Itz News to Me

In yet another “airbrushing the past” incident, the Obama campaign has magically wiped away the evidence of his past opposition to the surge, lack of faith in our military, and general piss-poor judgment…

Popularity: 6%

…Enough to kill a civilian when you can’t find a soldier to kill…

Granted, most of the anti-war types wouldn’t go this far: but in the last week Osama bin Laden appears on tape sounding exactly like one of them, and now one of them is so consumed by his virulent hatred that he has to kill someone…anyone…We’ll see how many of them try to justify what this guy did. Mark my words: there’ll be a whole lot of them who do. Just watch DailyKos and see….

Hug an anti-war type today: they’ve had a bad week…(and it just might keep them from hitting you with an ax)…

Popularity: 15%

Don’t question their patriotism! Isn’t that the mantra we hear over and over? It’s gone well beyond a question into a statement. Democratic leaders have no patriotism: just an appetite for raw power that extends to their willingness to lie about the soldiers who are fighting the war in Iraq.

Democrats are already pre-emptively attacking General Petraeus as some sort of Bush stooge claiming that he will lie in his upcoming report by saying the surge is working. The problem is that the surge is working and they know it. Every reporter or blogger who has actually been there in the last couple months has come back saying what a big change it has made, and it has Democrats running scared. They’ve spent the last four years distancing themselves from the war and counting on its failure, so much so that a successful outcome could literally cripple their future electoral chances for a generation. And they know it.

So rather than get on the right side of history and admit they were wrong, they go to the backroom and devise a new party line: the soldiers are liars! they’re tools of President Bush! General Petraeus isn’t going to tell us the truth! Blah, blah, blah. It’s one thing to be on the other side of an issue, but it’s quite another to intentionally slander our troops. I have no patience left for these lying traitors, and I can only hope that the American public punishes them in the 2008 elections for trying to perpetrate this fraud on us and on our soldiers.

Popularity: 14%

I said this a long time ago, and I’ll repeat it again: History will judge President Bush kindly.

For those of us old enough to remember Reagan’s time in office remember that many of the same criticisms being leveled at the Bush administration are simply retreads of the exact same criticisms - from many of the exact same people and institutions - that were made toward then President Reagan: arrogance, tyranny, insensitivity, stupidity, yada yada yada.

The reality is that many of those criticisms are not aimed at Bush’s ineffectiveness, but the fear that his policies actually are effective. I’m not going to waste my time arguing on behalf of his PR machine which has been woefully inadequate since Karen Hughes’ departure. The Medicare drug benefit for seniors which Democrats wanted to block rather than have seniors believe that the Republicans were anything but willing to euthanize the elderly, implementation of testing in schools over the objections of the teachers union which is offended by the prospect of actually forcing teachers to do their jobs rather than run social experiments on our children, and the prosecution of militant Islamists rather than continue the Democratic appeasement policies of Carter and Clinton will all be what is long remembered while the critics of those policies will be resigned to the “dustbin of history.”

Even now the Democrats are running scared of any perceived success of the surge in Iraq by attempting to continually move the goalposts away from success on the ground to avoid any hint of a victory against tyranny and Islamism in the Middle East because the truth of the matter is that Bush said one of the rationales for the war is a “draining of the swamp.” And it truly is doing that despite the protestations of war critics. Democrats want to either: a) run away from Iraq before it truly takes hold, or b) get into office themselves so they can take credit for the heavy lifting being done today.

History will tell a different story than today’s New York Times just as it does of the Reagan administration: and just like today, they’ll all “remember” how they supported those policies too…

Popularity: 17%

In an blatantly political attempt to slam the Bush administration days before the mid-term election, the NY Times has made the screw-up of all time (at least from their side of the political aisle): in the course of an article so slanted it practically lies down sideways, they inadvertantly made the case that the Iraq had the know-how to build a nuclear weapon and were in a position to disseminate it to others.

Every Democrat in the country (except Joe Lieberman) has made a living preaching that there was no WMD threat from Iraq, and that Bush made up the war for some kind of blood-for-oil scheme that involved Halliburton, big corporations, and Satan himself. But now comes news that the Iraqis’ nuclear knowledge was so advanced that it might have been used to propel Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Kind of blows the whole “no WMDs” argument out of the water just a few days before the election, doesn’t it? Makes Joe Wilson out to be both a fool and liar, doesn’t it? Makes the Democrats look awfully foolish for making political hay out of what they have always known was a house of cards in an attempt to score some short-term political points at the expense of national security…

Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people…

Popularity: 44%

After watching the unfolding John Kerry debacle, I feel the need to point out a few things:

1) The claim that he intended to slam Bush but not the troops is false on its face. He was speaking in the context of encouraging students to study hard and do their homework so they could move on to college. Since President Bush has both an undergraduate degree and an M.B.A., the “joke” would have nothing to do with him. On the other hand, many of the troops in Iraq have only high school diplomas, so it would apply to them. They didn’t come up with the “he meant to say ‘get us stuck in Iraq’” excuse until a day later when he was already coming under fire after refusing his first opportunity to apologize for his stupidity.

2) This is the same thing he and other liberals have been saying about the troops since Vietnam. In fact, it was one of the strongest rallying cries of the Leftists that rich kids and college students were being exempted from the draft while the war was being fought by the uneducated and poor who were unable to get exceptions. He’s been reading from that playbook for almost forty years now, but all of a sudden today he feels completely differently and this was some sort of verbal slip? It’s not unreasonable to judge a man by his last forty years, so there’s no reason to believe he meant anything other than exactly what he said.

3) He didn’t apologize for what he said. He merely said he was sorry that people were so stupid as to listen to the words coming out of his mouth, interpret them according to their plain meaning, and hold him accountable for them. He did not retract or in any way mitigate what he said. It’s like saying ‘I’m sorry you’re offended that I called you stupid.’ It’s not an apology for calling you stupid, it’s just a regret that it offends you when people tell you that you are.

Popularity: 42%