarian death squads in Iraq. Syria and Hezbollah see it as an opportunity to exploit in the ongoing war against Israel, as they can expect that one day America will lose its will to support Israel as well.

Pelosi claims that the president cannot ignore "the voice of the American people," yet the only voice she hears is that of the anti-war zealots who want to see Iraq laid waste as was the country of Cambodia, in 1975, after the fall of Vietnam.

Estrich claims that such resolutions won't stop the war, nor save lives. However, they do cost lives, as violence escalates, as with the car bombing in Baghdad over the weekend in which some 60+ people were killed and attacks on bases, such as the one in which to American soldiers died, and 17 others were injured.

If Congress is to be goaded into action, let it be on to the path of winning the war and establishing free and democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not abandon these fledgling allies to fall back into the hands of tyrants and murderers.

Many keep harping how this non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives will have no impact. They are wrong, and it is the people of Iraq, as well as our troops on the ground, who must pay the price of such folly.

Tags:

Susan Estrich Blue Streak Congress Resolution anti-war Iraq Afghanistan War on Terror al-Qaeda Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

One of the things that irritates me the most about the Liberal-Left is their constant whining about the need to "take our country back." Obama has now proved himself to be one of the whiners on the Liberal-Left. From FoxNews:

In a video message on his Web site Friday, Obama said he was launching "a journey to take our country back and change the fundamental nature of our politics."

According to this kind of rhetoric, Obama must mean he wants to take America from freedom loving Americans. It means increases in taxes, government control, welfare, and poverty. It also means abandoning our allies in the Middle East, especially the people of Iraq.

He introduced a bill to prevent President Bush from increasing troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008 - legislation that has virtually no chance of becoming law while Bush is president.

Obama was not yet elected to the U.S. Senate when Congress voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, but he gave a speech in 2002 opposing the war. He said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and predicted the invasion would lead to an occupation with undetermined costs and consequences.

In other words, Obama would happily have left a mass-murdering dictator in power. He would have left the weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons remain in the hands of an oppressive regime that has a history of using such weapons against civilian populations. Obama was also okay with Hussein's torture chambers and the rape rooms run by Hussein's sons. It is also possible had Hussein been left in power, we would not only be facing a nuclear armed North Korea, and the developing potential of Iran with nuclear weapons, Iraq would also be in possession of such weapons.

Obama is also the darling of the anti-war crowd, with rhetoric like "What I am opposed to is a dumb war." (Anti-war rally in 2002.) According to Obama, our troops are fighting, and dying, in a dumb war.

Obama's qualifications to lead this country are also lacking. He touts as one of his major qualifications that he has lived in foreign countries (lots of people have, including me) and he has a degree (again, lots of people have degrees). His ego has been pumped up by an easy victory n the 2004 Senate race in which he was virtually unopposed, save for a token effort by a GOP candidate imported to Illinois in order to have a Republican on the ballot in that race. What makes him believe he can pull off a national electoral victory, especially with Hillary in the mix? Perhaps Obama is positioning himself for the number 2 slot.

Obama is a man who has lived the American Dream. It is too bad he doesn't understand what the American Dream is, and that other countries should be helped in shedding the shackles of oppression and tyranny so that they can pursue Liberty as well.

Tags:

Obama Hillary Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's an interesting day. On the Washington Post, William Arkin wrote a column (published Jan.30) in which he describes our military men and women as mercenaries. Here's the quote:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

There is much more in the piece, like:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

This male obviously does not believe that our military is a force for good, considers the tools of the trade to be obscene amenities, as he is unclear about what he considers to be such, that is what I must assume he means. These are men and women serving their country, fighting al-Qaeda terrorists and fighting an insurgency fueled by hostile neighbors (Iran and Syria).

By referring to him as a male and not a man, I am using a viewpoint set forth in a classic western film of Charlton Heston, Three Violent People in which one of the characters states that all men are born male, but not all males grow to be men. So it must be with Arkin. He may be male, but he is not a man.

This is made clear by his rant against to military, where he supposed that such as our Armed Forces would seize control via military coups if this were anyplace other than the United States.

In his non-apology issued today, he shows his utter contempt for our armed forces yet again:

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

No one, and I mean no one, has ever elevated our military to the level of "becoming hallowed beings above society." Except for the chicken doves on the left, like Arkin, who are too intimidated by real men and women who have displayed the honor and integrity to uphold our constitution and our way of life by putting their own lives on the line.

He stated that he was "dead wrong in using the word mercenary," yet there is a big BUT right after that, where he proves his utter contempt for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. He claims the situation is worse, that many of those who serve our country believe that they "are the one true nation." And that those who serve hide behind the constitution (what better document to use when expressing ones utter contempt for Arkin?) and the flag.

If the management of the Washington Post has an ounce of integrity, they will terminate Arkin immediately.

But they won't. They will defend and protect him, just as the rest of the chicken doves and the liberal-left always does when someone writes such contemptuous schlock as Arkin has.

One thing is for sure, Arkin is not just a chicken dove, but also a Moonbat, and thus deserving of a Moonbat Award.

Tags:

William Arkin Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Michael "Double Chocolate Malt" Moore has hit on a plan to win in Iraq. As ludicrous as it sounds, it is a workable plan. There are, however, a few very serious drawbacks. First, is plan is meant as "satire," for whatever that's worth. But, since he is the darling of the Liberal-Left that has run amuck in the Democratic Party, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone, say Nancy Pelosi, take the idiot seriously. Here's what the DCM Moore recommends as a plan for victory in Iraq:

Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!

You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!

Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.

Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:

The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:

1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where their vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.

2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.

3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.

Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!

What Michael Moron is proposing is the entire annihilation of the people of Iraq. Of course, in true chickendove fashion, Moore does not intend that he, or others that think like he does, should have to serve in the armed forces, or go do such dirty work as he has outlined.

Moore's rhetoric continues to be as offensive as ever, and shows what level of intellect he is capable of, which isn't saying very much. Of course, those who think he's great, like Jimmy Carter, aren't any better.

What is even more sickening about Moore's tirade is that he seems to believe it is the Bush policy (or perhaps he believes it SHOULD be the Bush policy) to kill every Iraqi. Moore seems to like the "kill 'em all" idea. I don't know why, but it sure doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think the people of Iraq would be too thrilled with it either.

Maybe, just maybe, one day I will learn why Moore and his kind are such a bunch of hate mongers.

Meanwhile, we should let his plan lie on a waste heap, 'cause that is where it belongs. Ever get the feeling he is still in mourning over Saddam's execution?

Tags:

Michael Moore Iraq War On Terror Bush

Posted by Sqotty at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

As noted in my previous Moonbat Award…it looks like I was a bit premature with my choice. Not because Bill has changed my mind, but because I had no idea that this one was coming my way. Rep. David Wu (D-OR), on the House Floor on the subject of War in Iraq. And I have to think Bill to alerting me to this. He found it on HotAir, which is one of the best places to go if you are looking for political video. They, in turn, found it courtesy of one of the users in their community. I guess this means I had better make HotAir.com a more frequent stop than once or twice a week.

The gist is that Wu, talking about the war in Iraq makes references to the Bush Administration as being like Klingons, or, more accurately, like Faux Klingons, as Bush never went to war (of course, Rep. Wu never even served in the Armed Forces). It's a real hoot.

I think I'll be having some fun with this one over the weekend as it is inspiring a story idea. Thanks, Bill!

Tags:

David Wu Congress Klingons Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions