Saturday, September 16, 2006

Just so people know

If you don't like harsh words, then cover your ears and skip down a post or two, cause I'm in the mood for yellin'.

All you moose-limbs out there screaming for Pope Benedict to apologize to you and submit to dhimmitude? I got a message for ya:

Fuck you.

Fuck you and your worthless, murderous paedophile prophet. Fuck you and your moon-god worshiping leaders. Fuck you and your terrorist religion. Fuck you and your anti-civilization theology. Fuck you and your ass-backwards way of life. Fuck you. Get bent. Kiss my ass. Lick me where I shit. Better yet, go blow yourselves up, since that seems to be all you're good at doing. Go get your seventy-two raisins, or your seventy-two year old virgin, or whatever the hell your worthless Koran says you get for blowing yourself up.

As far as I'm concerned, we have tried this whole "live and let live" philosophy with the Middle East, and it hasn't really done us too much good. And now these goat-fucking barbarians want the leader of my church to submit to their fucked up cult of bloodshed?

Nope. The gloves come off, you fucking parasites. Can you name one good thing that Islam has brought into this world? I mean, even with all the historical faults that the Roman Catholic church has, and I'm adult enough to admit that we have them, I can at least point to several examples and say "The Catholic Church has brought good into this world". Islam cannot make any such claim.

So here is my response to you splody-dopes. Fuck off and die.


How many dictators can Koffi fellate in one day? DANEgerus has them listed. Go take a look. Tell me again why the hell we allow the UN in this country? You all know my prefered method to get rid of them: lock the doors and bulldoze the place with every worthless dictator and theocrat inside.

I'm not alone in that, either.

Oh, by the way; DANE also has a roundup of the "peaceful" ISM posing with terrorists. Yep, nothing says "peace" like posing with the Al Aqsa Maryrs Brigade holding AK-47s, ya know? Worthless idiots. Actually, to the Islamonazi's they're "useful idiots". Hell, they're just plain idiots. Too bad more of them don't sit down in front of an armored Cat D6 bulldozer like their hero, St. Rachel Corrie of the Holy Pancake.

And yes, I question their patriotism. Because they engage in Anti-American activities every chance they get. I'm sorry, but burning American flags, calling America a facist country and calling for America's destruction is anti-American. It's not "dissent" at that point. Personally, if I had my way I would take pictures of these anti-American assholes in the palestinian occupied areas and prevent them from re-entering America. Piss on em. They're worthless cretins and I don't want them polluting my country. Let them stay with the terrorists. Enjoy your martyrdom, you pricks!

But that's just me.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Riding the Bush Train

Dow nears record high: Yahoo! Finance

Consumer confidence skyrockets: - Yahoo! News

Treasury: Federal Deficit Down 14.1 Pct: Houston Chronicle

Gas prices continue to drop: San Antonio Business Journal

What can derail the boom and elect Democrats?? An October Surprise from Iran.

Do it, please. Let Republicans stump and explain how the Left have been enriching themselves with "environmentalist" money while forcing the American people to lie prostrate to the Middle East oil kings.

Sean Penn Blows a Gasket

"devastated our democracy"

"enormous damage" to "this country and mankind"

Read about it

Another good one is gone

Althought unfortunately I can't say I'm too surprised at her death. Cancer is a bitch.

Oriana Fallaci, a veteran Italian journalist and author who challenged world leaders in uncompromising interviews and recently drew criticism for her vehement attacks on Islam, has died at 76, officials said Friday.

Fallaci, who was diagnosed with breast cancer years ago, died overnight in a private clinic in Florence, said Paolo Klun, an official with the RCS publishing group, which published Fallaci's work. Klun said Fallaci, who lived in New York, had come back to her hometown days before as her condition worsened.

I don't know much about Fallaci's politics, but I do know that she recognized the danger that Islam presented, and she was reviled for simply stating her opinion on that danger. And anyone who is absolutely hated for expressing a politically incorrect opinion on Islam can't be all bad.

I've read some of her writing, and I would suggest that anyone who wants to write in a simply powerful style would do well to read her works and see how she wrote.

Rest in peace, Ms. Fallaci.

Tyler Drumheller - Another CIA LIAR

Bush's CIA Critic Claim Exposed as Untrue

By Ronald Kessler

WASHINGTON — In a "60 Minutes" interview on April 23, Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA's Europe division, made a sensational charge.

He claimed that President Bush and his White House ignored intelligence before the invasion of Iraq indicating that Saddam Hussein had no had weapons of mass destruction.

On the CBS-TV show, and in subsequent media interviews that appeared throughout the world, Drumheller said that the White House was excited about the fact that the CIA was getting information straight from Naji Sabri, the then Iraqi foreign minister. But when the White House found out this source was reliably saying that Saddam had no WMD, Bush and his White House weren't interested.

"He [Sabri] told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," Drumheller told correspondent Ed Bradley in a segment called "A Spy Speaks Out."

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller said, proclaiming himself outraged.

According to Drumheller, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice brushed aside the CIA report on what Sabri had to say because "the policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Drumheller saw "how the Bush administration time and time again welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not," Ed Bradley said in the introduction to the "60 Minutes" piece.

Now it appears Drumheller's claim was untrue, according to the findings of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation. Rather than undercutting the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq, Sabri's account shows how well-founded the intelligence on Saddam's weapons program appeared to be.

Ironically, just as Drumheller claimed that Bush ignored the truth about Iraq, the media have ignored the documentation in the Senate report demolishing Drumheller's claim.

An addenda to the Senate report on postwar findings about Iraq's WMD program says all the operational documents relating to Sabri indicate he told the CIA just the opposite of what Drumheller claimed. The Senate report refers to Sabri as a source with direct access to Saddam Hussein and his inner circle but does not name him.

"Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policy-makers [based on interrogation of the source] said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon, ‘he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon,'" the Senate report said.

The documents said "Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons," according to the addendum, signed by Sens. Pat Roberts, R–Kan., Orrin G. Hatch, R–Utah, and Saxby Chambliss, R–Ga. Iraq's weapon of last resort was mobile launched chemical weapons, which would be fired at enemy forces and Israel, the CIA documents said.

Moreover, there is "not a single document relating to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs," the addenda said. "On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs."

What the source said was consistent with the CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the report said. The report added: "The committee is still exploring why the former chief/EUR's public remarks differ so markedly from the documentation."

At least 134 stories and TV shows have referred to Drumheller's claims and his criticism of the CIA and Bush administration in general. One of the stories ran as the second lead of the June 25, 2006 Washington Post.

"Warnings on WMD ‘Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says," the headline over the Post story said. According to the story, Drumheller was dumbfounded when he saw a classified version of the speech Secretary of State Colin Powell was about to give to the United Nations citing Iraq's biological weapons factories on wheels.

Drumheller claimed he had warned George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, in a phone call, and John McLaughlin, the deputy director, in a personal meeting that the source for that claim, code-named "Curveball," was a fabricator.

Not until the 32nd paragraph of the Post story did the reader learn that both Tenet and McLaughlin said they had no recollection of warnings Drumheller allegedly gave them. Both men said they would have taken immediate action if he had.

While two former CIA officials said they recalled Drumheller telling them at the time about warnings he allegedly gave McLaughlin, no meeting with Drumheller appeared on McLaughlin's official calendar, according to the report of the Commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the U.S. Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, known as the Silverman-Robb commission.

Carroll & Graf is publishing Drumheller's book, "On the Brink: How the White House Has Compromised American Intelligence," written with Elaine Monaghan, on Sept. 28, according to the Amazon listing. The publisher's Web site lists the publication date as this winter.

Neither Drumheller nor a Carroll & Graf spokesperson responded to messages seeking comment.

So far, no media outlet has run the Senate committee's addendum demolishing Drumheller's claim that Bush and his White House did not want to hear the truth about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Thursday, September 14, 2006


I just heard that Rosie O'Donnel stated that "Fundamentalist Christians were just as dangerous as fundamentalist Muslims in America".

Pardon me.... I got so nauseous due to the stupidity of that statement that I think I'm going to vomit.

Once again, dear Rosie demonstrates why she should have never been allowed back onto a TV stage ever again. Tell me Rosie, when have fundie Christians hacked off someone's head just because they were a different religion? When have Christians blown up buildings and civilians in an attempt to get people to convert? And don't even try that Timothy McVeigh bullshit. He was as Christian as he was black. As in, HE WASN'T!

While Rosie is busy equating Christians with terrorists, in Muslim countries all over the mideast lesbians and gays are being executed simply because they're homosexual. Tell me Rosie, do you think you could live for five minutes in Iran? Because I don't. Not only would they kill you for being gay, they would probably hack off your head in order to stop the flow of stupidity that continues unabated from your blathering piehole.

Quite honestly, I'm sick of that stupid, blathering bitch, and I can't believe that anyone would put her back on television. But you know what makes me vomit even harder? Go over to Hot Air and watch the video. And when Rosie makes her statement, listen to the audience applaud. And realize that not only is Rosie so stupid that she makes a crack-smoking baboon seem intelligent, but the people who adore her ARE EVEN WORSE.

These people wallow in stupidity like a pig wallows in mud. They enjoy it. They're so damn retarded that they leap into the stupid pool with both feet. They're the political equivalent of the Flat Earth Society. They're a black hole of stupidity that sucks up any intelligent life. They're stupidity junkies, sucking down their daily fix of stupid and jonesing for another hit. They are ideological crack whores, and if they get their way they will be in charge of protecting this nation after the election.

I don't know about you, but having people elected by anyone as stupid as Rosie and her syphilitic syncophants scares the shit out of me.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Click Early

Click Often

I'll take "Unilateral" for 2,500, Alex

I have written before on why Unilateralism isn't such a bad thing. Here's another example why, courtesy of Captain's Quarters.

THE political head of Nato appealed yesterday for alliance members to provide hundreds more troops for the mission in southern Afghanistan.

With most of the fighting burden falling on the shoulders of the British, US, Canadian and Dutch troops in the South, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Secretary-General of Nato, said that some countries had failed to live up to their promises on troop numbers.

NATO is supposed to be a joint defense treaty. But when over half the members either cannot or will not pony up troops, then what good is it? In the modern world we live in, the new definition of "multilateral" means that the USA and the UK put up most of the troops, but we have the thumbs-up from everyone else. "Yay USA! You go and do it! Just don't ask for help, cause we can't give ya anything or anyone!"

We have got troops from almost every country in Europe, that's true. And I'm not trying to lessen the sacrifice of those troops. But let's face it, who would you want there: 50,000 American troops, or 200 French troops? Who could do the most good? I'll let Captain Ed give his two cents:

Perhaps people might recall the insistence of Europe and many here in America on engaging Afghanistan and Iraq through international alliances. We tried in both cases, and we had a lot more support from our allies with Afghanistan, as it had created much less controversy than the war against Saddam Hussein. Our relief by NATO was supposed to show America the benefits of "true" international coalitions in dealing with the complex problems of Southwest Asia.

However, once again, we see that the global community lacks the fortitude to make good on their promises and meet the challenge of their own demands. The same nations that scolded us over our supposedly unilateral approach now refuse to answer the phone when NATO calls on them to meet their pledges of troop support. The French do not belong to NATO, but the rest of Europe will blithely sit and watch Afghanistan's new democratically-elected government fall victim to a resurgent Taliban rather than lift a finger to help. Even Germany, with 2700 troops stationed in the quiet north, refuses to redeploy to assist the US, UK, and Canada in the more volatile southern region.

Tell me why we should be multilateral when the countries who scream at us to get global support refuse to support us? This charade does nothing but threaten stability in Afghanistan, because the help we thought we were going to get, and that we planned for, has failed to materialize. So while we planned and started a mission, we now have to react to cover the areas that are short, which effects our mission as a whole. We would have been better off if we had simply not counted on those countries for support and changed our ops plan to deal with that reality. There are areas of Afghanistan that are as lawless as the Anbar region of Iraq. The Taliban is still fighting us, only now they've had time to reorganize and resupply. Instead of platoon sized elements, we're now fighting battalion sized groups. And the troops that were supposed to be helping us from the EU in general are not there. So once again, it's falling on the USA and her close allies (the UK, Australia, Canada, Italy and Poland) to fill the gaps and deal with the situation. What has multilateralism gotten us in Afghanistan that we couldn't have gotten by just forging ahead with our allies? The blessing of Fermany and Grance Germany and France? So what?

Oh, and the same feckless idiots who were hollaring about multilateralism in Afghanistan are the same witless morons who want us to take a unilateral approach to North Korea. The same jackasses who shrieked that we needed a coalition in Iraq now want us to go head to head with Iran. They say we "sold out" our deplomacy to Europe when it comes to Iran. OK, fine. Does that mean that we can deal with Iran how we see fit? Not according to the Democrats, who never met a Bush plan they couldn't attack. Which tells me that they really don't care about multilateralism or unilateralism, it's all just cheap political stunts. So why are we playing this game?

Gah. I say it's time to tell the world to get bent. Put up or shut up. And that goes for the Democrats. Every time I hear a Dimocrap supporter go on about how the Democrats would make America safer, I always ask "So what's their plan?"

I have yet to get a response. That tells you something, doesn't it?

September 11th and the Past

I had a nice post all written up about the failures of the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular with regards to terrorism, bin Laden, and security. I've deleted it. One, it's old news, and it's been hashed, rehashed, and gone over way too often. Two, all the finger pointing from years ago doesn't mean squat when it comes to the terrorist appeasing tactics of the Democrats today.

Think about it: What good does pointing out past failures do us when the present day Democrats are fighting against every terror-fighting tactic we can come up with? Think of the NSA wiretapping programs. That program has been credited with stopping terror attacks at home and abroad, and the Democrats torpedoed it as fast as they could. And they did it by leaking the information to the New York Slimes. Yay Democrats. Thanks for disabling a working program. Tell me again how you would fight terrorists? Oh, that's right, you WOULDN'T. But from what we see today, they really don't have a problem with snooping and illegal activity per se. It's only the targets that they have a problem with. You see, snooping on terrorists is bad. Hacking into a computer to embarass a Republican is perfectly OK in their book.

The campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Democratic rival acknowledged Tuesday that it downloaded - and leaked to the media - a recording of a private meeting in which the governor described a Hispanic legislator as having a "very hot" personality.

Of course, the Dimocrats are saying they didn't do anything wrong. Of course, they're lying. As usual.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Adam Mendelsohn said someone would have had to snoop to find the audio file.

"The file that was leaked to the Los Angeles Times was in a private area of the governor's server not accessible to the public without manipulation of information," he said.

Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, Andrea Lynn Hoch, said the sound file was stored in a password-protected area. She said she forwarded the Internet Protocol address used to download the file to the California Highway Patrol, which is investigating.

So remember, according to the Dimocrats, snooping on terrorists is bad, but snooping on Republicans is good. And this is the polical party who says they're strong on national security? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

For the ACLU, 9/11 is just another day to attack the Bush Administration


Memri Does 911 Memorial Video

Where was the good will in the muslim world on September 11, 2001? The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon should be remembered not only for those who we lost, but so that we may know and face our enemies.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Five years later

I haven't posted much today, because I've been up since 0500 ensuring that my unit's annual training goes smoothly. Another reason is because, quite honestly, I'm a little sickened by what I see in America today.

There are actually sick, twisted kooks who believe that September 11th was done by the US government, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The piles of evidence. The mountains. That's like standing outside a concentration camp and saying that the Holocaust didn't happen. And the Democrats are running one of these loons, these embarassments to humanity, for Senate.

There are people in America today who believe that George W. Bush is a bigger threat than terrorism. Indeed, they think that Bush is a terrorist, not Osama bin Laden.

Excuse me?

There are people in this country who actually believe that running away and hiding from terrorists, giving them whatever they want, will end terrorism. Like that worked for so well for three decades leading up to September 11th.

I cannot begin to accurately describe the kind of rank ignorance and stupidity it would take to believe any of the above. I really can't.

If it weren't for September 11th, I wouldn't be in uniform again. When I ETSed in 2000, I swore up and down that I would never again be part of the Armed Forces. Been there, did that, got the damn BDU shirt, and I'm done.

Yeah, right. Here I am once again with "U.S. Army" embroidered over my heart. And dammit, it's because I refuse to just sit around and wait to get hit. It's because I'm going to do more than deny, ignore and hide. I'm going to be a part of Operation Kill Terrorist Bastards, and I'm going to do my part to ensure that anyone who wants to kill my countrymen has to go through ME first. And I am very hard to kill. I[m doing it so that hopefully, sometime in the future, my step-son can go to work without worrying if he'll die in a bomb attack. I'm doing it so that people like Tim, and TVE, and Helen, and all the people who posted here can continue to do so without fear of being shut down by some Islamic Caliphate. I'm doing it so my family can live the way they want to.

I'm doing it so that people can sit at home and watch Fahrenheit 9-11 and drink beer and think "Damn, that George W. Bush is an idiot" while they scratch their shriveled nutsack and contemplate giving their hard three inches to the non-shaven wife.

But I'll tell you what. I'll lay down my life for my step-son, or my family. I'll lay down my life for all that which I hold dear. But more and more, it's becoming harder and harder to reconcile myself to the fact that I may have to lay down my life for someone who thinks that America is evil. In fact, I wouldn't lay my life down for Cindy Sheehan for all the money in America. Terrorists raping you and hacking off your head? Sorry 'bout that, Cindy. Hey, why don't you call Je$$e Jack$son and see if he can help you? I hear Al Sharpton is a real impressive negotiator, give him a call!

Luckily, when I go to war I won't be going to war for Cindy Sheehan. I'll be going to war for my family, and my step-son, and my Father who did his time before me in the jungles of Viet Nam, and my Grandfather, who fought the Japanese in the Pacific, and my Great-Grandfather who helped conquer the West in a U.S. Army cavalry uniform.

I'll be doing it for all of them.

In the meantime, I'm going to do my best to ensure that the idiots and brain-dead morons who want to tear down America continue to fail. I'm going to do my best to ensure that the Defeatocrats do not regain power. And I'm going to do my best to ensure that this country has the will to win a fight for our way of life and our very existence.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to clean my combat boots and drink a beer.

229 years ago today...

...The Battle of Brandywine, 11 September 1777.

As dawn broke on the morning of September 11th, Sir William Howe was in the process of dividing his army. At six o'clock, Knyphausen marched with 6,800 men along the Nottingham Road directly toward Chad's Ford. His mission was to engage Washington's attention while Howe marched at five o'clock with 8,200 men northeast from Kennett Square up the Great Valley Road, turned east across the Brandywine at Trimble's and Jeffries' fords, and then proceeded south around the American right flank. A dense fog cover initially shielded Howe's march, and locals kept him well informed of his route.
"locals kept him well informed of his route"

Some people didn't want to be freed from the tyranny that shackled them.

The more things change...

Nancy Diaz

All across the blogosphere today one will find profiles of Americans who died on 11 September 2001. Many of these profiles are part of the 2996 Project. This is one of them.

Nancy Diaz was 28 years old. She lived in New York City, and died at the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Nancy was a kitchen assistant at the Windows on the World restaurant:

Windows of the World was destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At the time of the attack on the World Trade Center, the restaurant was hosting regular breakfast patrons and the Waters Financial Technology Congress. Of those present in the restaurant at the time that American Airlines Flight 11 impacted the North Tower, all eventually perished as a result of the attack. This included 73 restaurant staff, 16 Waters employees, and 71 conference guests.

It is believed that the image of the The Falling Man was an employee at Windows On The World named Jonathan Briley.Windows on the World @ Wikipedia
From the New York Times:

Preparing for Caribbean Trip

Nancy Diaz loved to shop, but in her last days she was shopping with a purpose: Her daughter's birthday was coming up, and she was planning a trip to the Dominican Republic, where the girl lived with a greatgrandmother.

Planning to fly to the Caribbean on Sept. 14, she started her workday three and a half hours early, at 7 a.m., the previous Tuesday so she could use the free afternoon to prepare for her trip, said her brother, Leonel Diaz. A kitchen assistant, she was tending to the breakfast buffet on the 107th floor of the north tower when the first plane hit, he said.

Ms. Diaz, 28, who lived with her sister in the Bronx and had moved to the United States from the Dominican Republic less than three years ago, liked her American life, particularly her job, her brother said. She had a boyfriend at work (he was off on Sept. 11), and she had just heard from her boss that she had promotion potential. "They said 'You can be a manager. You're such a hard worker,' " Mr. Diaz said. Now Ms. Diaz's daughter is preparing to come to New York visit her family.

Profile published in THE NEW YORK TIMES on October 1, 2001.

Remember: September 11, 2001 -
This has been a sobering project for me, for aside from that NYT tribute, there is no other information about Nancy Diaz out there.

If you've a mind, post at one (or more, or all) of the following sites.

Remember her.

9-11 Victim Memorial: Nancy Diaz

9-11 Memorial - Nancy Diaz

Guest Book - Nancy Diaz

Sunday, September 10, 2006


Check out this YouTube post comments section. 451 comments so far. (I'm n336ap.) Lots of liberal moonbats but lots of informed conservatives, too. Join the fun. The video posted is a trailer for "Path to 9/11" which includes a bit of those deleted scenes. (See also here. One full hour of the 5-hour miniseries has been cut since Clinton's lawyers started threatening Disney's CEO.) And as usual, instead of responding to critisizm (unless you think calling someone a "liar" counts as a response), the DNC threatens and sues. Now the libtards are declaring all-out war on ABC. "Free speech for me, but none for thee," should be the DNC motto, but it is entertaining watching them twist and squirm, accusing the other side of fascism even as they are in the act of silencing their critics through intimidation and (il)legal force.

The delete scenes beg the question, "What was in Sandy Berger's pants?" Sandy Berger admitted to stealing five "code-word" classified (more secret than top-secret) security documents from the National Archives. He admitted to destroying three of the five documents. He admitted that he lied to federal investigators by telling them initially that he merely removed the documents “by accident.” Was he punished? Hell no! But that's not the point. Could it be that the Clinton gang is bullying ABC because its miniseries comes too close to the truth? Could it be that the deleted scene where special ops has bin Laden in their gun-sights but abort when Berger and Clinton refuse to authorize execution, despite approving the mission, is true in substance?