Fear monger to the extreme. (MORE UPDATES)

“Ya know education… if you make the most of it ya study hard, ya do your homework, and ya make an effort to be smart… you can do well. If you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”
–Senator Kerry

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- And the left wonders why the right takes issue with Kerry. What the hell sense does this make. If he is referencing the soldiers I take massive issue with his comments on two counts. The first being that I find it hugely an asshole move to call those fighting in Iraq essentially dumb. I wasn’t aware that no one fighting in Iraq right now had obtained an education. Second, if education keeps you out of wars… well Senator you had quite the education yet you got “stuck” in Vietnam. So how does your logic work again?

Or I suppose he would contend he was in no way referring to the airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers he was referring to the President. In which case we are back to sitting politicians on the left calling the President “dumb.” Or is it really a reference to the American public? Yes maybe he feels the American public is uneducated and stupid because they didn’t elect him if all us on the right were really smart we would have chosen him and he would have “cut and run” from Iraq.

Why bother trying to understand him? But that comment directed towards students is quite a snapshot of his character. And the right is accused of fear mongering… what does telling students they will be sent to war if they are not smart classify as?

-md

(UPDATES:)

Drudge FLASH: McCain Calls On Kerry To ApologizeTue Oct 31 2006 11:43:14 ET
Senator Kerry owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education. Americans from all backgrounds, well off and less fortunate, with high school diplomas and graduate degrees, take seriously their duty to our country, and risk their lives today to defend the rest of us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

They all deserve our respect and deepest gratitude for their service. The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq, is an insult to every soldier serving in combat, and should deeply offend any American with an ounce of appreciation for what they suffer and risk so that the rest of us can sleep more comfortably at night. Without them, we wouldn't live in a country where people securely possess all their God-given rights, including the right to express insensitive, ill-considered and uninformed remarks.

(UPDATE/FLASHBACK:)

"Nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes." (link)

(UPDATE:)
Kerry just had his little rant and I have one comment, and two points. The comment is that yes, I believe you would in deed trash the service of current members. I may be wrong but I think you are a magnificent jackass that I would not want to be in the same room as even if my life depended on it.

Point 1, he states several times in his “I will apologize to no one” press conference that all the republicans do is try to divert attention. Well instead of just answering McCain he goes on and on about McCain should ask for such-and-such… and should ask so-and-so for apologies. Basically every single person BUT Kerry, the one who made the comments.

Point 2, flip-flop flip-flop. Now we are back to having him lecture us that those who started this war should have done their research. Senator you are aware you voted for the authorization, and later stated you would have done the same, right?

And on a side note. I don’t want to hear anyone on the left complain about the right saying people on the left want to “cut and run.” Kerry accused the administration of "cutting and running" from Afghanistan. All is fair in love and war, well quit your bitching about “cut and run” lefties because it is now officially a bipartisan term.

Also: The best judge of "character"?
Technorati Tags: Kerry, Iraq, education, fear mongering

Go Mrs. Cheney! (UPDATED)

I think Karl Rove needs to add to the list of stump speakers. I'd go with VPOTUS's wife.

(UPDATE: text from Drudge Report)
CHENEY PRAISES WIFE'S 'SLAPDOWN' OF CNN'S WOLF BLITZER Mon Oct 30 2006 13:07:04 ET
In a sit-down interview with Neil Cavuto set to air on FOX NEWS at 4pm EST, Vice President Cheney praises his wife's performance on CNN last Friday when she challenged the cable news network's editorial bias:

CAVUTO: Your wife, Mr. Vice President, created a little bit of a stir in an appearance on a rival news network last week...

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I thought it was great. We refer to it around the house as the "slapdown." And she was very tough, but she was very accurate and very aggressive. And of course, she was in the business for a while. There was a time on that network when she used to host the show they had on for a long time called "Crossfire," on Sundays for a couple of years. So she spoke her mind, and I thought it was perfectly appropriate.

CAVUTO: Did she go into that kind of ticked off because she saw this week-long series on -- one day a time -- everything that's bad with America, and she just said, you know what, I'm going to let it rip?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm sure she'd seen part of it, but, no, I think she just responded to the moment. But she's pretty tough and pretty aggressive, and that's exactly the way it ought to be. She presented, I though, a very strong case.

...

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I told her I thought it was a sterling performance.

Mobile sea-based defense.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – I apologize I have not been around for a week but I don’t always have enough time to throw up a “gone fishing” message when I need to leave town. I cannot remember at this moment who it was that asked about “when a working missile defense system would be operational”, and there is much more to the entire system but my focus has been much on the land based assets. But here is another aspect and it is about time I give a little credit to the Navy. Here is another example that we are striving towards a successful system and you are getting your monies worth.

By year's end, the Navy will have at least six ships able to track down and destroy ballistic missiles in space.

As it works to expand a decade-old program, the Navy is upgrading 18 guided missile cruisers and destroyers, including two in Norfolk,
to counter missile threats.
...
In an international crisis, the United States has traditionally relied on aircraft carriers to respond, according to Rear Adm. Brad Hicks, director of the Missile Defense Agency's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program.

Now, he predicts, "it won't be too long - in a couple of years - when the national command authority will ask: 'Where are the Aegis ships?' "
...
The guided missile cruiser Shiloh, formerly based in San Diego, was able to detect, track and destroy an incoming missile at least 100 miles out in space during a test in June, Hicks said.
...
The Navy will have converted 10 Aegis-equipped destroyers to long-range tracking ships by the end of this year. However, they will not be able to shoot down incoming missiles until they obtain additional upgrades. Six other vessels, to include guided missile cruisers, called "engagement ships," will be able to track and shoot down missiles.

So many things are making progress and success is being had. One of our main problems now is one we had for years with everything military but especially shown in aircraft. Speed. Props turned to jets. Planes became more aerodynamic and faster. And how was the best way to over-fly the USSR? Design the SR-71 to just outrun any G-A missiles. Well now we have to hit missiles. So the hurdles at hand are designing faster missiles, a problem which is moving along and being solved as we speak.

-md

Also reference: Innovation and the BMDS, "Every test has failed." News to me!
Technorati Tags: nuclear, missile defense, BMDS, BMDO, navy, ICBM

Go figure!

If true, this proves my reasoning behind this blog.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra has suspended a Democratic staff member because of concerns he may have leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to The New York Times last month.

-md

"Every test has failed." News to me!

C.I.R. Press Editorial

UNDISCLOSED – This post is another in what I foresee as a series of pieces about Missile Defense. No, I am not going to argue the cost of the system because I think it is a high priority and should be on the front burner and get the attention it deserves. I am sure there will be replies saying it is too expensive and that is fine. I am not debating the cost… DoD programs in development are very expensive.

Rob and others have done a good job at putting budget numbers up to try and cement their stance. That is fine, this is my response to those that don’t debate the facts or cost but simply hide behind the uniformed and ignorant line of “every test has failed.” No they have not And this LONG piece is the proof.

“In laying out this picture of the threat our nation faces, I’m reminded of the observation of the Marquis of Salisbury: ‘If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe.’ To extend this to the context of missile defense, let me go two further: If you believe our missile defense critics, nothing will work. If you believe passionate advocates, we can do it tomorrow.”

“The first systems we will deploy provide close-in defense to intercept a short-range missile in its terminal phase. These include the Army’s PAC-3, expected to be operational later this year.”

“Currently we have a small, 120 pound kill vehicle with its own guidance and sensing system. Once lifted into space and pointed in the right direction, on its final leg, it can steer itself into the target and obliterate the warhead by violent impact… This is called hit-to-kill — hitting a bullet with a bullet. Traditional explosives don’t work well in space, and the nuclear tipped interceptors on which we relied 25 years ago — and on which the Russians still rely — have major political and operational drawbacks.”

“We’ve achieved success with hit-to-kill not once, but seven times out of the last ten attempts in the past two years, with three different systems. … Our NMD program, for example, has had one hit followed by two well-publicized failures in our three intercept flight tests so far.

I relearned a basic truth in missile defense: that success occurs in private and failure in full view. That they were well publicized is an understatement. Despite our high profile failures, we have made significant progress in developing this system.”

“This is rocket science, and it is difficult, but not impossible. Seven hundred years ago, the current wisdom held that sailors who ventured too far from land would fall off the edge of the Earth. Columbus proved them wrong. Seventy years ago, naysayers were saying that rockets wouldn’t work in space because there was no air to push against. Robert Goddard proved them wrong. Seven years ago, critics were still saying we couldn’t hit a missile in space. We’ve done it. Now they say, ‘OK, you can hit it. But it will be fooled by decoys and countermeasures, so you shouldn’t build it.’"

Lt. General Ronald Kadish, USAF
March 2, 2001

List of tests
Nov 30, 1993 : The Army carried out a successful test of the Extended Range Interceptor. The ERINT collided with the warhead of a STORM target vehicle. This warhead contained a cluster of 38 pressurized, water-filled containers designed to simulate toxic chemical submunitions.

Feb 15, 1994 : An Extended Range Interceptor (ERINT) hit a ballistic missile target vehicle in a test. The target was a nose cone carrying a simulated chemical warhead.


Jan 24, 1997 : A modified Standard Missile 2 Block IVA successfully intercepted and destroyed a Lance missile target. During the test, the interceptor successfully transitioned from radar guidance to its infrared guidance system prior to destroying the target with its blast fragmentation warhead.

Feb 7, 1997 : BMDO and the U.S. Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command carried out a test in which a Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2) missile successfully intercepted a theater ballistic target missile. The target missile was fired from Bigen Island, Aur Atoll, toward the Kwajalein Atoll; the interceptor missile was fired from Meck Island in the Kwajalein Atoll and intercepted the target missile over the Pacific Ocean. A Patriot Guidance-Enhanced Missile was also fired at the target, but destroyed itself because the PAC-2 missile had already destroyed the target missile. The target missile had the characteristics of a variant of the Scud missile.

May 12, 1998 : (Failure. But note that some excess costs by such failures were picked up by L-M.)This was the fifth straight failure to intercept for THAAD. The fourth failure earlier had triggered major concern about the program… [resulting in] an agreement with Lockheed-Martin whereby the company would pay the government as much as a total of $75 million in case of later failures in the test program.

Mar 15, 1999 : BMDO and the U.S. Army conducted the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile Seeker Characterization Flight (SCF) test. Preliminary data indicated that the test was successful. The objectives of the test included collecting data and analyzing the system/missile capability to detect, track, and close with its target, gathering data on the PAC-3 missile seeker in a flight environment, and evaluating performance closed-loop homing guidance in flight. While interception was not a specific objective of the SCF, the PAC-3 missile did intercept the Hera target missile.

Jun 10, 1999 : THAAD successfully intercepted a Hera target missile. This test ended a string of six failures.

Aug 2, 1999 : The 11th flight test for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) defense missile system was completed successfully, when the THAAD interceptor struck a Hera target missile. For the first time in FT-11, THAAD intercepted a target outside the earth's atmosphere. This was also the missile's first intercept of a warhead that had separated from its booster. The difficulty of the test was further increased because cooling of the target in outer space reduced the ability of the missile's infrared sensors to detect it.

Sep 16, 1999 : The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Army today conducted a successful intercept test of the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile. Test objectives included a body-to-body intercept of a threat representative of a tactical ballistic missile target; a demonstrated capability of the ground system and missile to detect, track, and engage the target, and to collect data to evaluate missile homing functions.

Oct 2, 1999 : BMDO and the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command successfully carried out the IFT-3 NMD test. A modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) target vehicle was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California; and a prototype NMD interceptor was launched approximately 20 minutes later and 4,300 miles away from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The intercept occurred at approximately 7:32 p.m. PDT and demonstrated the ability of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle to intercept and destroy a ballistic missile target outside the atmosphere. The intercept vehicle weighed about 120 pounds and was equipped with two infrared sensors, a visible sensor, and a small propulsion system. The interceptor's seeker system located and tracked the target and then guided the kill vehicle to a body-to-body impact with the target. The test demonstrated the power of a "hit to kill" interceptor to totally destroy and neutralize a warhead carrying a weapon of mass destruction-nuclear, chemical or biological.

Feb 5, 2000 : A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted its Hera target. The Hera had been launched from Fort Wingate about five minutes before the launching of the Patriot.

Mar 15, 2000 : The Army completed flight test MFT-3B. In this test, a PAC-2 production missile was fired from a PAC-3 launcher and "successfully engaged" a target that was towed behind a MQM-107 drone. The purpose of this test was to "demonstrate the ability to launch a standard Patriot missile from a PAC-3 launcher and collect reliability data on the production missile round."

Oct 14, 2000 : The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the U.S. Army completed Development Test-6 (DT-6) in the Patriot program. This was a complex test involving three targets and two interceptor missiles. The test entailed a simultaneous engagement using a PAC-3 and a PAC-2 missile and two targets, one a ballistic missile, the other an air-breathing drone. One of the principal objectives of the test was to demonstrate system capability to engage and destroy a maneuvering tactical ballistic missile reentry vehicle with a PAC-3 missile and a sub-scale air-breathing target with a PAC-2 missile. The test also aimed to demonstrate PAC-3 seeker acquisition and tracking of a target with a second object present in the seeker's field of view. The targets used in the test were a tactical ballistic target (STORM) and an MQM-107 drone (two drones were actually launched although only one was targeted). During this highly successfully test the PAC-3 missile intercepted and destroyed the STORM target. While the PAC-2 missile did not destroy its sub-scale drone target (MQM-107), the drone did appear to be damaged.

Oct 19-21, 2001 : A poll conducted during this period by the Gallup Organization showed that 70% of the American people favored spending the money needed to build a missile defense system. This was up from 53% in a 14-16 July poll.

Dec 3, 2001 : BMDO and the U.S. Army successfully completed Integrated Flight Test 7 (IFT-7) in the Ground-Based Midcourse Segment portion of the overall missile defense program. This was two straight successes and brought the count in the intercept test series to three successes out of five attempts.

Jun 23, 2004 : In a Missile Defense Agency radar test, an Aegis destroyer, the USS Paul Hamilton detected and tracked the flight of the unarmed Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile after it was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The ship-based radar passed data about the in-flight ballistic missile to the Ballistic Missile Defense command and control center at the Joint National Integration Center in Colorado, marking the first time a Navy ship equipped with advanced Aegis radar and a ground missile defense system has successfully passed information about a missile. The ship detected the friendly missile when it came above horizon and tracked it for about 700 miles. The test was an important step in linking the entire missile defense system together.

Jul 29, 2004 : An Arrow missile successfully intercepts a ballistic missile target off the California Coast. The test was part of the joint U.S. - Israeli Arrow System Improvement Program.

Sep 2, 2004 : The Army successfully conducts a flight test of the PATRIOT Advance Capability-3 (PAC-3). The test demonstrated the systems capability to track, engage and intercept a short-range tactical ballistic missile and a low-altitude cruise missile target. A THAAD radar system was used to track the targets during the test.


And ballistic missile defense is not needed?

If every test has failed, how am I able to provide over 10 examples of success? And those are the tests in public knowledge. Those show the specific interception tests, none of the ground, simulation, or just flight tests.

-md

Also reference: Innovation and the BMDS.
Technorati Tags: nuclear, missile defense, BMDS, BMDO

Oh Senator, There you go again...

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Kerry just said one of the dumbest things ever on FNS:

“While we knew they probably were cheating, we were on a road where we had them in the non-proliferation treaty.”

So it is ok for us to believe in a treaty that basically goes off honesty, a commitment that you will not build nuclear weapons or spread the technology to other states. Well think about that for a second. Kerry may have thrown up the most blatant red herring of all time. In the very same sentence he admits the regime is dishonest, cheated, and was developing back to and since 1997 (I believe was the time frame Wallace was speaking of). Then in the next breath implies all would have been well because they were part of the NPT?

You just admitted they are cheaters and basically you cannot believe a word out of their mouth, but they will follow the NPT? You must be kidding. Is it just me or do even supporters of the Senator think that was a dumb thing to say?

I am not even going to go much in depth with his “Bush Bomb” comments and what not and his “mislead us arguments” which is a joke. They got almost identical intelligence. And if they think the President is such an idiot, what does that say of them… in their words I guess they were bamboozled by an idiot. I contend it is not the President that is an idiot Senator.

And for fun, all the left likes to make fun of some of President Bush’s verbal road-bumps. I must say it is funny to have the Senator sitting there yapping about how bad Bush is and how he is the true patriot because “the truth was out their about his war record.” And then speaking of Senator McCain has a roadbump of his own “patri-id-otic.”

-md

More on Kerry from the past:
The best judge of "character"?, Saddam is smart as he plays the left like a fiddle.
Technorati Tags: Kerry, North Korea, Treaty, nuclear, Bush

USAF Memorial Dedication

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today was the dedication of the United States Air Force Memorial. It was a great day and thanks to a demanding work schedule I was not able to attend. But it was a fantastic day on the land next to Arlington National Cemetery and in the skies over the Nations Capital. The President said it best in the following (this is one thread where Bush bashing is not appropriate nor will it be tolerated):

"Soldiers can walk the grounds where they fought for freedom," President George W. Bush said, "and Marines can wander down the beaches they stormed, but airmen can never visit the spacious skies they raced across in the defense of our freedom. But now, they can come here."

-md

Fox News lets me down.

After a week of promotion that FNC had about their coverage of the dedication of the USAF Memorial they are not covering it, I just found out from a friend at home. If you would like I ask you turn on C-SPAN or you can go to USAF Link (center column "LIVE" is the link) and watch.

Innovation and the BMDS

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One of the biggest issues that people bring up is that the Ballistic Missile Defense System is a waste of money because it doesn’t work. I have two reactions to that assessment. Thank God we have not yet had to prove it via battle-test. Second, it does work. People fail to realize this is a system including land, air, and sea assets. Have there been failures in the testing of some assets, yes. I will not try to hide that. Cars were failures, the Titanic sank, many things have failed does that mean we end any and all usage? I liken it to airbags. Airbags are expensive things, you pay for them to be in your car… and likely will never ever use them. But in the rare event you need them, they are there for you. Think of the BMDS as the nations airbags. Just one component of the over all safety features in the car that you pray you never have to use. As well as insurance… my driving and added training makes me confident that I don’t need insurance. Law requires it, but even if it wasn’t required I will still spend the money knowing I will never use it.

Over the times of civilization there had come times when great leaps in technology were thought to be ahead of their time. Maybe others just give up but we are America, we should not be giving up… sometimes we do. For example look at the following photographs.

The “flying wing” B-35 was a dream in an genius’s head that was developed and went from prop power to jet power in the B-49. As time went on people said it can’t be used, or that it was a generation before its time. His love was gone and Northrop left the aviation industry. Only to later in his life find out about the newest and possibly most technologically advanced aircraft in the world… the B-2 Spirit was the spitting image of his work. What took computers today he had essentially done with pen, paper, and brains so many years ago.

So for those against the missile defense systems why wait? Why put off something that is inevitable? Doing so only leaves open another way of attack from country or terrorists elements. I personally think we need to spend the money on defense before other things. Why in God’s green earth did we allow federal money to be used to repair the stadium in New Orleans? Any one that wants to talk about the wasting of money I would really like an explanation as to why federal money to a stadium is more important than say… BMDS?

So let us look at the requested amounts and how much they are granted:

So let’s see who really was for and against BMDS. Mid to late 90’s the President asked for less money, but by ’96 Congress started to provide more money than even the Democratic President requested. Then in ’02 the President pushed for more money and congress delivered. Sometimes giving a little more or little less. But with the threat obvious those with the safety of the nation looked to the future and wanted to prevent any horrific attack a nuclear armed missile would unleash.

It was nearly 30 years between the end of the YB-49 and the recall and start of the B-2 Spirit. Missile defense has been in the making since before the YB-49, around the time of the first V-2 rockets terrorizing England. Closer to our time it was in 1976 that the Safeguard system was closed and for some time we had no defense. As so many on the left say today “President Bush needs to listen to the generals” that is exactly what President Reagan did in 1983 when he received a unanimous recommendation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to implement the SDI program.

In 1993-94 there was a huge drop in funding for missile defense under President Clinton. He split the systems up, taking some of them off the defense acquisition table. Funny how that was timed in the years surrounding our good friends at the New York Times placing an article on their front page that said the HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment, one version of a possible new system) was not actually a success. This was a test done in June of 1984 yet the article appeared on the front page in 1993. But the test was proven not to have been rigged by the Pentagon and General Accounting Office (GAO) when they refuted the article.

Then there are the complaints from the left that President Bush is just leaving problems for the next President. Well it was on September 1, 2000 that President Clinton announced he was too worried about violating the ABM Treaty so he would not be deploying the system to Alaska. That is right, he was overly concerned about everything BUT the safety of America, and in that speech left this problem to the next President.

Thankfully President Bush saw the need for the system and if it required a change in policy to protect the US, then that is what needed to be done. So on December 13, 2001 he announced that the US would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. He also realized that over the years we would develop weapons systems and in the effort to make them perfect spent so much time testing them that they were obsolete when they reached the battlefield. So he changed some regulations allowing the typical ORD to be avoided and for new systems to be put online as quickly and as safely possible.

“The deployment of missile defenses is an essential element of our broader efforts to transform our defense and deterrence policies and capabilities to meet the new threats we face. Defending the American people against these new threats is my highest priority as Commander-in-Chief.”
— President George W. Bush, December 17, 2002

With Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons and missile technology, North Korea trying to develop nuclear technology and improve upon their ICBMs… and announcing they will have to launch missiles at the US if sanctions are imposed. How can anyone not see the threat and want to safeguard against it? The missile threat has been around far longer than our terrorist threat. We must guard against both and not open ourselves to a missile attack because we divert all resources into other threats. That is a recipe for disaster, and with nukes… one hell of a disaster.

-md

Technorati Tags: democrats, republicans, missile defense, BMDS, ICBM, nuclear, North Korea, Iran, ABM Treaty, President, military, Reagan, Bush, Clinton

Needed tough talk.

The above (President Bush) said today the following about the man whose name is at the top of that book, the one with the US Flag upside down.

I would cite my opponent in the 2004 campaign, when he said there needs to be a “date certain” from which to withdraw from Iraq. I characterize that as “cut and run.”

I have been using their votes or their words to characterize their positions … When you pull out before the job is done that is “cut and run” as far as I am concerned.

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- How long was/is it until Pelosi is up there complaining about how unfair it is for a President to criticize the Congress? Why are they allowed to BASH the President but he is not allowed to fight back? I forgot, Congress the land of do whatever, oversight of everything, but even with a warrant don’t come in our office. What a joke. I am so glad the President is finally taking the tough stance of… oh my god, using their own words against them, their own votes.

-md

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Iraq, Kerry, Pelosi, cut and run

Over the top? Or not?

C.I.R. Press Editorial

Is this over the top? Possibly, however it seems to be quite accurate and how many on the right view the situation. Anything to make nice, but refusal to use brute strength. Added rights given to captured terrorists and the prevention of the intelligence community to do its job. I link to this not as an unbiased piece of reporting but as something that I find funny, and as a voice of concern about what could happen if Democrats are again in charge. It may not be the truth, but it is the perception... and that goes a long way in politics.

-md

Technorati Tags: Democrats, North Korea, Albright, Clinton, al Qaeda

Hurting... WHO?

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The democrats want to show how the GOP is hurting OUR (“our” is the key here) troops. Ok, if my whole point here is to show how much the left cares about the military and why I, personally and others, do not feel they can do the job…

Come on! This is pathetic! They put up a photo of a soldier of another country? Now come on. This is the soldier of another country or a US soldier horrifically out of uniform, that would not be overlooked. Those that support the DNC have to be embarrassed by this to some degree! I went to the iStockphoto site to see how they got the photo. I searched “soldier” my results show: Page 1)2 images, 2)1, 3)4, 4)0, 5)7, 6)2, etc. etc. Numerous photos of US Soldiers, and I stopped at page 25 still not coming across the photo in question.

-md

Hat Tips to:
ORIGINAL, Hot Air, Florida Cracker, Little Green Footballs, Democratic Party (I assume this will be gone soon.)

Technorati Tags: Democrats, military

U.N. S.C.: Useless Nations Security Collapse

C.I.R. Press Editorial

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Here we go again. Another country (repeat), same story. North Korea is in trouble now, because the tough as nails U.N. Security council has warned them that sanctions and war is possible if they test a nuclear weapon… oh excuse me, they will “suffer unspecified consequences under the U.N. Charter.” This is pathetic; the troll with the bad track suits over there must be laughing his odd haircut all the way to the test grounds. Let's hope we are not talking about something similar to this tomorrow evening.

I really don’t get the U.N. If you are serious about stopping something, as by the unanimous vote would suggest, you say what will happen. Oh but I suppose if you say you are going to throw-down if they don’t listen, you actually have to follow up with it. This is just insane. If you want the NK state not to further develop and test nuclear capabilities why don’t you say it and back it up with: “you test, we bomb your military facilities.” Ahhh, but the U.N. doesn’t have that ability.

So who do you trust more to rope in rogue states? The say almost nothing, but do absolutely 100% nothing U.N. or the U.S… that can back up its demands?

I am just tired of this yapping of how the U.S. must bow down before the U.N. Or what? They will kill us via paper cut, with all their unpaid NYC parking tickets? If most of the U.S. feels that way, that the U.N. is an ineffective waste, you can only imagine how insane dictators or nutty religious fanatics feel. Technically I guess the United States of America doesn’t exist, I mean our Constitution was not approved by the legendary all-knowing United Nations Security Council.

In all honesty people, if you are a weird dictator that starves your own people to build nuclear weapons and improve your military, you have almost no contact with the outside world, almost no electricity in your country (maybe they want “peaceful nuclear power” like Iran), do you think the words “serious consequences” from a group of people on the other side of the world means anything to you? Even when they try to sanction people say… “Oil-for-food” the program is so corrupt it is for all essential purposes helping the country’s regime, the one it was supposed to HURT! Give me a break from the U.N. can’t they just listen to Chavez and move to Venezuela?

You are the bad guy, wanting to repeat what was in the above video, would you be worried about…

Or…

That is what I thought. Peace through strength. Glad to be back.

-md

Technorati Tags: United Nations, North Korea

"Let 'em have nukes. But..."

By Ted Koppel referring to Iran.

Are you f’ing insane?

Even as the United States withholds its goods and technological know-how from Iran, the Europeans, Russians, Japanese and especially the Chinese are offering theirs as quickly as the contracts can be drafted.

What, then, can the United States do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology? Little or nothing. Washington should instead bow to the inevitable.

Great suggestion on how to solve the problem!

"You insist on having nuclear weapons," we should say. "Go ahead. It's a terrible idea, but we can't stop you. We would, however, like your leaders to view the enclosed DVD of 'The Godfather.' Please pay particular attention to the scene in which Don Corleone makes grudging peace with a man - the head of a rival crime family - who ordered the killing of his oldest son."

In that scene, Don Corleone says, "I forgo my vengeance for my dead son, for the common good. But I have selfish reasons." The welfare of his youngest son, Michael, is on his mind. "I am a superstitious man," he continues. "And so if some unlucky accident should befall my youngest son, if some police officer should accidentally shoot him, or if he should hang himself in his cell, or if my son is struck by a bolt of lightening, then I will blame some of the people here. That I could never forgive."If Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it.The elimination of American opposition on this issue would open the way to genuine normalization between our two nations. It might even convince the Iranians that their country can flourish without nuclear weapons.But this should also be made clear to Tehran: If a dirty bomb explodes in Milwaukee, or some other nuclear device detonates in Baltimore or Wichita, if Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia should fall victim to a nuclear "accident," Iran should understand that the U.S. government will not search around for the perpetrator. The return address will be predetermined, and it will be somewhere in Iran.

Basically Koppel is saying that it would be a good idea to use the idea that these nuts have of 9/11 being an inside job to go to war, use it to have a new one and go to war with Iran. Does the word insane come to mind? I never liked Koppel that much, but ya would think a well educated guy like him would have a bit more in that head. If you really want to do that… tell everyone you are giving Iran nukes, without actually doing it!

Think about it, that is the goal to push the world into a war. Why are you going to give the country you are about to go to war with NUKES? What a moron.