Nobody to match Bush

'Infidels' target America
Sunday, July 20, 2003


The word "infidel" means "unbeliever." The infidels who featured herein were well described more than 200 years ago by that wise old Brit, Samuel Johnson. He wrote: "I do not know that the fellow is an infidel, but if he is, he is an infidel in the same way as a dog. That is to say, he has never thought upon the subject!"
This month, showing an equal lack of thought, groups of home-grown American "infidels" and their supporters from the Mideast and Asia have come together to attack President George Bush and some of his top aides.

At the head of the hit list compiled by these "infidels" are Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and the chiefs of the Pentagon's new Office of Special Plans -- Under Secretary of Defense William Luti and Abram Shulsky. Also in this group are Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith and Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

This group of fewer than a dozen Reagan and Bush loyalists refer to themselves jokingly as "The Cabal." However, these men are likely the best informed in government, will look out for America's interests first, and will be unwaveringly loyal to the president. It's ample reason for them to fare the strongest possible attack from America's infidels.

DEALING WITH TENET

"Special Plans" was created after 9/11 by Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, then chairman of the Defense Policy Board, to collect and analyze information from Iraq and the Middle East - especially information that was being deliberately downplayed or overlooked by the embedded Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and the host of other Clinton loyalists in the CIA and State Department. However, who is watching Saddam's American infidels in the United States? No one. These creatures are just abusing their rights to political dissent and freedom of speech.

The largest group of infidels currently attacking the president and his policies are collectively known by the name United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). Despite our American troops being killed by Saddam Hussein's terrorists in Iraq, these American infidels are opening their very own Baghdad-based International Occupation Watch Center (IOWC). UFPJ is the leftist-led Iraq anti-war coalition that brought 300,000 protesters into the streets of New York City and San Francisco two days after the war in Iraq began in March.

In their efforts the UFPC has key assistance from the usual suspects, led by the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), their overseas subsidiary, the Transnational Institute (TNI), and the most recent new arrival the Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF). The latter publishes misinformation that supports IPS' dismal view of the United States.

THE DISAFFECTED RISE

In recent months, FPIF and the IPS have been promoting the criticisms of U.S. Iraq policy through a group of some two dozen retired and aged disaffected former U.S.intelligence officers calling themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has the self-important acronym "VIPS." Members of the VIPS steering committee include people who seek to be talking heads, and just love to appear on TV news shows. They just crave attention and include Richard Beske, Kathleen McGrath Christison and her husband William, Patrick Eddington and Raymond McGovern.

Each and every one of these retirees claims to have secret information on the schemes of White House to destroy Iraq and try to persuade their TV audiences and gullible journalists how well informed they are. Even the Democrat layabouts at the CIA share nothing more than the time of day with aged former analysts such as these.

Among the leading figures in the UFPJ are lefties whose records range from the bad to the very bad to the unbelievable. Among them is Leslie Cagan, a member of the first Venceremos Brigade to Cuba and for seven years director of the Cuban Information Project that works with Fidel Castro's regime.

The Occupation Watch Advisory Board members include equally well-known radical haters of all things American, including Tariq Ali, a veteran of IPS' Transnational Institute and of a pro-terrorism Communist faction called the International Marxist Group (IMG).

But these people have a long term agenda and it is not for peace in the Middle East and Iraq. It is to weaken the stalwarts at the core of the Bush administration in before the 2004 presidential campaign. And, we don't have to be rocket scientists to realize who they want for president: Hillary Rodham Clinton with General Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, as vice president.

THE STRATEGY

Hillary and the infidels have a campaign:


One: Hillary pretends to be a centrist and allows the infidels to put the pressure on to "return" her to socialism.

Two: Hillary abandons the black vote (which she believes she will get anyway) and concentrates on Latin American voters that she thinks she can beguile by being a centrist. Of course she hopes that no one will look at the major donations she is getting from Asia and China. She claims that General Clark will settle each and every conflict and the crazed intelligence "dissenters" from the VIPS will weigh in on her behalf.
If no one looks too closely, there will be another Clinton in the White House.

These schemes are said to have been talked about at a gathering in Chicago on the weekend of June 6, hosted by United for Peace and Justice and paid for by tax-exempt foundation money.

So much for the rules that a tax-exempt organization does not get involved in politics.

UFPJ leaders made it plain that their purpose is to ensure that the incumbent president is not re-elected and that his party loses control of Congress. To accomplish this, they decided to attack specific U.S.policies including the occupation of Iraq. Participating in the "Occupation Watch" effort is "a diversity of international groups" but all represent the far, the fringe, and the lunatic left and numerous groups led by coalitions of the Marxist left who hate the United States. The UFPJ says it will "regularly provide reliable information to the outside world." But given their chosen place on the further shores of political thought, we seriously doubt whether the word "reliable" should be used.

Dateline D.C. is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer.

Pittsburghlive.com
___________________________________________
 
Quote from Doubter:

"I do not know that the fellow is an infidel, but if he is, he is an infidel in the same way as a dog. That is to say, he has never thought upon the subject!"

More...

A dog went wild and attacked a young boy in Central Park NYC. A man was able to grab the dog by the neck, pulling it off the boy and choking it to death. A reporter for the NY times comes to interview him, congratulating him on his act of heroism. He suggests the headline:
New Yorker saves the life of a young boy!
But, the man told him, I am not from NY. Ok, then how about:
"American hero saves the day."
But, the man told him, I am not american. Then, where are you from? asked the reporter. I am from Pakistan, the man answered.

The next day the headline read:
"Muslim fundamentalist strangles dog in central park.
FBI investigating possible links to al qaida"
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Man, do you rub your shit all over your own body and claim, "My shit doesn't stink!!!"

Just another zealot who mistakes his opinion for fact.

No doubt your hapaboy fan club is at work printing up bumper stickers as we speak.

Poor manners? You call people's arguments foolish, empty, loony, etc., and you preach manners?

What a fucking hypocrite you are.

You can always tell when someone is losing an argument...they make claim to winning it.

Strong arguments destroy an opponent, without the need to claim victory. They are so obvious, that any reasonable man would be forced to agree with the logic.
More...

(taking a break from printing up bumper stickers)

Optional said it himself in the last quoted paragraph. "Strong arguments....are so obvious, that any reasonable man would be forced to agree with the logic."

Therein lies the problem: Optional is neither reasonable, a man, or logical.

He's hypocritical, evasive, and has discovered a new talent of responding with crude insults emphasized at times by large fonts and pathetic mimicry due to his apparent inability to retort in a cogent manner.

He does so on other threads and follows the same modus operandi here. Short Optional in any lengthy debate as he inevitably is reduced to insults and slander - it's easy money.

(Back to the bumper sticker machine)
 
NY Post
Dick Morris
July 20, 2003 -- DOES anybody seriously believe that there would be a cease-fire between Israel and the most extreme Palestinian terrorists groups if the United States did not have 150,000 troops in Iraq?
Isn't it obvious that Israel's willingness to ignore scattered acts of violence and seriously pursue negotiations is closely linked to a newfound sense of security born of the willingness of the United States to use its muscle to reward its friends and punish its enemies?

Can anyone deny the linkage between American pressure on Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and the new attitude toward negotiations among Hamas and Hezbollah?

And what about the massive and growing student demonstrations in Teheran and other Iranian cities against the repressive regime of the ayatollahs? Can there be any doubt that the students are encouraged to stand up to the government's religious police and vigilantes by the massive American and British presence next door in Iraq?

The most sensitive weather vane in the region, Saudi Arabia, seems to have a new determination to close down the terrorists operating out of its territory. Do you think the U.S. invasion of Iraq could be a catalyst?

The so-called global community, amazed that the United States is prepared to act on its own when it drags its feet, seems energized after the war in Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after its dismal performance in Iraq, now seems keen on tracking down and stopping Iranian efforts to build a bomb.

Even North Korea seems more willing to talk after watching the United States military make short shrift of the vaunted Iraqi army.



In this space, before the war, I spoke of a new domino theory, predicting that a successful attack on Iraq would trigger a chain reaction of peace, negotiations, regime changes and cease-fires across the region. Now it's unfolding before our eyes.

But the American and British media are far more focused on determining who lied about weapons of mass destruction before the war started.

Never mind that we have been searching for only three months in a nation the size of California, or that we have found chemical warfare suits, gas masks and mobile weapons labs. The media have rushed to the conclusion not only that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that Bush and Blair - and Clinton - lied when they said there were. That story, likely to be debunked by reality any day, occupies their full attention at a time when the dividends of the Bush policy are evident to anyone with eyes to see.

The ongoing terror raids in Iraq against our forces indicate that we have not finished paying the price for setting in motion the forces of humanity and peace. The sniping at Bush and Blair from the liberals and the media demonstrate that, domestically, no good deed goes unpunished in our harshly partisan environment. But why can't the left bring itself to admit that the war in Iraq has catalyzed the forces of peace in a way nobody thought possible a year ago?

The liberal mantra of the spring of '02 - that no invasion of Iraq was possible without first settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - has been stood on its head. It is now obvious that no solution to that intractable battle could happen until the invasion of Iraq had succeeded.

It is only by the demonstration of American willingness to act and to accept casualties that Israel felt sufficient wind at its back - and the Palestinians a sufficient gale in their faces - to make serious talks possible. Until Bush acted in Iraq, the Israelis felt alone and isolated and the Palestinian suicide bombers seemed triumphant.

But now, the American military presence in Iraq has bolstered those willing to take risks for peace in Israel and, likely, made the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians think twice before aiding their Palestinian allies. Facing a sharp drop in funding from their traditional friends, the Palestinians may be willing to sign the peace that can bring them American funding in return for a cessation of violence.
___________________________________
 
Annan Asks for Timetable on U.S. Withdrawal

By THE NEW YORK TIMES


United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on the American-led forces in Iraq to set out a "clear timetable" for a staged withdrawal, noting that numerous Iraqis had told United Nations officials that "democracy should not be imposed from the outside."

While welcoming the formation last weekend of the 25-member Governing Council for Iraq, Mr. Annan said in a report distributed to Security Council members on Friday that "there is a pressing need to set out a clear and specific sequence of events leading to the end of the military occupation."

The report comes at a delicate moment, less than a week after India declined to provide military assistance in Iraq unless it could be done with United Nations authorization. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has indicated a willingness to explore a new resolution, but, simultaneously, United States military officials are predicting a prolonged guerrilla war that could keep high levels of troops in Iraq for months.

The issue of a new resolution was not addressed in the report, though it did conclude by noting that "the legitimacy and impartiality of the United Nations is a considerable asset in promoting the interests of the Iraqi people."

The report's overall tone indicated cooperative relations between Mr. Annan's special representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, who is scheduled to appear before the Security Council on Tuesday, and the American administrator, L. Paul Bremer III. But it included some pointed criticisms of the occupation's administration.

While making note of the "egregious violations of human rights" by Saddam Hussein's government, the report questioned the treatment of detained Iraqis.

The United Nations report also chides the provisional authority for its failure to restore order, saying that "for ordinary Iraqis, as well as United Nations personnel, the principal security threat currently comes from violent crime."

The report offered a picture of a crippled society struggling to restore basic services and rebuild its institutions. The health care system is operating at 30 to 50 percent of its prewar capacity, and while schools are open, attendance "remains significantly down."
 
Yet another reason we should be planning our withdrawal from the UN. Now we have the spectacle of Kofi Anna, a lavishly compensated international bureaucrat who probably has never worked a day in his life, lecturing the United States of America on establishing democracy? The vast majority of the UN member states are either corrupt third world hell holes or repressive dictatorships. They cheer thugs like Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe and jeer Colin Powell.

The UN wants in on Iraq for three reasons. One, they don't want the US to be successful in replacing a pyriah regime. Two, they don't want a functioning secular democracy in the middle east. Three, they are desperate not to lose all the graft and corruption that flowed from the oil for food program, and they badly want to be in a position to profit from the rebuilding contracts.
 
Who's Unpatriotic Now ?

By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength.

By PAUL KRUGMAN - NY Times

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American - and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden - who really did attack America - and Kim Jong Il - who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him - it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
 
Quote from Doubter:

NY Post
Dick Morris
July 20, 2003 -- DOES anybody seriously believe that there would be a cease-fire between Israel and the most extreme Palestinian terrorists groups if the United States did not have 150,000 troops in Iraq?
___________________________________
More...

It's all about the $$$ and power.

If Saddam isn't funding them they stop the bombing.

I think that once they removed Arafat from the negotiating table things were easier also. Arafat had the chance to end this many times, both formally and informally and has never done so. I think that this was Bush's greatest foreign policy move.

I think the truth is that these extreme groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, etc., are all just trying to regain some $$$ sources and arms because they're being starved out and forced to negotiate.
 
Ever notice how Optional and other libs throw the "fascist" tag around when it is they that try to get others to conform through hate crime laws, gun control laws, and a bevy of laws meant to curb personal liberty? What a nutty bunch. Makes me happy their kind is destined for the same fate as the dinosaurs.
 
Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

Ever notice how Optional and other libs throw the "fascist" tag around when it is they that try to get others to conform through hate crime laws, gun control laws, and a bevy of laws meant to curb personal liberty? What a nutty bunch. Makes me happy their kind is destined for the same fate as the dinosaurs.
More...

Sardo,

What a great observation. The lib's accuse conservatives of wanting to stick their noses in everything, but who demands that every employer and school keep tabs by race, gender, sexual practices, etc? Why is there a constitutional "right" to have gay sex in one's bedroom but not one to keep a gun there? One of the bedrock principles of the Constitution and any successful society is the security of personal property. Guess who wants to take your land because some bug or rat might be there, and who wants to use death taxes to force your heirs to give your land to the Nature Conservancy or some other socialist group?

According to liberals, conservatives hate children and want to gut education. Look at what a great job liberals have done educating the poor and minorities in big city schools andhow they oppose any reform that threatens the position of the teachers' unions. As for liberals concern for children, try telling it to the children fried at Waco or little Elian Gonzales, taken at submachine gun by government storm troopers and sent back to the gulag his mother lost her life rescuing him from.

At least liberals support political expression and dissent, right? Then why did they support campaign finance "reform" laws to restrict expression, why did Clinton's thugs harrass and intimidate demonstrators (as reported in sid Blumenthal's book) and why did the Clinton IRS audit and harrass virtually every conservative group in the country?

Now I'll sit back and await the reasoned responses which no doubt will consist entirely of name calling and insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top