A different Point of View ....

[SSJunkie68-69]

A friend of mine sent me this article this morning. It's an interesting read and gets into some detail that just is not being discussed in the main stream media. Kind of ironic too, as today is the first day in a long long while where I read in the printed and electronic media a body count of insurgents and not US or allied soliders...

Here's the article:

June 12, 2007
The Democrats' Betrayal
By James Lewis

The Democrats and their media poodles have proudly and publicly sabotaged the Iraq War effort since the beginning. This is not just a guess, but a clear and visible fact, openly celebrated by the Left.


The Left ululates noisily over every American death --- though not over the thousands of innocent civilians who are regularly blown up by Al Qaida in Iraq. But they never bother to ask, "What was that US Soldier risking his life for?" They don't want us to be reminded. They want us to think US Soldiers are fools.


Well, Soldiers tend to fight for their buddies. But they also know a lot more about war aims on the ground. And their own experience with Iraqis is repeatedly expressed in George W. Bush's terms: We are fighting to liberate Iraq, to protect ourselves from the murderous zealots of Al Qaida and Iran, and to extend simple decency to a region that has known nothing but bloody pathology for centuries.


Are we fighting for oil? Oil is the key to the well-being of five billion people in the modern world. Are we protecting Israel? Yes indeed, Israel and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and ungrateful Europe, America and Japan (which is almost entirely dependent on foreign oil). Those are the vital interests of civilized countries today. All those aims are entirely consistent with mainstream American foreign policy since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, Nixon (yes!) and Reagan.


It is only the Boomer Left that decided in its greater wisdom that the United States can let the world go to hell by itself. The Boomer Lefties are the disgraceful exception to the American rule, while the Soldiers who are fighting and sacrificing in Iraq are solidly in our historical mainstream. We should all be endlessly grateful for that.


Senator John Edwards has been accusing Rudy Giuliani of "playing on our fears" in talking about the terrorist threat.


Let's see, six years ago Mayor Giuliani saw the mighty World Trade Towers come crashing down in his city. "Only" three thousand innocent New Yorkers died in that assault, but the towers were filled with tens of thousands who just managed to get out --- thanks to the heroism of NYC firefighters and police, almost 500 of whom gave their lives.


I would call that a terrifying event, Senator Edwards, and Rudy Giuliani was directing the city's response from the front line.


We know that Al Qaida fanatics keep trying to make it happen again. But John' Edwards thinks it's all lies; he's airbrushed his version of American history, just like he constantly tries to airbrush his own public image. Edwards thinks that global warming and the plight of the poor are the really big dangers facing Americans. But it is Senator Edwards himself who is the cynical fearmonger. He constantly tries to fill every sucker in America with fear that they are helpless without him and his fellow Democrats. This in the wealthiest nation on earth, and the one with the greatest opportunities for people to rise out of poverty. That is why millions of people aspire to come here.


The Left constantly attempts to evade the clear and present danger facing us today, for fear that Americans will elect the other party. They are therefore terrifyingly selfish at a time of national danger. They delusionally want to go back to the Clinton years, when terrorism seemed only a distant rumor, at least to the blind and ignorant.


But Islamic fascists may not play along with that flimsy fantasy. In fact, Al Qaida is cheering on the willful stupidity of our leftwingers, promising to renew their attacks on the United States as soon as Democrats accept defeat in Iraq.


The question is whether the voters will be seduced by the Left and its media poodles. The illusion of safety is always tempting, and the very success of Bush's anti-terror policies creates a temporary paradise for fools.


Today, the two parties present a clear survival choice. On the GOP side all the candidates are adults. They deal with the facts, each in his own way, but every one with a solid record of competence and strength. Fred Thompson, Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney, the others. Republicans can complain (rightly) about a lot of things, but not about the general competence of our candidates. They stand head and shoulders above the Kids of the Left.


Obama and Hillary bring us only political gimmicks in a time when we need competence, character and strength. Neither one of them would be a political star but for their victim status: Hillary represents all the jilted women of America, and Obama has stooped to openly trying to whip up black anger to assure the Left that he is "really black."


The Bush Administration has wrestled faithfully with the immense challenges of a new kind of war against a lethal enemy, while being constantly sabotaged by bunkered Federal bureaucracies, the sniping Left and the media. In the upshot, President Bush has been about as successful as Harry S Truman was at the beginning of the Cold War. That is vital progress, but much remains to be done. Wars are always full of mistakes and close calls. The question is --- will we recognize and fix them? Do we have the dogged persistence to pursue our aims and win?


The next president will have to be damned good to keep the United States safe. There is no question that we can triumph in Iraq. The only doubt is whether we are sufficiently committed, at yet another supreme moment of testing -- and that comes down to inspirational leadership. We need another Great Communicator as president.


For great nations there are no easy breaks. There is no lasting "peace dividend." It's just one challenge after another. If we get tired of winning struggles, there are plenty of malevolent forces in the world that are ready to bring us down. Everybody guns for the top dog.


Robert MacFarlane just wrote in the Wall Street Journal about his Vietnam experience:


"The question remains ...: Should the Iraqis succeed in this crucial endeavor, how will it be reported? For the press this is yet another moment of truth. Will it continue to publish a distorted picture of this war as it did in Vietnam, and share responsibility for the same result? "


Well, we know the answer. The press and the Left are committed to defeat. But they no longer control the narrative. People like Michael Yon are instantly accessible The truth is out there for Americans to know.


So it all comes back to the Democrats, their running poodles in the media, and our vital need to capture the narrative of our time.


The election of 2008 will be the biggest test of our maturity as a nation since the 1950s. The question will be whether the USA can face difficult and dangerous facts, and lead the world in a better direction. As the world slowly comes around to our perception of the terror threat, with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Angela Merkel in Germany, we need to drive consistently forward until today's monsters are defeated. It's as simple as that, and as challenging. Will we have the guts and the vision to do it?


We don't know the answer. Look to 2008 to find out. Let no one forget what is at stake



PS. Heard a rumor Michael Moore is going to be at the Camaro Nationals this weekend to scold each of us for contributing to the Greenhouse effect.

[Johnny Horsepower]

Amen, could we please hear for once, about the schools, power, roads, infrastructure and dignity that our boys are restoring.

I can't stand the left and bedroom pals the mainstream media.

[Xplantdad]

Word for the day.....

Ululate- ul·u·late
Pronunciation[uhl-yuh-leyt
–verb (used without object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing
1. to howl, as a dog or a wolf; hoot, as an owl.

2. to utter howling sounds, as in shrill, wordless lamentation; wail.

3. to lament loudly and shrilly.

I've never heard of this word before

[SSJunkie68-69]

See.....this site is more than just about cars!!!!

There will be much ululating on July 27 and 28th in Collinsville

[Kim_Howie]

"GOD BLESS AMERICA" Can I still say that???

[Mr70]

I find your theories intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter..

[Kim_Howie]

[SSJunkie68-69]

Here you go mr70 and to all others looking for a different point of view.

http://www.americanthinker.com/

[GRB]

The world was a far safer place 50 years ago at which time the far left got control of the major media and public education. There was no terrorism to speak of and no nuclear N.Korea or Iran. China was docile and Russia was within a decade or so of being neutralized. Our media had not yet incited the rest of the world to hate America. We were respected if for no other reason than our economic and military power. And the relatively weak UN had yet to gain power and turn against us. Since the 60's our enemies have found our soft under belly. We have no stomach for war. We will cut and run after fighting a disgraceful PC war.

Forgotten is our collapsing Social Security system. Add to that 10, 20 or 30 million new members of the non-working class and what will become of our nation? How will we maintain a sufficient military to ward off hostile nations? How will we fund a failing SS sys., increased and bloated govt. medical care and a welfare state that is much larger than the working class?

All of which begs the question; Why is amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants, that are likely to bankrupt our nation, a bilateral agenda and worse yet being shoved down our rebelling throats by a Republican president? Why?

[427TJ]

Hmmm, should I take the bait or pass on this one? Okay, I'll man-up and add my two cents.

Liberal media. Yeah, there's liberals in the media--that idiot Dan Rather comes to mind and his predecessor Walter Cronkite was too, but Cronkite was a Franklin Roosevelt liberal and not a Janis Joplin/hairy-armpits/stinky '60s San Francisco hippie liberal (who wants to take all of our wealth and give it to poor non-white people). Anyway, the New York Times is certainly left-leaning but wasn't it their own Judith Miller who sounded the war alarms on the NYT front pages in late 2002 and early 2003? Scooter Libby schmoozed her and wooed her and then fed her the "inside info" and she, being AMBITIOUS and DESPERATE to further her career (remember that), plastered the NYT front page day after day with the coming doom unless we attacked Saddam. So, the liberal New York Times got in lock-step with the administration and helped sell the idea of pre-emptive war with Iraq. But I see your point. Let's just assume that the liberal media is only as liberal as it's corporate ownership allows it to be . When it's safe to be liberal, like now that the war is dragging on and on and on with little real progress*, they will go against an unpopular president. But that's the media's natural pack-mentality: they all follow the same story since none of them want to be left behind if it's a big one. Here's where a media reporter's ambition comes into play. Reporters like Miller want to get rich and famous (like Bob Woodward, et al) and they'll jump on any scoop they can get their ambitious back-stabbing greedy little hands on. Judy Miller realized that Libby was inviting her into the Bush administration inner sanctum and she took the bait. She was greedy and ambitious, not liberal. She saw her chance and went for it. In 2003 the liberal media dared not stand in the way of the war drummers so Judith Miller was allowed by NYT corporate managers to post her dire warnings of Iraqi mushroom clouds over New York City. Yeah, she went to jail over it and so will Libby but the liberal media collapsed under the pressure of the beating war drums and the clamoring public who wanted to go kick someone's ass big-time after 9/11.

*War progress. Yes, I am sure there are schools being built and little Iraqi kids singing the star-spangled banner every morning but the Iraqi government is completely unable to come to terms with what they need to do to save that country. Bush can push on them all he wants to but those tribal Iraqis know damn-well that they are all marked men and dare not stick their necks out too far lest they get their heads cut-off by their Muslim brothers. (We do that in America too but we don't actually cut people's heads off--we sick special prosecutors on them.) That part of the world has always been run by tribal factions (us too in a sense) and not central governments and trying to whip a little democracy (small-d democracy) on them will only allow them to elect their own tribesmen. Look at Lebanon--they held elections in 2005 and they democratically elected Hezbollah! Ooops! That's not what we meant when we said we wanted a democratic Middle East! OH SH*T! We pushed them toward democracy and they elected the the terrorists! Too bad nobody stood up and warned us of the folly of trying to convert ancient and deeply religious fundamentalist Arab Islamic tribes into embracing democracy and embracing their fellow Arab tribes. Well, Colin Powell made a half-hearted attempt to warn Bush not to "break" Iraq but Powell didn't have the balls to resign because America was frothing at the lips to go kill some Arabs so he shut his mouth after one weak warning not to do this. And the American army is mired right in the middle because that's where the oil is! How many times has President Bush changed his rationale (reasons) for going into Iraq? Is that the liberal media's fault or is that Bush's fault?

Guess what? We are in Iraq for 50 years. As long as there's extractable oil in the ground we will be there and our kids will die there. F_ck the politics of this, we are there for the LONG haul. Our little sons and daughters, many of them not yet born, will go there and die for the rest of us, just as young people always have.

Yeah, we can rant about the media, both liberal (controls everything--yeah, sure it does) and FOX/right-wing media. You know what? It's really not the media's fault, although they always share the blame, it's OUR fault for sitting on the couch and flipping away from the news--FOX or CNN or whatever you like--to watch baseball or Barrett-Jackson or Survivor. (I prefer baseball with B-J a close second.) We're in deep, deep sh*t in the Middle East and the media will report the failures because that's what the ratings dictate--we want to see the bad news, not good news. "If it bleeds it leads" is the media manager/editor's motto because we love the bloody stuff. Some of us don't but most of us do.

Last thing before I go out and drive deck screws in my new back deck. (The Home Depot plastic Trek stuff. It looks great.)

Our next president will not pull us out of Iraq. I'll say that again. Our next president will not pull us out of Iraq. Americans may be 70% against the war in polls but they are 99% FOR affordable gasoline. Our next president will not pull us out of Iraq because the price of gas will go well over $5 a gallon and maybe much higher. Talk about committing suicide. No president will commit suicide by allowing the price of gas to go wildly out of control upon a pullout of Iraq. We built 14 PERMANENT BASES in Iraq since we went in and we are there for the "long hard slog," as Don Rumsfeld put it.

Relax, the media really doesn't control things, especially if we Americans aren't watching or reading anything they are putting out.

Now I'm going to go drive-in a hundred deck screws and then go for a ride in my Camaro and put some Trick pump 101 in it at the 76 station. Yeah, it's $6.25 a gallon but I don't care as long as I can just pull up to the pump and put it in.

All of this is just my two cents and I could be wrong.