Friday, December 30, 2005

HAPPY NEW YEAR




HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS

A very happy New Year goes out to all, especially to our troops at home and abroad. Thank you for all you do. Please celebrate safely and regular posting should resume on Monday.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

CHRISTMAS WISHES




No, no really, all I want for Christmas is for democrats to start caring about national security and to quit getting in the way of VICTORY!


MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH TO ALL!!

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Politically Correct Christmas Story

Please click the link below for your politically correct Christams Story!


Video here.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Outraged Christians and Scardy Cats




Another egregious display of bizaaro moonbattery!

As most of you know the symbol shown above was sold by Washington state democrats in the form of a magnet that one could display on their vehicle. Now the woman that owns the rights to this sacrilegious symbol is using the uproar that it has caused to spread her desires for legalizing marijuana.

The person that created the symbol has chosen to remain anoynomous because he fears for the safety of his cats. Thats right he is afraid for the safety of his cats. As well he should be, for we are all well aware of the propensity of Christian fanatics to slaughter innocent cats when offended by ignorant muttonheads.

Story taken from Brit Hume's Political Grapevine also h/t to WHYGRR

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Political Hack(s) of the Week

The political hack of the week post is back after a brief hiatus. Since I have missed a couple of weeks with this post and in light of recent political events I thought it would be prudent to name more than one hack this week. Because of their total disregard for the security of this nation and their unwavering desire to do anything in their power to undermine the President and the War on Terror the Political Hack(s) of the week are as follows:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) (Probably the NSA leaker)

A recent AP report released earlier today carries the headline "Democrats Say They Didn't Back Wiretapping". Well they should have. This is just another example of their unwillingness to grasp reality and have a clear perception of the danger terrorists pose to this nation.

If these democrats were so unsure of the President's legal authority to carry out this type of surveillance why did they not come forward? Because they were sworn to secrecy? Whatever. In this country we have long maintained the right, in fact the duty, to disobey illegal or immoral orders.

Could it really be a coincidence that this is coming to light just when Bush's approval rating is improving, there was another successful election in Iraq, there is talk of drawing down troops because of Iraqi Defense Force successes, and that victory in Iraq is in sight? No I do not think it is a coincidence at all. As stated before if this program was such an affront to these democrat's sensibilities, if it were such an infringement on civil liberties as to violate the Constitution, then why was there not outrage on their part in defense of the Constitution? A document they have sworn to uphold. An oath that carries far more responsibilities than their duties on an intelligence committee.

This information was released to hurt the Bush Administration at a time of marked improvement. After all of the investigations and commissions are done in Congress you will find that Bush followed the advice and interpretations of his White House counsel. Of course lawyers on the other side will probably come to different interpretations of the law and this may very well wind up before the Supreme Court. This is certainly what Sen. Leahy and Sen. Specter have in mind as it has been reported that they intend to ask Judge Alito this very question in his confirmation hearings.

Bush is doing the right thing by tackling this issue head-on in the press. He believes that he did what he had to do to protect the American people within the confines of the law and he is sticking to his guns. This will go a long way in maintaining public confidence in his honesty and quelling the feigned democrat outrage.

Matt May has an excellent post on this very subject please go check it out! also check out All Things Conservative's Read it or Weep

Monday, December 19, 2005

Kudos to President Bush

In case you missed it today President Bush followed up a great speech this weekend with a great press conference today. I have to applaud the Bush Administration on their continued offensive against democrat attacks and the MSM's campaign of misinformation. For months I criticized the Bush Administration's lack of rebuttal to these attacks. Admittedly I was also quite skeptical of their resolve to continue the offensive.

Thank God my fears have been put to rest. Bush seems quite dedicated to maintaining pressure on the democrats and the MSM. Even more importantly he is doing an outstanding job of presenting the facts and counter arguments.

A case in point is the recent revelation about NSA surveillance. Six to eight months ago the administration's stance would have been not to comment on ongoing security operations or investigations. With the proverbial cat out the bag Bush has done the right thing and made his case for the importance of the surveillance operations in regards to national security. More importantly by taking this stance he has taken some of the wind out of the democrat's sails by not letting them spread rumor and innuendo about Bush's honesty.

Now the democrats have resorted to trying to spread fear of a possible civil war in Iraq before the results of the election are known and before the political process has had a chance to work. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) responded to Bush's press conference by stating that Bush has ignored their recommendations that he "strongly" urge concessions on the Iraqi constituion. Well concessions were already made ensuring that the constitution could be amended after the December elections. So lets have some patience. Let the new parliament be seated and then they can tackle the concerns over the Iraqi constitution using the political process. The Iraqis need to learn to negotiate and compromise with themselves if they are going to have a strong democratic government.

All the democrats have to offer is doom and gloom and they are being proven wrong at every turn. They are fast painting themselves into a corner and their refusal to join the fight for victory should cost them dearly.

Linked at bRight & Early and California Conservative

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Quote of the Week

"Ever so subtly, without even alluding to the last obstacles preserved by earlier opinions that we now push out of our path, we effectively replace the goal of a discrimination-free society with the quite incompatible goal of proportionate representation by race and by sex in the workplace."

Antonin Scalia
Supreme Court Justice

Friday, December 16, 2005

It Hurts So Bad.

Another monumental day has passed for Iraq, the US and in the global war on terror. Another round of successful elections has taken place, only this one had a much larger Sunni turnout than the last. Not bad for an election that was held in the middle of a supposed "civil war". Not only was the election successful, but the terrorists' attempts to disrupt it were unsuccessful, due to Iraqi security forces that are much more up to the task than during the last round of elections. So what exactly does all this mean? Well, it simply means success, "measurable" success, a successful step in a "plan" for victory in Iraq. It is all those things that Democrats have been saying do not exist in the war in Iraq. Yes it is a joyous occasion for all, at least it should be.

But it is not; the contingent of the Democratic Party that hates President Bush more than they love their country felt pain, not glory, in the recent events in Iraq. They have been using Iraq to push political agendas, spread misinformation and bash the President at the cost of emboldening our enemies, weakening the fortitude of the American populace and sapping the moral of our troops. So for those few but loud individuals, this success is painful. So painful in fact that they refuse to even discuss it and, when backed into a corner, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that something went right in Iraq. It is evident when you turn on the TV. First of all, there is a thick silence in the world of left-wing talking heads and politicians. Those who are speaking are all of a sudden more concerned with things other than Iraq. And how about the timing of the New York Times article accusing the Bush administration of violating the Constitution by allowing surveillance of international communications by the National Security Agency? Anything, anything to deflect the public's attention from success in Iraq, that is the policy for the Democratic Party and its friends in the MSM.

Fortunately, those of us who are reasonable, rational and patriotic Americans see this event for what it really is and feel pride and hope as a result, regardless of their political affiliations. We are the backbone of the country. It is also blatantly obvious that the political ambitions and radical beliefs of many US politicians have placed them so far from the values of mainstream American that it hurts them to see a success of any kind for this country as long as President Bush is in office.

Like it or not, another success has been achieved in Iraq. This one cannot be ignored by the press. We should all be proud of our country, its leaders and most importantly the troops in Iraq and the Iraqi citizens.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Quote of the Week

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. "

Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, December 11, 2005

December 11, 1941

On December 11, 1941 Adolph Hitler proclaimed that Germany was in a state of war with the United States of America. Luckily, President Roosevelt did not ignore Hitler the way Clinton ignored Osama bin Laden when he declared war on the United States in 1998.

Once again a hearty thanks goes out to all of our veterans.

Democrats Unveil Plan for '06 and '08

The AP released a story today from the 2005 Democratic Conference being held in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The article unveils the democrat's test message for the 2006 and 2008 elections. From the opening paragraph of the article we learn that our "anxious and isolated public" is "craving" for a "sense of national community". The democrats assert that the distraught public would "galvanize behind a leader that asks people to sacrifice for the greater good."

I am having a bit of a hard time completely understanding the message. That may be because I am neither anxious nor do I feel isolated. The article goes on to quote a few of the democrats that spoke at the conference as stating that "we're losing our sense of common purpose" and "losing our sense of community". John Edwards states that "Americans don't want to feel like they are out there on an island all alone". Once again not getting it, I do not feel like I am all alone. Edwards also states "There is a hunger in America, a hunger for a sense of national community, a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they can all be involved in".

I am not sure if the author of the article omitted what that "something" was or if Edwards just did not mention it but either way I have no idea what the "something" is with which the nation supposedly has a hunger to be involved. The author did however manager to give some credit to Sen. Hillary Clinton for inspiring the theme for the democrats from her book "It Takes a Village".

I have to admit that I feigned my ignorance to their message in the opening paragraphs of this column. Their message is obvious to me even though they are attempting to present it through a haze of smoke and mirrors. Instead of John Edwards, Howard Dean, or Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack it may as well have been Karl Marx speaking at the conference. The message is eerily similar in nature to that of Marx attempting to rally the proletariat against the bourgeoise.

When the democrats speak of community they are not thinking along the same lines as most Americans when they think of community. They are talking about a national community with very large government involvement. In their community, or common collective, they will use government control to insure individual involvement irrespective of your desires as a free individual.

One could try and draw comparisons to their new message with the one Ronald Reagan submitted to the American people 25 years ago. The democrats now, like Reagan then, want to call on the great spirit of the American people to make America great again. One difference is that contrary to what they would have you believe America is a great nation today, certainly far and away greater than in 1980. The other major difference is that while Reagan called on Americans to work harder for the betterment of the country he fostered an economy that allowed Americans to keep more of the fruits of their labor. The democrats want those capable to work harder for the betterment of the country so that the government can keep more of the fruits of their labor.

The plan sounds good, everyone likes the idea of community, friendship, and togetherness. The fallacy behind it is that they actually believe that most Americans do not have a sense of national community and desperately need something to believe in. There already is a strong sense of community in America, both national and local. One only has to look at a community after a natural disaster to see that community, as well as the national community, come together. Even in New Orleans despite all of the horrible stories coming out of that disaster there were many more stories of neighbors helping neighbors that were ignored.

The irony of the democrat's message is that if there has been an erosion in the sense of national community they, along with the far-left contingent of their party, have been fostering that erosion. At every turn Americans are hammered with multiculturalism and moral relevatism. Two movements intent on making Americans lose their identity as such and forget the morals and beliefs that make a community great. Do not be fooled. The message the democrats are sending out of Florida is the same Socialist message they have always endorsed. It is just coming wrapped in a nice little feel good package this year.

Linked at Basil's Blog and Jo's Cafe

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Democrats Adopt Murtha Plan for Iraq

I just finished watching John Kasich interview Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) about his plan for Iraq. The plan has been talked about quite a bit over the last few weeks and is pretty simple in theory. The plan as most of you already know is to gradually withdraw our troops to the periphery of Iraq and let the Iraqis takeover security operations for their country. We will then maintain an "over the horizon" reaction force in case the Iraqis really need help.

In the interview Murtha quotes a few poll numbers such as 80 or so percent of Iraqis want us to leave and that 45 percent think it is ok to kill Americans. I am not sure where he saw those poll numbers but I have no doubt that a lot of Iraqis are ready for us to leave. He also states that 93 percent of the insurgency are Iraqis and that Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda are a small problem in comparison. I'm not sure where he gets those numbers or that thought process but for arguments sake I will leave that alone, for now. He goes on to say basically that the military defeated Iraq's Armed Forces and Saddam Hussein is no longer in power but they are not "good nation builders" so they should be withdrawn, post World War II Germany and Japan notwithstanding obviously.

Murtha implies that it is our presence that is causing the insurgency and that if we leave and let the Iraqis takeover he believes everything will be ok. I am not sure if he is clairvoyant or just optimistic but it sounds like a big risk to me. While the Iraqi security forces are getting stronger by the day, military leaders on the ground obviously do not believe they are able to take over completely. We would be doing them as well as the rest of the Iraqi population a great disservice if we left before we were sure the Iraqis can defend themselves.

The end of the interview shed some light on the overall idea, for me anyway. At the end Mr. Kasich says that he hopes that members of government listen to Rep. Murtha. He says that he hopes that they do not agree with Murtha's plan but that everyone listens and works together for the best course of action for victory. Then Murtha states that they are already listening and they are starting to talk about drawing down the number of troops, but they just are not doing it as fast as he would like.

Sounded a lot like he was trying to sneak in a bit of credit for the troop reduction talk of the last week or so. As you very well know some military leaders have been saying that there is a possibility that troop reduction can start after the December 15th election if all goes well. There you have it. When troop reduction starts the democrats are going to be the first to stand up and take credit. If the Iraqi security forces continue to perform well they will claim they were right and we should have left long ago. It was only Haliburton greed that kept us there for so long.

At any rate it seems that after some democrats rebuked DNC chairman Howard Dean for stating that the war in Iraq was unwinnable they have decided to adopt Murtha's plan as a rallying point for cohesion. Earlier today DNC chairman Howard Dean gave a speech in Florida where he pretty much echoed Murtha's plan for Iraq. He stated that Democrats were not divided and they were committed to winning the war on terror. He also believes that U.S. troops need to be in the region to deal with insurgents but not in Iraq.

Fact is they are starting to realize they are not going to be able to force a premature withdrawal with which they could blame Bush for losing the war and that Bush has been right all along. Foster an environment where Iraqis can choose their own leaders, train an Iraqi police force and military to defend themselves and then come home. That is the only logical course of action. Of course there have been some setbacks and mistakes made along the way but no plan is perfect. We have to trust the military leaders on the ground that are assessing the Iraqi troops. They will know when they are ready and we do not need politicians second guessing their judgement, much like politicians were want to do in the war Congressman Murtha fought.

DNC Responds to RNC

If you have not had a chance to see the video produced by the RNC at GOP.com yet please go there now and take a look, it is well worth the time.

The DNC has now released their response to the video. The response is full of the usual rantings we have come to expect from the democrats. They are absolutely indignant that the video depicts them waving the white flag of surrender. In spite of this indignation, their response appears to endorse Rep. Jack Murtha's plan for withdrawal. Which, of course, in reality is nothing but a plan of surrender to the terrorists.

The democrats practically foam at the mouth when his plan is called one of surrender. They are quick to point out that Murtha is a decorated veteran as if that gives him some type of "moral authority" on war issues. You can call Murtha's, or any other democrat "plan" anything you want. A gradual drawdown, a re-deployment, or an "over the horizon" ready response plan. Whatever you decide to call it the plan only serves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is a plan of retreat put forth only weeks away from a very important election for the Iraqis. A plan trumpeted by some in the democratic party and all in the mainstream media that serves to give the terrorists in Iraq the feeling that they are winning the war.

The DNC response also contains more claims of Iraq being a mess and that the republicans are covering up lies and corruption. They also claim that there was a "bipartisan coalition of over 70 senators" that came together on a no confidence measure. I am not sure when this happened but I am assuming they are distorting the resolution that 2006 be a transitional year. Whoever wrote this response laments, that while "no one expects everyone to agree on what the new plan should be, everyone should agree that we need a new plan."

Why do we need a new plan? Newsflash to the DNC, as much as you hate to hear it, we are winning in Iraq. There have been two successful elections and there is a third on the way. Iraqi security forces are taking on more responsibility and terrorists targeting recruiting centers are not deterring Iraqis from enlisting. Despite what Murtha states our forces are not "broken" and not living "hand to mouth". There morale is high and believe in their mission.

The Bush plan for Iraq is working and by the way, the economy is booming as well.

h/t: Power Line

Linked at bRight & Early and Point Five and The Uncooperative Blogger

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Democrat Desperation

The Democratic Party as a whole is in complete disarray and they are desperately seeking some type of angle to put them back in control of Congress in '06. Fortunately for them the mainstream media is with them every step of the way. The problem, is that they have yet to come up with an angle other than screaming that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket and that they can do better.

I am not sure that we can believe they can do better when the chairman of their party runs away from a confrontation with the chairman of the Republican Party and then states on national television that it is not their responsibility to have a strategy or a plan right now. He suggested that we should just elect democrats in '06 and then they will reveal their plan. Well if their plan is so great why not reveal it now?

The reason there are no forthcoming revelations is because there is nothing to reveal. We do know that they want to pass their socialist agenda of raising taxes, expanding the wellfare state, and socializing medicine but these are constants in their agenda. Nothing new there, besides they would rather not talk about those plans in detail as they are highly unpopular ideas and they would merely try to sneak those measures through if they came to power.

Now it seems that their only strategy for bringing down the President and the Republican Party is unraveling. Since long before the '04 election their strategy has been to do everything in their power to tear down the President even at the expense of the American people. It is a shame that their only course of action is to preach doom and gloom.

One of these shameful acts, enthusiastically supported by the mainstream media, is their effort to sabotage the economy. The economy is incredibly strong especially when you consider we are paying for a war and we endured two major natural disasters in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In spite of this the only thing you hear from democrats or read in the papers is the looming crash of the economy. You could argue that they are looking out for the American people by warning them of this impending disaster if not for the fact that they have been saying this throughout the economic recovery and the economy just keeps getting stronger and stronger. Sounds alot like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Everyone should think long and hard about voting for people that are hoping for and openly working toward an economic collapse just to satisfy their sociopathic desire to ruin the President and regain control of the country.

The most prominent of these shameful acts perpetrated by the democrats and mainstream media is their unwavering desire to see us defeated in Iraq. At every turn they have loudly and publicly criticized the President for taking us to war even after the majority of them voted in favor of authorizing the use of force when it seemed politically expedient to do so. Even though they hated the President the democrats knew in the political climate of that time they had to support the War on Terrorism and on the regimes that would support terrorism just in case it was a success.

Once difficulties arose they quickly seized the opportunity to criticize the President's handling of the War. Were mistakes made? Sure mistakes have been made, name a war where mistakes have not been made. The democrats however, did not offer a plan to improve Iraq they just screamed that the President had no plan and that we should elect John Kerry and sometime after his inauguration he would produce a plan that would make everything better. Their bonecrushing defeat in '04 did not deter them from this type of strategy. Thinking that an Iraq success would just maintain the status quo of Republican control they continued with their attempts to undermine the President. They claimed that they were duped by manipulated intelligence, even though two commissions found no evidence intelligence was manipulated, so they started calling for indictments and withdrawal.

Think stating that the democrats and media are openly hoping for an American defeat in Iraq is a harsh statement? Just look back over the last couple of years. What have they done to help? If you were fighting a war of attrition and you heard politicians of the enemy government demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of their troops would you be encouraged to hold out? I am guessing you would and I am also guessing that you would infer that you were using sound tactics and would continue to place roadside bombs, detonate car bombs, and send suicide bombers to civilian markets. The democrats have been giving aid and comfort to the enemy plain and simple.

The unraveling of their strategy for winning back power began when President Bush started his offensive of challenging both the media and democrats. Since then Bush's approval rating has started to climb. Joseph Lieberman, apparently the only democrat still in touch with reality, came back from Iraq praising the accomplishments made there and stating "that our goal should be not to withdraw, but to win." Now he did not make these statements because he suddenly wants to be a republican or he now agrees with everything Bush has said or done. He made this statement because he understands the totality of the circumstances. He understands that we have to win for the Iraqi people and the security of American citizens.

Some democrats are now starting to see the error of their ways. According to a Washington Post article on the 7th some democrats are fearful of voter backlash next year for anti-war statements. It is too bad that these democrats that are now backing away from the far left and some of their party leaders are not doing it because it is the right thing for America but because it is the right thing for them. Once again I would caution against voting for any group of people that sway this much on politically favorable winds. It is one thing to disagree with an opposing parties economic policies just as it is to disagree with the war, but it is quite another to work for disaster in both arenas for political gain and at the expense of the American people.

Linked to Basil's Blog and Conservative Catand Right Wing Nationand Stuck on Stupidand Is It Just Me? and Oblogatory Anecdotes

December 8, 1941

64 years ago today, one day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war on Japan. It is a good thing the America hating left wing was not around in those days. A special thank you to all veterans on this anniversary of America entering World War II.

Up and Running

Ok the site seems to be back up and running with a few changes. I have just returned from an extended Thanksgiving vacation in the beautiful midwest. A special thank you goes out to my partner Barry Whitehead for doing some extra posting in my absence.
commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Patience

Bear with me today I have had some serious problems with the website. I will be working on the site most of the day to get it back up and running. Thank you.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

A Little Prediction

I just caught the news about the airline passenger shot by air marshals after he claimed to have a bomb, refused to follow the air marshals' commands and ultimately reached into the bag that he said contained the bomb. I noticed this man was from Costa Rica and that he is said to have had bipolar disorder. I have a prediction.

First, I will say that within 48 hours, this story will turn into a blame game where the air marshals are labeled as racists who shoot first and ask questions later. It will be said that this man was shot because his skin was darker than that of white Americans. It will be said that the marshals should have assessed his mental condition prior to shooting. Secondly, I predict the lawsuits will begin in months. This will be done by the same groups who would be jumping up and down screaming about the incompetence of the air marshals, had they hesitated and a bomb was detonated. These are the same who would claim that the skies are not safer since 9/11 and the President is to blame.

What you probably won't hear is this. This event is unfortunate but demonstrates how effectively our air marshals neutralize a potential threat to the safety of passengers, crew and countless citizens on the ground. It demonstrates a high level of vigilance dictated by the condition of today's world. I feel safer on an airliner as a result of this event. None-the-less, this will be portrayed as a mistake, a malfunction and, as a result, policies will be implemented that hinder air marshals from protecting the skies so efficiently. The skies will become less safe.

My heart goes out to the family of this man, if he was mentally disturbed and died as a result. If this is the case, it is simply a sad, unfortunate event that resulted in a man's death due to his mental illness. There is nobody to blame. Unfortunately I predict that there will be plenty of blaming going on in the near future. Let's hope I am wrong.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Who Are Our Enemies? Part II

As I listen to the constant debates about troop withdrawal from Iraq I try to find logic in the Democrats arguments. It is difficult. It is difficult mainly due to the fact that liberals speak in mantras. This is probably due to their ignorance of the facts and tendency to be driven by emotion rather than reality. One of those many mantras is the one about the war in Iraq not being part of the war on terror.

Now I understand that Saddam was not sitting at the table with Bin Laden et al in the planning of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Of course I don't recall anybody every stating this was the case. I also realize that everybody's intelligence, this includes Great Britain's, France's, Germany's and Russia's intelligence, was off the mark regarding WMDs. That all is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. We need to deal with the reality of the here and now. This is the part that the Liberals have trouble with. They are so busy trying to beat down the President, beating terrorists has taken a back seat.

They are still crying about this not being part of the war on terror when our primary enemy in Iraq is Al-Qaida, led by the Jordanian terrorist leader named Al-Zaquari. You know the guy, the same one who blew up a wedding party in Jordan. Our Jordanian allies are now calling it their "9/11". There is no question about this man's links to Al-Qaida; such links are public knowledge based on Al-Zarquari's own statements. Do I have to "connect the dots" here? We are fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq! Whether by design or not, this is the case; this is the reality of the situation in Iraq.

So those politicians who pledge dedication to the war on terror cannot advocate withdrawal from Iraq without contradicting themselves. Iraq is the hottest front in the global war on terror. To give up there is to give up fighting those who attacked us on 9/11. Call it coincidence or serendipity; I believe in neither. None-the-less the war that started on September 11, 2001 is the war we are now fighting in Iraq. This is the reality, regardless of any of the issues surrounding Saddam and WMDs.

I think it is time the liberals both in political office and in the media realized that we are fighting a war in Iraq against Al-Qaida and we are not waging a war against the President. It is time these people acknowledge reality and begin to love their country more than they hate the President. Then and only then can we do what is necessary to protect our country.