Saturday, September 30, 2006

I'm loving this

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime.

Hey, if the shoe fits.......

I don't know what's worse

The fact that there's yet another al Qeada asshat flapping his lips, or the fact that his speech and the Dimocrat talking points are identical.

When you sound like a terrorist, it's time to rethink your political stances. But thinking isn't exactly a Dimocrat strong point, is it?

Another Loser Goes Down

Here's an observation, backed up by absolute hoards of evidence: When some pansy-assed wimp from an Anti(american)-War group starts making claims like "I was in the Special Forces, dude!" you can be 99.999999999% sure that he's a liar.

They never learn. It's due to the Liberal mindset, where they can do no wrong and truth is just something to be sacrificed to the "greater good". They should be happy that I'm not around the little DD-214-altering asscannons, because I'd do a little "altering" of my own on his pathetic little body.

They attempt to use the military, or their supposed activities in the military, in order to make the military look bad. Altering your DD 214 is a felony. I want this bastard to rot in jail.

He's got a point

Alger discusses the newest school shooting.

Strange to think that, back in the Dark Ages, when youngsters got firearms training in school or marksmanship at the YMCA or the Scouts, it was unheard of for someone to take a gun to school with deadly intent. (I saw one or two in my day, but they were all treated in a sort of underground show-and-tell.) Squirt guns were confiscated for a duration to be determined by the adult doing the confiscation and that was about it.

And, at the same time, when we-all learned about sex "on the streets," teen pregnancies, while not unheard of, were exceedingly rare. In the late '60s, I suspect that STDs were a greater concern among adolescents than pregnancy -- in terms of people getting one or the other; everybody tried to avoid both, using several strategies and with varying degrees of success.

I honestly think that when we adopted this liberal "They're gonna do it anyways, let's make sure their safe" attitude with regards to sex, we opened up a Pandora's box that we can't close. And anyone who wants to call me some name because I think that teenagers shouldn't have sex hasn't seen a 14 year old girl who's pregnate. "Oh, it's natural, they're gonna do it anyway, teaching about sex won't lead to kids having sex, it's only a banana, don't be so uptight, they need to know how to protect themselves" and every other Leftist platitude has only let to one thing: Kids having sex. Young kids having sex. All of you with kids out there, riddle me this: Would you like your fourteen year old son or daughter to be a parent?

I wouldn't. So why are we teaching them how to become parents?

Friday, September 29, 2006

What a man should be able to do:

According to Robert Heinlein -

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

COL Jeff Cooper -

“What should a young male of 21 know, and what should he be able to do? There are no conclusive answers to those questions, but they are certainly worth asking. A young man should know how this country is run and how it got that way. He should know the Federalist Papers and de Tocqueville, and he should know recent world history. If he does not know what has been tried in the past, he cannot very well avoid those pitfalls as they come up in the future. A young man should be computer literate and, moreover, should know Hemingway from James Joyce. He should know how to drive a car well--such as is not covered in Driver’s Ed. He should know how to fly a light airplane. He should know how to shoot well. He should know elementary geography, both worldwide and local. He should have a cursory knowledge of both zoology and botany. He should know the fundamentals of agriculture and corporate economy. He should be well qualified in armed combat, boxing, wrestling and judo, or its equivalent. He should know how to manage a motorcycle. He should be comfortable in at least one foreign language, more if appropriate to his background. He should be familiar with remedial medicine. These things should be accomplished before a son leaves his father’s household.”

And last but not least, Kim du Toit (from whom I obtained the Jeff Cooper quote) -

* Drive a car well, ie. a stick shift;
* Know how to handle any gun, and be comfortable with its operation;
* Understand basic macro- and microeconomics;
* Know the difference between a popular democracy and a representative republic;
* Be able to cook a basic meal (meat, rice/potatoes, vegetables) from scratch;
* Speak at least one foreign language
* Understand how to read a map, and be comfortable with basic orienteering;
* Have two years’ experience in a trade (any trade, eg. carpenter, electrician, welder, auto mechanic, plumber);
* Play a musical instrument, and have a basic understanding of music;
* Understand basic self-defense/unarmed combat techniques;
* Have excellent manners, and know all aspects of social etiquette;
* Travel to a foreign country (Mexico and Canada don’t count, in the U.S. circumstance);
* Be extremely knowledgeable about history (for the reasons given by Coop);
* Have read at least twenty books in the Western Canon;
* Be able to use a computer, especially spreadsheet, word processing and basic database programs;
* Be able to write a cogent, grammatically-correct essay of no less than 1,000 words in length
* Been a member of a social group or club (4H, Boy Scouts, Young Republicans, whatever) for at least two years

I think that between the three of them, we might be able to get a good list going.

Dems to Bush: How dare you fight back!

I say it's about damned time!

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR, the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush said.

With less than six weeks to go until a November election that polls suggest could result in lost seats for Republicans in both the U.S. House and Senate, Bush chided Democrats, saying they don't understand the enemy nor do they grasp that succeeding in the War on Terror means not retreating from Iraq.

These are things that should have been said years ago, not 40 days from an election. The Dimocrats have been taking potshot after potshot at the President, the Republicans, and anyone who supported the war. They have leaked classified information in an attempt to hurt this administraion. In short, they've been traitorous little fuckers who only care about getting their claws on the power provided by being the majority party in Congress. I'll say it right now - there are probably good, honest Dimocrats who care about this country. But the leadership of that party doesn't give to shits about America. They only care about power, plain and simple. And if that means that America goes down in flames, they don't give a damn. Hell, most of them don't like this country to begin with.

"Our party record is clear. We see the stakes, we understand the nature of the enemy. We know the enemy wants to attack us again. We will not wait to respond to the enemy. We are not going to wait for them to attack us in order to respond," Bush said.

Maybe the Republicans are wising up and actually fighting back against the Dimocrat smear machine. We can hope so. And we can also hope that it's not too late to prevent a Dimocrat takeover.

So tell me,

When your political ideology is lacking in facts, logic, and valid arguments, what's a person to do?

Well, if you're a Leftist, you could actually wake up, smell the coffee, and rethink some of your political theories.

HA! I slay me! We all know that Leftism is a mental disorder characterized by the complete and total inability to think for ones self, so instead of introspective thinking, they just make shit up. Bravo, jackasses. I guess the lessons learned from the fauxtogrophy scandal didn't sink in with these idiots. Not surprising, because in order to learn from someone else's mistakes, you first must admit that you have something to learn. And since Liberals think that they're perfect in every regard, they refuse to learn from anything. That's why they still advocate for socialism, communism, and various other failed political theories.

Yeah, that might be a little harsh. But I'll wait until someone can prove me wrong before I soften up.

Thursday, September 28, 2006

How NOT to fight terrorism

Well, let's look at the past, shall we?

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Look, it wasn't just Clinton's failure. It was the failure of every president since Richard Nixon, as far as I can see. But there's one big difference between Clinton and everybody else: Clinton is the only one to go on TV wagging his finger and trying to avoid the blame. The sheer narcissism of that man makes me want to puke. And then his shrill harpy of a wife goes on TV and tries to blame the Bush administration for September 11th? I don't theeeenk so, Lucy!

Again, there are those who think all this finger pointing helps no one. That's their opinion. But the actions of the Clintons and their syncophants are a reveiling look into the Dimocrat mindset, where they can do no wrong, even if it costs 3000 lives. So every time they lay their pee-pee out on a block like Bubbah did last Sunday, it is our obligation to take a sledgehammer and hit it. Personally, while I think that the government has been rather limp-wristed when it comes to truly fighting terrorism, I'll take the Bush approach over the Clinton approach any day of the week. So let's keep the spotlight on how badly the Dimocrats screwed up, and how much they continue to screw up with regards to fighting terrorism. Who is it that wants constitutional rights for terrorists in Gitmo? The Dimocrats. Who wants to stop killing jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Dimocrats. Who wants to stick their heads back in the sand and ignore that terrorism even exists? The Dimocrats.

Let's focus that spotlight a little bit more. Every time one of the Clintons opens their mouth, we should be there to shove their feet inside it.

I don't really think it means anything....

But I'm going to laugh at them just the same.

"While some of my colleagues think my research reinforces the stereotype of repressed, uptight conservatives, it also shows that many liberals may he hanging on the edge of mental well-being," Mr. Bulkeley said. "There may be a lot of hidden distress and unpleasantness in the liberal mind."

Hell, any sane adult could have told ya that, doc!

Can Cindy Sheehan find Iraq on a map?

Uh..... Nope. *snort* Which isn't surprising, considering her lack of intelligence on every other matter.

Boycotting Citgo

GOP and the City: Boycott Citgo

Tuesday, September 26, 2006



COL Jeff Cooper has passed from this life to the next.

Another good one gone. But at least he can say that he made an impact on other people's lives. I doubt even he knew the extent of that impact. May he rest in peace. He's earned it.

OK, so here's my opinion

On this:

Fewer people are flying. The airlines don't like to discuss this, but customer satisfaction, and travel, surveys show that people, especially business flyers (the most lucrative kind of passengers) are flying less. The reason is the increased, and seemingly irrational, screening methods. These antics also have a negative effect on the security personnel. There are now 2,100 air marshals (versus 33 on September 11, 2001), and half of them are unavailable (all or part of the time) because of health issues caused by too much time in the air. The air marshals work a heavy schedule, averaging twenty flights a week. Not that it's doing much good. Until this Summer, air marshals had to fly wearing suits, despite the fact that most passengers go casual. Thus the air marshals stick out, giving any potential bad guys an easy way to identify, and take down, the law.

While the air marshals can now blend in, most flight personnel realize that it is more likely that a mob of enraged passengers is the best defense against any hijackers. Air marshals only fly a small (classified) number of flight, there are many passengers on each flight who are willing to risk all to take down hijackers. The airlines don't like to encourage that sort of thing, but there is it. And the terrorists know it as well, which is why they stay away from air transportation.

Look, let's be blunt, shall we? How many times have you seen the TSA goons strip-searching 80 year old Mrs. Weisenheimer from Wisconsin just because she's the "random search" number, while barely giving Amahd Muhammad Khalid from Pisspotastan a once-over because he's NOT next for a "random search"? Why the hell is 80 year old Mrs. Weisenheimer even getting searched? Do people really think that grandmothers from the Midwest are a terrorist threat?

When my wife and I were returning from Lackland AFB after her surgery, they pulled her aside and gave her a complete security screening, even though she could barely stand up. Her wheelchair couldn't go through the metal detectors, you see. So they had to personally check her. And they wouldn't let me assist her when she was forced to stand up out of her wheelchair. Why? I'm a soldier in the US Army, and she's a soldier's wife. Do they really think that we're planning on blowing up a plane? Of course not. But there she was, getting the third degree because she couldn't lift her feet for them to inspect her boots.

All of this is simple evidence that our so-called airport security is a farce, a politically correct sinkhole that might as well tie one hand behind our backs. So people don't want to fly? I don't blame them! Can someone can explain to me why my father, a 22 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, honorably retired, has to undergo the same screening as a visitor from the Middle East? We know who the terrorists are. They are not families from Norway. They are not Irish tourists visiting the O'Malley's in Boston. They are not Japanese or Korean college students. Who are they? Simple.

Islamic men, aged 18-40, who have been to the Middle East.

September 11th, London, Madrid, Beslan and the USS Cole were not attacked by Australian rugby players pissed off at their last defeat, they were attacked by Islamic men, aged 18-40, who have been to the Middle East.

The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were not bombed by Left-handed Lesbian Midget Albino Eskimos, they were bombed by Islamic men, aged 18-40, who have been to the Middle East.

But the TSA refuses to give Islamic men, aged 18-40, who have been to the Middle East, any kind of real scrutiny because that might be (eeek!) profiling! And in the Leftist handbook, profiling is bad! So in short, what the TSA is telling the rest of America is this: "We know who the terrorists are, but we're not going to do anything about it because we don't want to offend the PC sensibilities of dickless retards who might sue us, so you're all going to have to undergo a body-cavity search before you board the plane."

Gee, I can't understand why that might keep people from flying!

Imagine if the doctor told you, "Look, I'm sure that you've got an bacterial infection in your leg, but I can't just give you antibiotics because that would be "profiling" against bacteria. And profiling is bad, because the Dimocrats say so. So I'm just going to cut off your leg." You'd fire that bastard in two seconds, wouldn't you?

Well, that's what Americans are doing with their dollars. Firing the airlines. My mother can't take mouthwash or hand lotion on a plane because Islamic men, aged 18-40 who had been to the Middle East, came up with a plot to blow up planes that involved liquid explosives. My mother is Catholic, in her 50's, quite obviously female, and would rather slit her own throat that blow up a plane. But because the TSA refuses to make the distinction between 50ish Italian mothers and Islamic males, aged 18-40 who have been to the Middle, she now can't even bring her hand lotion on the plane.

Gosh, I can't understand why people don't want to fly!

Remember the British passengers who refused to fly on a plane with to Middle Eastern men who were "acting strangely"? That's because the people know who the terrorists are, even if the government refuses to acknowlege it. And yet those passengers were scolded for thinking that two Middle Eastern men might be terrorists. "How DARE you think that way! That's not tolerant!"

Gee, why don't people want to fly?


Tell me again who is closed-minded?

I entered the booth and soon discovered I could not push down the lever for my candidate. When I asked for assistance, the poll worker checked the lever and said with a shocked tone: “You’re a Republican?"

The shock spread to all the women at the table, who apologized profusely for their supposition. Unfortunately, they said, I would have to fill out a paper ballot or wait for a Democrat to come in and use the booth, as it was already primed for Democrat voters. I wasn’t in a rush and so elected to wait, but voting was very, very light. Eventually, a black woman in a wheelchair entered the area and the poll workers breathed a sigh of relief. The woman signed her name, the poll worker filled out a green card, and — oh, no. The woman was a Republican, too.

Via Instapundit.

Oh, for Pete's sake!

You know it's getting close to an election, because the usual suspects in the Lame-Stream Media are pulling out all the stops to get Democrats elected. They do hit pieces with leaked info. They breathlessly reprint advocacy pieces disguised as "news" for their helpers. And they will never, ever, EVER print anything that helps the Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular. Heard anything about Lyin' Joe Wilson and his not-so-undercover wife lately? Of course not, at least not in the papers. That story has dropped off the face of the earth, but when the worthless Dimocrat-fellating whores in the Lame-Stream Media could bash the President with it it was front page, above the crease news every damn day.

Right now, I wouldn't wipe my ass with the New York Times. My feces deserves better than that.

Another good story

Sometimes, a boy and his rifle are easily parted, if it's for a good cause.

At age 8, Terry Jackson gave up his prized .22-caliber Winchester short-barrel rifle to get his grandmother a washer.

This was about fifty years ago, from the sound of it.

As a boy, Jackson felt bad that his grandmother was too poor to have a washer. So he took the rifle he had earned money for by mowing lawns and doing other chores to a pawn shop.

"That was the only thing I had that was worth anything," Jackson told The Lewiston Tribune.

The pawn shop owner agreed to trade a wringer washer for the rifle. When the washer was delivered to his grandmother, Edna Jackson, she refused it until realizing the sacrifice her grandson had made.

"She just couldn't believe it," Jackson said.

So far, so good. Boy gives up rifle for his beloved grandmother. Nice all around story, right?

The rifle, meanwhile, remained with the pawn shop owner, Bill Jackson. He never sold the rifle, instead giving it to family friend James Grow in the 1980s, recounting the story that accompanied the rifle.

"He told me the story but I never thought anything about it," Grow said. "I didn't even know who Terry Jackson was at the time, although Bill did tell me his name."

Grow said Bill Jackson told him the gun might be worth something someday. He never shot the rifle and kept it in his closet.

Grow become an attorney in Lewiston, and Terry Jackson recently hired Grow to do some legal work. The connection might not have been made about the rifle except for a conversation Becky Brotnov, Terry Jackson's companion, had with Grow during a business lunch.

She told the story of Terry Jackson giving up the rifle to get the washer.

"All of a sudden it dawned on me, I own the gun," Grow said.

After hearing the story, Grow said he knew he wouldn't keep the gun. So he recently drove to Terry Jackson's home to return the rifle.

And THAT, my friends, is a happy ending.

And now, for some good news

With all the bad news floating around out there lately, I figured it would be a good time to link to some news stories that aren't so negative.

First of all, another al Qaeda scumbag has been nailed, this time by the Brits.

British forces said they killed a top terrorist leader Monday, identified by Iraqi officials as an Al Qaeda leader who had escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan and returned to Iraq.

Omar al-Farouq was killed in a pre-dawn raid by 250 British troops from the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment on his home in Basra, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, British forces spokesman Maj. Charlie Burbridge said.

Al-Farouq was killed after he opened fire on British soldiers entering his home, Burbridge said.

Good on the Brits, who could show the rest of Europe what having an actual army is supposed to be like.

In other political news, Japan has elected a new Prime Minister who looks to continue the reforms set in motion by his predecessor.

Nationalist Shinzo Abe, a proponent of a robust alliance with the United States and a more assertive military, easily won election in parliament as Japan's youngest postwar prime minister Tuesday.


Abe, at 52 Japan's first prime minister born after World War II, has championed the security pact with top ally the United States, revision of the pacifist constitution, a more outspoken foreign policy, and more patriotic education.

I think that a strong Japan can only help us in the Orient with China and North Korea playing their games. Hopefully Mr. Abe can continue raising Japan up in prominence.

So, that's some good news to start out the day.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Random Thoughts on a Monday Night

The Raging Mrs. is involved in a craft project in the back room, and since I enjoy sports more than she does, and I have Monday Night Football on the tube, she's got her MP3 player plugged in and on close to full blast.

Which wouldn't be newsworthy, except for the fact that she's singing along to the songs. Which again, wouldn't be worth a post, only instead of the Loreena McKennitt she was listening to earlier, she's now moved on to Pink Floyd. Which means that instead of hearing "Mummer's Dance" coming from the back room, I was blessed with the sound of her screaming "YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU DON'T EAT YOUR MEAT!!!!!!"

So I cooked a steak and chowed down. Hey, who's gonna argue with a woman like that?

Anyways, while watching the pregame crap for MNF - Green Day came on. Now, I was a big Green Day fan from way back. But their first album came out over a decade ago (I think I'm dating myself here) and then they got progressivly..... well..... softer. And then they got all political. They went from sticking up a big middle finger to the world, to begging the world to stop being so mean to them. So I stopped paying attention to them.

Now, looking at them on the TV, I can understand why I stopped buying their music. Since when did Armstrong go from being a punk-rocker guy to some wierd sort of modernistic woman?

By the way, would someone tell the network knuckleheads that Reggie Bush is only one man, not the second coming of Touchdown Jesus? Ron Jaworski was talking about how many different formations Bush has been involved in this year, and I swear I saw Micheal Irvin whip out his schmeckel and start rubbing one out right on network TV. Look, it's one guy, and I don't care how damn talented you are, you need more than one guy to win football games. Doubt me? Go as Brett Favre how many playoff games he's been in once Green Bay started leaking players. John Elway got to a few Superbowls, but he didn't win jack squat until Terrel Davis showed up and started busting out 1000+ yard seasons. Then it's two rings and a retirement, thankyouverymuch.

Yeah, Bush is good. But he's only one guy. When the rest of the team plays up to his level, I'll start buying the hype. And if he gets injured at all this season, you can expect the Saints to fold like a house of cheap cards. When you build your base on one man, and that man goes down, then you go down with him.

Now if you excuse me, the wife has moved on to Nine Inch Nails, and I know what song is coming up next.

Yeah. That one. It's a good night to be me.

Want a civics lesson?

You might as well read it, because we all know that the people who actually NEED to read it won't.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 elicited certain responses from those Congressmen -- and Senators. They voted, not once but twice, to authorize the President to use force in resisting the forces of Islamofascism, then further to fund the effort.

The objections raised by Democrat partisan hacks -- including some who hold seats in Congress, as well as Federal judgeships -- amount to sedition at best and treason at its blackest. Though they might have raised their objections in the debate -- some certainly did -- they voted as they knew their consituents, the American people, willed it.

Now they want to go back on their word and they put forth the weakest, most specious, most false reasons -- reasons that anyone who has actually been paying attention can give the lie in the moment of their utterance.

The matter has been decided. Further argument amounts to sedition, sabotage -- to betrayal of the polity which put them in power.

This sorta-kinda segues into the next topic that's on my mind, which is Slick Willy Cinton's temper-tantrum on national TV. I don't know what was funnier, his accusing Chris Wallace of attempting a "right-wing hit job" on him, or his insistence that he tried to get bin Laden, despite every scrap of evidence we have that says exactly the opposite. "I did everything I could to get bin Laden! I did not have sex with that woman!" You could put both video clips side by side and run them together to get a stereo effect there. And in both cases, Clinton is flat out lying. Not that we've come to expect anything different out of him.

There are a few bloggers out there who make the point that after five years of debate on this subject by damn near everybody, the only thing we can be certain of is that it won't make a scrap of difference in what happened. Which is true. In terms of stopping terrorist attacks, assigning blame to what happened on September 11th won't do much good. However, there's much more here than just finger pointing, because Clinton's behavior and lack of honesty is not just some historical footnote; it is the current modus operandi of the Dimocrat party.

Look, Clinton isn't the worst president we've ever had, OK? But he sure wasn't the best, and when it comes to fighting terrorism he was an abject failure. Now, if the Dimocrats could be honest about that fact, then we could change the tactics and behaviors that allowed September 11th to happen. But when you have an entire political party howling "IT WAS NOT CLINTON'S FAULT! IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!" then you can't do a damn thing. Clinton and his syncophants are on a barnstorming tour in an attempt to rewrite history and whitewash his fecklessness and malfeasance in fighting terrorism, as if his eight years of failure somehow disappear when compared to the eight months that President Bush had. And until the Dimocrats wake up and realize that Clinton was a miserable failure at fighting terrorism, we can't come together and fix the problems that allowed nineteen Islamonazi's to kill three thousand Americans. So Clinton's little finger-shaking and screeching fit is just one small part of a huge problem that is in effect paralyzing the government when it comes to fighting terrorism. It feeds the mental derangement that we see on the Left today. And so in that context, yes, it is a big deal. So long as Bubbah is going around denying any responsibility, he will have the rest of the Dimocrats behind him nodding their heads and saying "Yep! Yep! It was all Bushitler's fault! Yep!".

The Dimocrats are a party desperately in need of an enema. Starting with their denier in chief. But they'll never do it. And that, my friends, is a problem for anyone who wants to see a sane political party to keep the Republicans honest.

OK, so the BabyTrollBlog post didn't segue into my topic at all. Whaddyagonnado? Stop paying me?

I am officially impressed!

Anyone who wonders of military pilots earn their pay need to look at this:

The above-displayed photograph of the precarious-looking rooftop landing by a CH-47 Chinook helicopter (which began circulating via e-mail in December 2003 and started making the rounds of the Internet again in August 2006) was taken during that operation by U.S. Army Sgt. Greg Heath of the 4th Public Affairs Detachment.

Although the text that accompanied copies of this image sent via e-mail in 2006 suggested the activity shown therein was part of an effort to evacuate wounded coalition soldiers, the photo actually captures the Chinook helicopter touching down to receive Afghan Persons Under Control (APUC) captured by members of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division.

Go check that photo out. Unreal. That pilot has balls of solid brass.