Media Sentry

Washington Post Opts for Name Calling Over Substance: Okay, the Washington Post has achieved a new, all-time low in political coverage. They are literally making fun of the name "Fred" as a way of taking a shot at Fred Thompson.
Here, for your viewing, is the article I call the "hateful little gem of bigotry". I have reserved room in my blog here at the end for my own little comment about names.

Fred, Fred, Fred: Thompson's Challenge Has a Name

By Monica Hesse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 12, 2007; D01

In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)

We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).

Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.

Fur-red-duh.

It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something heavy and damp-ish.

Waterlogged paper towel.

Fred.

The phonetics of the name seem integral to its image problem: On Urbandictionary.com, a "Fred" is defined as "a person who does stupid, annoying, or idiotic things" (Fred Flintstone, Fred Mertz). The best-case descriptors a Fred can hope for are terms like well-intentioned, predictable, benign Fred Rogers.

There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y, is not the same.

Then, out of almost nowhere, came Thompson, who is transcending the notion of Fred.
Recent media accounts of the guy (who has not yet officially announced his candidacy) would have us believe that being a Fred means Law and Orderly sex-in-a-suit, a name exuding such flypaper pheromones that people find themselves helplessly drawn in. Chris Matthews dedicated three minutes of a recent "Hardball" to exploring Thompson's sex appeal. London's Sunday Times last month interviewed a bevy of his ex-girlfriends, all of whom have drunk the Fred-Aid: "He's majestic," said country singer/Fredophile Lorrie Morgan. "Women love a soft place to lay and a strong pair of hands to hold us."

Fred?

Why? Is there something about the craggy actor we're not getting? Maybe he's ugly-sexy, like Mick Jagger?

Or maybe the name Fred is etymologically close to obviously sexy names like Dirk, Clint, James?

Grant Smith is an onomastician at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, who studies the branch of linguistics dedicated to proper names. He specializes in dissecting the monikers of political candidates and says he has a 65 percent success rate of predicting elections, based solely on name analysis. Not entirely convincing, but those odds would play in Vegas. "The name Fred is basic and homey," says Smith. "It should give people a reassuring image."

But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?

Silence.

"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at all."
Thompson is a strong name, he says. Thompson is a name with natural trochaic rhythm, which replicates a heartbeat and thus starts building appeal in the womb. "Does he ever go by Frederick?" Smith asks hopefully. FRED-erick THOMP-son would be a winning combination.

But he doesn't. He goes by Fred. Going by Fred, he still has amassed a clan of pitter-patter, all-a flutter followers.

* * *

At the Fredquarters of the Fred Society in Palm Springs, Calif, "Head Fred" Fred Daniel has been defending his good name against charges of boringness and dolt-itude for 23 years. Daniel, 52, founded the society in 1984 by combing the Los Angeles phone book for Freds and sending out a 500-person mailing. There are 5,000 Freds in the organization now, but Daniel must fight for every member. "Unfortunately, Fred has fast fallen out of favor," he laments. From 1885 to 1896, it was the 15th-most-popular boy's baby name. But the last time Fred appeared in the top 1,000 was 2002.

It's a natural cycle. Onomasticians know that names reach points of saturation, points where every Tom, Dick and Harry is named Fred. Parents want baby names that feel unique yet familiar. So once 20- and 30-somethings forget that monikers like Emily and Jacob (the top boy and girl names for 2006) have actually been around for centuries, they start to use them again.

The Fred Society is attempting to speed up the rebirth of Fred with aggressive campaigning: bumper stickers reading "Name your next baby Fred," coffee mugs that are "Built Fred Tough," postcards from Fredhenge and Freddywood.

Fred Thompson is good for the cause. "We at the Fred Society are overjoyed that he might be running for president, because he'll skyrocket the name," says Daniel. He quickly adds, "That's not an endorsement, though. We can't afford to alienate one single Fred -- Democrat or Republican."

And as a fellow Fred, can Daniel understand Thompson's overwhelming appeal?
"I can see how he would make some women's and men's hearts go boom-boom, just like the opening of 'Law and Order.' "

* * *

Fred.

We are trying to understand.

We are willing to admit that that some people find Fred Thompson, yes, sexy.
But we still cannot understand what that means.
What does it signify that we, as a country, are choosing to deem yummy a guy named Fred?

Motivational speaker Mark Sanborn has a theory about that. Sanborn is the author of 2004's "The Fred Factor" (not to be confused with the same-titled Fred Thompson bio released this May). Sanborn's Fred is a mailman from Denver who delights in performing his unheralded job well. Sanborn wrote "The Fred Factor" to extol the pleasures of hard work, which he says the name represents.

"It's the quintessential American name," he says. "It might be dated, but the time we date it back to, the 1950s, was a very bucolic one. Middle-class success, a rising standard of living. Working hard was all you needed to succeed."
Maybe that's it.

The love of Fred Thompson is like the comfort food renaissance -- a longing for green bean casserole. If the name Fred were popular now, we wouldn't be able to long for it. Because it would be here already. But it's not, so we do, and ordinary "Fred" seems as exotic as Mick Jagger.

Fred Thompson is not ugly-sexy. He's stodgy-sexy. He is that onomastic combo of unique yet familiar. We once had Freds. We want them back.

Will that be enough to win him the nomination? We can't say. Daniel, that hopeful proponent of all things Fred, only knows this: "We haven't seen anything like him since Fred Astaire. "

Source Washington Post Article- Click Here


It would be difficult to count how many people have been insulted in this article- people from the south and people who like green bean salad just to name two. This is what anti-Republicanism and anti-conservatism has been reduced to. Playground name calling. Name calling without any apparent concern about the bigoted overtones and hate filled assertions about people based solely on a name.

This gem from a woman named "Monica". Monica. "Mon-ick-uh." Just imagine the tables being turned and a Republican or conservative took a close look at the name "Monica". Let your own mind run rampant on that one, I don't need to be the one to start that discussion.

Amazing. This is what modern punditry and politics have come to. "Insult and defame as many people as you need to, just do as much personal damage to the candidate as you can....."

Labels: Bias, campaign, candidates, Democrats, Fred, intolerance, liberals, mainstream media, Media, politics, President, Press, pundits, Republican, Thompson

Paris Hilton Jail Sentence- Unfair?: Is the 45-day jail sentence for Paris Hilton unfair? If you've read most of my blogs by now, you'll likely think my position is that she should go immediately to jail without passing go. You might be wrong.

What kind of tickets, fines, judgements, sentences have been handed down to a State Governor who, while violating state seatbelt laws, was in an incapacitating accident that almost killed him?

What kind of tickets, fines, judgements, sentences have been handed down to a New Jersey State Trooper that was driving the Governor at 91 miles per hour while talking/texting on a blackberry?

Now, I'm not saying Paris doesn't deserve her punishment. But when you compare driving on a suspened license with hurling yourself down the highway at 91 miles per hour, playing with a blackberry, and not wearing seatbelts, I'm kinda wondering where the equity is in the situation?

My final opinion? Yep, send Paris on off to the lock up for her 45 days- she might get her wake up call. But let's also drag the Governor of New Jersey and his state trooper in front of a judge and make some judicial judgements as well!

If the rich and famous (Corzine) are going to get a break because of who they are, then apply the standard equally. If they're going to get locked up and treated like most people would, then apply that standard equally as well!

Labels: Corzine, Democrats, driving, Hilton, jail, John Corzine, New Jersey, Paris Hilton

Washington Post- In Search of Democrat Agenda: Kudo's to the Washington Post for the article below on the status of the Democrat agenda! Granted, I'm sure they did it more to warn Democrat Party leaders than to inform voters, but hey- it's in print and honesty demands I recognize "fair and balanced" reporting, no matter what the reason.

So, are you wondering about whatever happened to the Democrat agenda? The Washington Post tells us:

Source Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402262_pf.html


Democrats' Momentum Is Stalling Amid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, May 5, 2007; A01

In the heady opening weeks of the 110th Congress, the Democrats' domestic agenda appeared to be flying through the Capitol: Homeland security upgrades, a higher minimum wage and student loan interest rate cuts all passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

But now that initial progress has foundered as Washington policymakers have been consumed with the debate over the Iraq war. Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.

"We cannot be a one-trick pony," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who helped engineer his party's takeover of Congress as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "People voted for change, but Iraq, the economy and Washington, D.C., [corruption] all tied for first place. We need to do them all."

The "Six for '06" policy agenda on which Democrats campaigned last year was supposed to consist of low-hanging fruit, plucked and put in the basket to allow Congress to move on to tougher targets. House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research.

The Senate struck out on its own, with a broad overhaul of the rules on lobbying Congress.
Not one of those bills has been signed into law. President Bush signed 16 measures into law through April, six more than were signed by this time in the previous Congress. But beyond a huge domestic spending bill that wrapped up work left undone by Republicans last year, the list of achievements is modest: a beefed-up board to oversee congressional pages in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, and the renaming of six post offices, including one for Gerald R. Ford in Vail, Colo., as well as two courthouses, including one for Rush Limbaugh Sr. in Cape Girardeau, Mo.

The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed.

Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate. Last week, family members of those killed on Sept. 11, 2001, gathered in Washington to demand action.

"We've waited five and a half years since 9/11," said Carie Lemack, whose mother died aboard one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. "We waited three years since the 9/11 commission. We can't wait anymore."

House and Senate staff members have begun meeting, with the goal of reporting out a final bill by Memorial Day, but they concede that the deadline is likely to slip, in part because members of the homeland security committees of both chambers, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the two intelligence committees all want their say. The irony, Lemack said, is that such cumbersomeness is precisely why the Sept. 11 commission recommended the creation of powerful umbrella security committees with such broad jurisdiction that other panels could not muscle their way in. That was one recommendation Congress largely disregarded.
The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has proposed his own student-loan legislation, but it is to be part of a huge higher-education bill that may not reach the committee until June.

The House's relatively simple energy bill faces a similar fate. The Senate has in mind a much larger bill that would ease bringing alternative fuels to market, regulate oil and gas futures trading, raise vehicle and appliance efficiency standards, and reform federal royalty payments to finance new energy technologies.

The voters seem to have noticed the stall. An ABC News-Washington Post poll last month found that 73 percent of Americans believe Congress has done "not too much" or "nothing at all." A memo from the Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps warned last month that the stalemate between Congress and Bush over the war spending bill has knocked down the favorable ratings of Congress and the Democrats by three percentage points and has taken a greater toll on the public's hope for a productive Congress.

"The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price."

Republicans are already trying to extract that price. Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Democrats are just "trying to score political points on the war. . . . Part of their party can't conceive of anything else to talk about but the war."

Norman J. Ornstein, a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute, said a Congress's productivity is not measured solely on the number of bills signed into law. Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate.

Democratic leaders remain hopeful that a burst of activity will put the doubts about them to rest. They have promised to pass a war funding bill and a minimum-wage increase that Bush can sign, to complete a budget blueprint and to finish the homeland security bill by Memorial Day. The House wants to pass defense and intelligence bills, its own lobbying measure and the first gun-control legislation since 1994, which would tighten the national instant-check system for gun purchases. The Senate hopes to complete a comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said his party needs to get some achievements under its belt, but not until voters begin to focus on the campaigns next year. "People understand the Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to move an agenda forward, doing everything possible to change direction in the war in Iraq, and the president is standing in the way," he said.

Kyl was not so sanguine. If accomplishments are not in the books by this fall, he said, the Democrats will find their achievements eclipsed by the 2008 presidential race. Panetta agreed.
"This leadership, these Democrats have shown that they can fight," he said. "Now they have to show they can govern."

Labels: Clinton, Congress, congressional, Democrats, DNC, Edwards, Hillary, Hoyer, Iraq, Kennedy, Kerry, Lesgislation, Murtha, Obama, Pelosi, Reid

Mission Accomplished- A Moment of Clarity: I notice this ancient, stale talking point has resurfaced among Democrats as some way they think they can make a point about W. I hear they're going to send him the funding bill for his veto on the day that coincides with the anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier.

I suppose it's fun for them, so let them enjoy their..... what exactly? Meanwhile, let's do some quick clarification for those who may not know. When a military organization- an aircraft carrier group for instance- goes to war, executes an assigned mission, and returns home having accomplished that mission, that organization will generally return to some type of celebration where they- shock of all shocks- celebrate the accomplishment of their mission!

The aircraft carrier that W. greeted upon it's return from the Persian Gulf had received war time order and tasking, executed it's mission- the initial attack on and defeat of Saddam's military- accomplished it's mission, and returned home. The aircraft carrier group accomplished it's mission.

When you listen to W's speech, he talks about the carrier group having done it's job, and then he talks about the remaining work. He never declared the "war" over. He said major military operations. Those would be division level maneuvers, large scale air campaigns, force-on-force engagements. Those were, indeed, over. He also said in that speech that much work remained to be done.

So, when you hear the hullabaloo about Bush's "Mission Accomplished", what you're really hearing the sound of the vacuum where a Democrat agenda should be. They have nothing else to present to the American public. So rather than focus on ways to win the war, or ways maybe to fix Social Security, they're going to spend a day or even a week going back four years in history to ridicule a photo op. That's all they got.

It's also worth considering that every time someone diminishes the "Mission Accomplished" banner, they're diminishing the accomplishments of that aircraft carrier group who really did accomplish their mission and splendidly at that. Those crews do not deserve the ridicule heaped upon them by the press and the Democrats who will twist their moment of glory into an insturment of shame to be used against President Bush. But hey, at least they "support" the troops, right? Just not enough to fund them......

"Mission Accomplished". It was always about the troops, not W. Just watch the video of his speech......

Labels: Accomplished, aircraft, aircraft carrier, Bush, carrier, funding, Iraq, Mission, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, veto, W., War

U.S. Attorney Removal: Let's take a quick check of the score on the firing of U.S. Attorneys:

Bill Clinton - 93
George Bush - 8

Hum, seems like President Bush has some catching up to do! Also seems like an alert and professional media might investigate this score and do some reporting. Nah.... it's apparently easier to puke back some Democrat talking points....

Labels: Attorney, Attorneys, Bush, Clinton, Fire, Gonzales, Hubbell, Justice Department, Reno, U.S., US

How Would al-Qaeda Vote?: The Democrats in Congress are about to try to pass legislation mandating a date certain for withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq, probably in 2008.

One simple question clarifies the issue completely for those who may not understand the Democrat position: How would al-Qaeda vote on the legislation?

To clarify even further, you can answer these questions:

1. How will Republicans vote on the bill?

2. How will Democrats vote on the bill?

3. How would Osama bin Laden vote on the bill?

4. How would Ayman al-Zawahiri vote on the bill?

5. If he was alive, how would Saddam Hussein vote on the bill?

6. Whose side are the democrats on?

7. How would the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and L.A. Times vote on the bill?

8. Whose side are the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and L.A. Times on?

9. How would CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC vote on the bill?

10. Whose side are CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC on?

11. How would Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times vote on the bill?

12. Whose side are Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times on?

Wouldn't it be interesting if our "mainstream media" did some polling to see exactly who the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the President of Iran would like to see elected President here in the U.S. in 2008? I think we would learn even more about today's Democrat Party from such a poll....

Labels: al-Qaeda, Democrat Party, Democrats, Globe, Iraq, Post, Times, withdrawl, Zawahiri

An Inconvenient Truth- The Democrat Party and The War: Okay, after listening to the Democrat Party- the Demo-quitters- for over a year, I want to present some "Inconvenient Truths" to rebut some of the disinformation eminating from Democrat leaders regarding the war since our "major media" will not do it.

1. The war in Iraq IS THE central front in the War against Terrorism (Jihadism). You don't need to listen to President Bush or Robert Gates, or Michael Hayden; simply listen to al Zawahiri in his media barrage. If you read the foreign press, including the Arab press, you will learn a lot about the importance to al Qaeda of a victory against America in Iraq. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore- or worse doesn't understand- is that al Qaeda has decided to take on America by fighting us in Iraq. The goal is not to take over our country, but break our will and force us into isolationism and out of the Middle East.

2. Since September 11th, 2001 Jihadist have gone to Iraq to take on our military instead of coming here to America to take on our civilians. We pay our military to fight our battles and currently they are fighting radical Jihadists. The truth the Democrat Party wishes to ignore or doesn't understand- throughout the '90's, radical Islamic jihadists took on American civilians all over the world; World Trade Center '93, U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the failed attempt to attack L.A. Airport on New Years in 2000. FACT: Now they are fighting our military force instead.

3. There is no one to negotiate with. There is no diplomatic front that can be opened to settle this confrontation. Jihadist elements run through North Africa, East Africa, and Asia. What they want is a change in our behavior and lifestyle.

4. They want us to abandon our allies and surrender them to a life under Sharia law. When they watch our news- as they DO- and they see a U.S. Congressman sworn into office on the Koran, they see a victory in the war in the form of a U.S. Congressman swearing allegiance to Sharia Law instead of the U.S. Constitution.

5. They hate Israel. If we "quit" Iraq, it will be a sign to Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad that the West is too weak to stop them in any attempt to destroy Israel.

6. Jihadists the world over watch our news and read our press. In fact, many jihadist factions have elements or members living here that watch our media every day. Every time they see a story about Democrats trying to stop President Bush, or trying to stop deployments of troops, or ending the war, or bringing the troops home, or more importantly any story where it is said we have lost and cannot win, it signals victory to the jihadist and emboldens them to fight harder and kill more people. The Democrat Party is in total denial over this. They cannot possibly understand the concept of war and defeating an enemy because they persist in pumping up the morale of the jihadists with their public statements and behavior. The Democrat Party is responsible for lengthening this war because they encourage the jihadists to continue fighting. The jihadist believe they are winning this war and it's our own Democrat Party that keeps telling them that.

7. Our troops the world over watch our news and read our press too. A constant barrage of statements and actions from the Democrat Party indicating they have failed, are failing, and cannot win demoralizes them! The Democrat Party for a year now has pounded home the idea the U.S. military is unable to win, yet somehow they claim to support the troops.

8. We are fighting in Iraq. Ethiopians are fighting Islamists in Somalia. Filipinos are fighting Islamists in the Phillipines. The U.K., France, and Spain are applying law enforcement and intelligence against their own internal jihadist threats in Europe. The Russians are fighting jihadists in Chechnya. What is the message we send the world if we "quit", if we "strategically re-deploy", if we bring our troops home from Iraq before the war is won?

9. Democrats conveniently forget that Saddam was embarked on a campaign to massacre the Shia living in Southeastern Iraq and that we were flying protection missions over the No-Fly Zone to stop him. They also forget that Saddam's military fired at our No-Fly Zone missions routinely- an act of war.

10. From 1998 forward, the official policy of this country was for "regime change" in Iraq. This was President Bill Clinton's policy. The entire Clinton Administration is on record on the fact that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that he would use them again, and that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. Bill Clinton founded the policy and then did nothing about it. President Bush spent more than a year working with the U.N. and allies before he "rushed" to war. This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats because it under cuts their case that Bush was "reckless". By February 2003, President Bush had made the case for war which included far more than just WMD. It included the threat to Iraq's neighbors from a re-armed Saddam, unending human rights violations and mass murders, firing at our jets patrolling the no-fly zone, Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Israel, and it included assocations between Saddam and Islamic terror organizations including al Qaeda. They REALLY forget that one of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb planners fled the U.S. and sought shelter in Baghdad right after the attack.

Here are some relevant quotes:

Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry all Democrats
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sandy Berger February 18th, 1998
"He''ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Nancy Pelosi December 16th, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Robert Byrd October 3rd, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Madeleine Albright November 10th, 1999
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10th of 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Senator Carl Levin September 19th, 2002
"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

John Kerry October 9th, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

11. The Democrats keep trying to draw the Vietnam parallel. They need to be VERY careful doing this. General Abrahms had turned the tide in the war up through 1972 and the ground situation had stabilized. Two things caused the disaster that occured in 1975; a faulty Peace Agreement that allowed several hundred thousand NVA troops to remain in South Vietnam AFTER the U.S. withdrawal and second, CONGRESS CUTTING OFF FUNDS to South Vietnam. The U.S. Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese causing a collapse of the military and then the political system. This Congress, 32 years later, seems ready to re-create the Vietnam disaster that resulted in millions of deaths in Cambodia and Laos.

To me, it's clear the Democrat Party does not know how to lead, they don't understand our military or modern warfare, and they certainly do not understand the threat against America. Using the benchmarks of the modern day Democrat Party, we should have quit WW II after Normandy, or after the Battle of the Bulge, or Guadalcanal. But our "major media" elites will never put that to the Democrat Party in the form of a question.

How can the Democrat Party be trusted with the security of this country?

Labels: Clinton, Democrats, Iraq, Jihad, Media, Press, Terrorism, War, War on Terror