You have to admire those women beach volleyball players.
They are the athletes who get closest to the spirit of the original Ancient Greek Olympians.
And by that, I mean, of course, that they are the closest to playing their sport naked.
Endangered Species Act Changes Give Agencies More Say
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Bush administration yesterday proposed a regulatory overhaul of the Endangered Species Act to allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects, eliminating the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades.
The new rules, which will be subject to a 30-day per comment period, would use administrative powers to make broad changes in the law that Congress has resisted for years. Under current law, agencies must subject any plans that potentially affect endangered animals and plants to an independent review by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under the proposed new rules, dam and highway construction and other federal projects could proceed without delay if the agency in charge decides they would not harm vulnerable species.
In a telephone call with reporters yesterday, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne described the new rules as a "narrow regulatory change" that "will provide clarity and certainty to the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act."
But environmentalists and congressional Democrats blasted the proposal as a last-minute attempt by the administration to bring about dramatic changes in the law. For more than a decade, congressional Republicans have been trying unsuccessfully to rewrite the act, which property owners and developers say imposes unreasonable economic costs.
"I am deeply troubled by this proposed rule, which gives federal agencies an unacceptable degree of discretion to decide whether or not to comply with the Endangered Species Act," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, who asked for a staff briefing before the proposal was announced but did not receive one. "Eleventh-hour rulemakings rarely, if ever, lead to good government -- this is not the type of legacy this Interior Department should be leaving for future generations."
Bob Irvin, senior vice president of conservation programs at the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife, questioned how some federal agencies could make the assessments, since most do not have wildlife biologists on staff...
You have to admire those women beach volleyball players.
They are the athletes who get closest to the spirit of the original Ancient Greek Olympians.
And by that, I mean, of course, that they are the closest to playing their sport naked.
]]>If I were a practicing Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu, my beliefs would compel me to have compassion for George Bush the Third. I said "if."
Think about it; one day you are President of the most powerful nation on Earth. Now, pretty much everyone in the world hates you. Even the people who aided your rise to power are not returning your calls. Reputable scholars have determined that you are the "worst President in history."
Bush inherited a surplus; currently the nation is bankrupt. Millions of people have no jobs, housing, or food. His Justice Dept. has more people in prison than any other nation. He is directly responsible for the deaths of at least 1 million human beings. There is a distinct possibility that at some point he will be tried for murder and/or war crimes.
Maybe just being George Bush the Third is punishment enough?
Finally, my mother forwards me a link that validates everything I have been saying about George Bush since he stole the presidency.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/prosecuting-george-w-bush-for-murder/
I, for one, feel that as an American citizen, I have the right to bring charges against King George. I believe the sane subjects of this tyrant should speak up and start making some noise. It is really creepy to me that the media never talks about this perspective unless it is to give a gratuitous yawn to the fact that those of us who are passionate about this topic exist. God forbid you are the Dixie Chicks saying something about George Bush half way around the world. They were prosecuted and persecuted I bet still to this day before they made it back to U.S. soil. I have listened to a lot of country music since I started working at the shop and I have never, ever, ever heard a Dixie Chicks song. Ever. Sometimes on the pop stations you hear a Dixie Chicks song, but never on the good ole boy stations. They exercised their right to free speech and look how we burned them and George Bush who is responsible for all the lives lost in Iraq is impervious behind that smirk of his. Why can't he be tried as a war criminal for American lives lost and those abroad? Furthermore, as I have stated since the first utterance about weapons of mass destruction, I think we should explore whether George Bush is at least partially responsible for 9/11.
I have a torch and pitchfork ready to storm the Bastille, but I might settle for signing some sort of petition to bring charges against Bush. Something needs to be done about that arrogant ass.
]]>Today is the opening ceremony to the Olympics in Beijing, China and the promotion of the human spirt and dignity. Enjoy the games and enjoy the opening from the bbc with a cartoon slant on the 70's episode of Monkey Magic
David Power
Expert inHypnosis, Success Thinking and Practical Parenting
The War on Terror. Read those words; The. War. On. Terror. Each word has a blunt finality about it, this is not A War on Terror, it is not The Struggle Against Terror, and it is not The War on Extremists or weapon wielding maniacs, or the policy to protect people. It is simply The War on Terror and it is propaganda.
Muslim, Jihad, Taliban, Al-Queda, we say these words and we listen to them, but we do not know what they mean and those that do have no interest in telling us. They are words in another language that most of us don't speak, references to a culture not our own, and when we hear them, we think of what we've been carefully guided to think of for the past 7 years. They too are propaganda.
Before September, 7 years ago, there was a different war. Perhaps some of you remember it; The War on Drugs. We don't hear about the War on Drugs anymore, but not because it's been won. There are still plenty of drug users everywhere, their dealers are still making hoards of money, and Law Officials are still struggling to shut down massive narcotic operations. Still there is no more War on Drugs. Why is this? Because the War on Drugs is just words, and those words were once propaganda but are no longer.
The War in Iraq, we hear these words and they sound tired. Some of us remember that there was a War in Iraq once before, but it isn't considered. This is not another War in Iraq, because that other one was so short we hardly even managed to catch the exciting parts on the nightly news. This War, the War in Iraq is not just words, it is not propaganda, it stopped being so when thousands of soldiers didn't come home, or came home crippled. It stopped being just words when the last glimmers of the former prosperity of the 90's was submerged by market insecurity and rising fuel costs. They stopped being just words when the Weapons of Mass Destruction, were not there... their leader was dead... but still no one came home, soldiers were still fighting and dying, but all the propaganda associated with it was gone.
Osama Bin Laden, is a man. He is responsible for the deaths of many American citizens, and he is in hiding. He is not just words, but he is propaganda as well. America's people are united in their hatred of Osama Bin Laden, his continued existence justifies enormous public expenditure towards The War on Terror. His continued existence justifies the suspension of habeas corpus, it justifies torture, it justifies the annihilation of the Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights, and it justifies a national suspicion and borderline hatred of the largest and fastest growing religion in the world. Now what would happen if he were caught?
In a Democratic nation, propaganda is necessary. It creates a unified cultural identity and gives the nation a cause. If there is no cause than a nation will tear it's self apart squabbling over taxes and the cost of pies. Propaganda creates the illusion of a mutual enemy which unites the people and keeps the nation functioning. Democracy empowers any individual with a strong enough passion to change the course of his nation, but that's the problem. A ship can only go one direction, and if there are multiple rudders all guiding it in different directions the ship won't go anywhere and something could break. So steps must be taken to ensure that those multiple rudders are at the very least not all working against each other.
Democracy is a form of government, it is an ideal fostered thousands of years ago by men with a dream. "[It] is the worst form of Government, except [for] all the others" - and it is widely considered to be the best reason to be an American, or Canadian, British, French, Australian, or a number of other great nationalities. America can be proud that it was the nation that inspired the rest of the world to begin adopting this beneficent form of government. America lead by example and the world is a much better place for it today.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Carl Rove, are people, and they may yet be propaganda in the future. They are responsible for the deaths of many American citizens, and they are not in hiding. They were the creators of The War on Terror, they ordered the War in Iraq, and they have not captured Osama Bin Laden. However, they have used these things to erode, undermine and shame America's greatest legacy. The people who have been killed because of their actions are numerous, but worse is the compromise of the integrity of the nation which they have lead. They have successfully attacked America's ideals and destroyed elements of what make America great, they have violated it's laws, and tarnished it's reputation. And still they continue to do so every day, they tell us it is for our own good and we choose to believe them even though we know they are liars.
People say that America is being attacked, they say that it's enemies are growing stronger and that each person needs to realize this and take steps to protect their homes and families.
I whole-heartedly agree with those words.
]]>Today I wear the Malice Hoodie of Doom. It is the best piece of clothing ever. It is, in fact, a hoodie. Upon which are printed the words “Hoodie of Doom”. See here. I am feeling rather doomful. I would like to take this opportunity to bequeath doom upon the universe.
Doom doom doom.
I feel substantially better already. I think I may continue, if you don’t mind.
Ehem.
DOOM be upon the makers of the evil Marlboro cigarette, for creating such a delicately flavoured, deliciously toasty, yummily aromatic stick of death, from whose clutches I cannot seem to liberate myself. I am going to buy shares in British American Tobacco. I’m probably single-handedly responsible for their generous profit margin.
DOOM be upon the heads of the makers of the new Kylie Minogue album. Because I actually like it and on the scant occasions when I am CAUGHT OUT singing along to the masterful pop melodies I am filled with shame and humiliation. They’re just so…damn…catchy, darnit.
DOOM be upon the two girls who disappeared into the bathroom stall of the Corner Bar for half an hour the other night when I’d had too many vodka cranberries and the other stall smelled like human emissions.
And DOOM be upon the head of the old lady who scowled at my beautiful Hoodie of Doom in the Pick ‘n Pay this morning. She had a face which could, if utilized correctly, end the world. I shall buy her a Malice Clothing Hoodie of Doom. Which wouldn’t help, I suppose, because you’d still be able to see her face.
Sigh. I feel much better, thank you.
I’m currently trying to find a way to get a Hoodie of Doom to the White House. Imagine George Bush going about his merry day, playing golf and walking his dogs, finding new and creative ways of killing millions of people with his think tank, sending more helpless little soldier people into warzones, all the while wearing a Hoodie of Doom. In fact, I would love to send his whole cabinet Hoodies of Doom. They could all sit in congress, wearing matching hoodies of different colours, perhaps with numbers on the back. But I doubt they’d wear them in congress. But perhaps on team-building day.
In case no-body has noticed, Cape Town is cold. Freezing cold. Unbearably cold. This week in particular. There is snow on Table Mountain, which is against the natural order of things and subsequently adding to my doomful mood and making the acquisition of a warm, fluffy yet suitably alternative hoodie a must. If you are considering the purchase of a hoodie this season, check out the Malice Clothing Hoodie of Doom. It’s wonderful. Please don’t buy those awful ones from the skate shops. They’re not wonderful. I’ve noticed they come in pinstripe now. A pinstripe hoodie. Have you ever? And they’re made in Chinese sweatshops by small nimble-fingered children who have never been allowed to watch spongebob squarepants. Or speak. NOT COOL.
Doom doom doom.
Have a nice day. J
]]>
Fox News Channel farewells a former colleague. These are some of the people who knew him best, talking about Snow’s honour, decency, strength in his faith, generosity of spirit, and the love of his family. Brett Baer got teary in recalling Tony Snow’s caring, when Baer’s son faced open-heart surgery. Former president George Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush also offered their tributes in this clip.
Watching Barak Obama's climb from nameless state senator to Democratic frontrunner has been an interesting one.
Watching his gradual slide from the liberal end of the spectrum to something more moderate, though, has been thoroughly entertaining.
For the life of me, I can't figure out how someone who runs as the candidate of hope can possibly expect to run successfully through November when he appears to be nothing more than a maneuvering politician as it comes time to face the general voting population in America - a population that remains historically more conservative than all the hope in the world could change.
My good friend Greg over at the Office of the Independent Blogger linked to a piece from the Wall Street Journal focusing on the growing similarities between Obama's campaign posturing and Bush's own posturing. Granted, these similarities are slight, but they should be troubling to the true-believers out there who might've been holding out for this guy to remain true to his roots.
Of course, the other side of the coin is John McCain's absolute inability to sell himself as anything but an angry old man.
Just stop. Please if you stop I’ll stop, how is that for a deal SMN?
You stop printing things you must know are completely false and I’ll stop pointing out the fact that you are happy to print lies on a regular basis that call into question the veracity of everything else in your publication.
Today’s example from the LTTE:
“Bill Clinton was president when terrorists struck again, overseas, but the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil was after the second President Bush took over.
The second President Bush stole the election from Al Gore to settle a personal vendetta against his father and to get super rich. Vice President Dick Cheney has gotten rich off Halliburton, the company that supplies the war in Iraq.”
Where do I begin? How bout 1993? Who was Comrade and Chief in 1993? Oh, that’s right, Clinton was president during a quite significant foreign terrorist attack on US soil.
February 26, 1993 The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area.
Of course, if you want to be factual, it was the Puerto Ricans that pulled off one of the first.
January 27, 1975: Puerto Rican nationalists bombed a Wall Street bar, killing four and injuring 60.
I would argue that the collective amnesia about our own recent history (which the SMN seems happy to foster and foment) is why certain factions have been so successful using the spectre of terrorism to curtail our civil rights.
While we’d never seen anything like the attack of September 11th 2001, as a nation our symbols and our soil have always been the target of terrorists both homegrown and from elsewhere.
I won’t begin to speculate on why the 2000 election turned out the way it did.
People can still argue about it but the New York Times, that bastion of liberal opinion disguised as news, says they counted and Bush would’ve won if the recount had proceeded unhindered by the Supremes.
Of course in the same article they found a way to count double votes to make Gore win so again, not going to speculate but I can tell you Mr. Bush is not getting “super rich” in the White House. His tax returns are public record and he didn’t make as much as the Clintons last year.
Cheney’s links to Halliburton are well documented and scrutinized by all sides constantly. FactCheck.org did a very good analysis of what the Veep does and does not get from his former employers.
Neal Boortz said something interesting about lies on his radio show last month. He suggested that for something to be a lie there must be intent on the part of the liar to deceive, his point being that people can make honest mistakes. I took that on board and agree that an individual must know the truth in order to speak a lie.
However, when it comes to our journalistic stalwarts, they should know the truth and they must seek out the truth of everything they print to avoid printing false information. On this count our Savannah Morning News is failing us and is guilty of printing lies.
]]>
|
I don't normally do an all-out video posts, but after watching the hilarious Bill O'Reilly blowing his top off and having it "remixed" in a techno dance song, I was inspired to write about it.
So, if you didn't know, O'Reilly lost his temper after having some issues with the teleprompter and somehow the video got leaked on youtube. Like all things online, it's the subject of various parodies and the best one is this dance remix.
This video reminds me of some internet guy taking apart a George Bush speech and making it sound like Bush is singing U2's "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
The source of this video is originally taken from the 2003 State of the Union Address, however the crowd shots were not from the same union address. There's no additional information, but you can try and contact the original creator: thepartyparty.com.
And speaking of politics, remember that Barack Obama music video from will.i.am, from The Black Eye Peas? All the lyrics from this song was based on excerpts from Obama's speech from January 2008 at the New Hampshire presidential primary election. You can find all the details at yeswecansong.com.
What I love is that G4TV parodied this video for Cobra Commander (from G.I.Joe). The song made reference to outrageous Cobra plans for world domination and is written by Jonathan Mann, aka GameJew. He's also the person responsible for writing the music to the the hilarious X-Men: The Musical.
COBRALALALA!
Links:
weheartmusic.com
Democrat: Bush war on Iran 'likely'
Thu, 22 May 2008 20:09:22
|
In a recent interview with NPR, Webb (D-VA) said many Bush administration officials are pushing for a US military strike against Iran.
"Well, it (a military strike against Iran) certainly seems that it's on the table... There are people in the administration who would like to see that happen," said the Virginia Democrat.
In March 2007, Webb introduced a legislation which required the US president to seek congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran.
"This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own. It's not the way the Constitution was designed. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat," Webb had claimed.
The bill was considered another futile Democratic Party effort after it failed to win congressional approval.
from www.PRESSTV.IR
Sean says...
It is incidents like this that really show how ethnocentric George W. Bush is. And we wonder why the USA is not very popular these days. Personal respect is a huge deal in many parts of the world. Respect is represented by many symbols, physical gestures, words, and actions. What if this story was about a Chinese soldier shooting at a Bible? Or a German soldier using a Star of David as a target? Or if the American flag was personally burned by the President of France? Many of us for many reasons would be upset of course. Perspective is everything and I am glad to hear at least the soldier was disciplined for his actions. In many ways, this action is not just about Iraq though. Lately, it seems that on the Internet or in the press people have been using difference and lack of respect for different cultures or even different perspectives as punching bags to breed either fear or hatred in a subtle way. When as Americans are we going to realize that by disrespecting others, we disrespect ourselves and invite the same treatment?
The flip side of this argument of course is, "Why do symbols have to be important anyway?" It's hard to say what is or isn't or what should or shouldn't be taken as an offense. But desecrating any symbol I am sure any anyone's judgment is definitely a negative feeling toward something or just pure vandalism on any level. Freedom of speech should be and is protected in our nation, but trouncing on someone's beliefs just because they are different or just to push the shock factor is truly one of free will that should not be looked lightly on.
If you ask me ethnocentrism is the new nationalism lately... and sadly many in the last 10 years have been victim to it be it the Middle East, Rwanda, or our neighborhoods. In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
Please read...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office said Tuesday that President Bush apologized for a U.S. soldier shooting at a Quran, but the White House later said Bush expressed "deep concern" and stopped short of apologizing.
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president spoke to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday in one of their scheduled video teleconferences, which occur every week or two.
"President Bush expressed his deep concern over the incident and told Prime Minister [al-Maliki] that the soldier has been reprimanded by his commanders and removed from Iraq," Johndroe said.
However, al-Maliki's office said Bush issued an apology on behalf of the United States and "promised to present the soldier to the courts." The office said Bush apologized in a call to al-Maliki on Tuesday morning.
An American staff sergeant -- a sniper section leader -- used a Quran for target practice earlier this month.
The sergeant was relieved of duty as a section leader "with prejudice," officially reprimanded by his commanding general, dismissed from his regiment and redeployed -- reassigned to the United States.
Reports of the Quran desecration have enraged Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
The soldier, whose name was not released, shot at a Quran on May 9, villagers said. The Quran used in the incident was discovered two days later, according to the military.
A tribal leader said "the criminal act by U.S. forces" took place at a shooting range at the Radhwaniya police station on Baghdad's western outskirts. After the shooters left, an Iraqi policeman found a target marked in the middle of the bullet-riddled Quran.
Pictures of the Quran show multiple bullet holes and an expletive scrawled on one of its pages.
Officials said the soldier asserted he wasn't aware the book was the Quran, but U.S. officials rejected the claim.
On Saturday, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, appeared with leaders from Radhwaniya and apologized.
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."
Hammond also read a letter from the shooter, who called his actions "shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible," but he insisted he was not being malicious.
"I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together," the letter said.
Hammond said the soldier's actions were tantamount to "criminal behavior."
"I've come to this land to protect you, to support you -- not to harm you -- and the behavior of this soldier was nothing short of wrong and unacceptable," the general said.
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented it as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders.
Many Iraqi leaders said the apology alone would not suffice.
On Monday, the Iraqi Islamic Party, the movement of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, condemned what it said was a "blatant assault on the sanctities of Muslims all over the world."
The party said it reacted to the news "with deep resentment and indignation" and wants the "severest of punishments" for the action.
"What truly concerns us is the repetition of these crimes that have happened in the past when mosques were destroyed and pages of the holy Quran were torn and used for disgraceful acts by U.S. soldiers," al-Hashimi said.
"I have asked that first this apology be officially documented; second a guarantee from the U.S. military to inflict the maximum possible punishment on this soldier so it would be a deterrent for the rest of the soldiers in the future."
]]>I'll take "How much longer until that asshat GWB leaves office?" for $600, Alex.
If you can't respect and honour the young folks who make up the majority of your fighting military and put their lives on the line for you, then who are you as a human being? I don't care what your views of war are, nor do mine figure into this, but other than the usual few bad apples, and of course their civilian leaders, you just don't shit on your protectors, they who are willing to put their lives on the line for yours. I know that stories of their medical facilities have been in the news, too - I'm not ignoring that or other discouraging military stories, I'm just pointing out this particular story as just one example of the US military's betrayal of those brave young folks who thought they were doing the right thing.
I was doing some noontime CNN.com reading and came across this story. Maybe there's more to it than I'm seeing, since, as I said, I am not American, and therefore not up on all the news to do with this subject, but the last lines of this story (GWB's negative response to the subject) made me sick, for way too many reasons to list.
]]>The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States. I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency. The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort. In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy. David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam. He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:
The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence. They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief. That is the position of the Democratic party. That is a national disgrace. We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties. It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad. We were winning the war. But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad. And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people." President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying. What change was there in American policy between April and July? There was none. The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time. I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out. Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out. Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary. Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror. The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat. Was Afghanistan a threat? Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq. Afghanistan has no oil. Its got half the population. Its virtually all tribal. Baghdad was a pretty modern city. Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq. That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland. Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do. Something the Japanese could never do. Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do. And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat. Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy. America, the great Satan. He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam. All of this Saddam Hussein had done. And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States. I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it. You can go to Al Gore. On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech. Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush. And that was the axis of evil speech. And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat. Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself." "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down." That's what Al Gore said. So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war. that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field. Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war. If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies. On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war. When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him. But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein. What ended the Gulf war was a truce. It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions. And the conditions were UN resolution 687, and UN resolution 689. The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction. and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you." Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out. Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind. Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration. Saddam Hussein was a threat. Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil. And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power. Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant." Which the UN is. "And we will do it for you." That's what George Bush said. And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force. So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth. George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him. The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN. Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it. And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution. And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so. And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this. Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war. And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had. And that's why people say its about WMD's. No it isn't!! It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction. It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.
Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is. More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me. If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up. This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale. If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future. John McCain is a moderate. He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates. Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it. He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope? Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience. She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war. This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power. The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war. We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily. We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds. We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good. No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy. The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture. Everything else pales in comparison. Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice. Do not reward the party of defeat this election year. Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right. National security is tantamount in politics. Everything else is secondary.
)