Al-Douri Captured

Reuters.com reports:

“BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The most-wanted Saddam Hussein aide in Iraq, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was captured in the town of Tikrit on Sunday, Iraq’s defense ministry said. “….. “The news spread fast in Baghdad, and in some Shi’ite districts residents fired AK-47s in the air in celebration. “

Hat tip to Captain Ed, who has more.

They keep falling….

Update: Well, OK, perhaps not….

Having just come back from the grovery store, I’ve made an interesting discovery about fashion.

RANT

Older gals; heads up:
Tight fitting jeans and tops, over loose fitting skin should be viewed as a clash.
Got it?

Younger gals:
If your belly button arrives before your boobs do, you may want to make sure your top has it covered. That’s not men catching their breath after you walk by… it’s called ‘gagging’.

I’m not the best looking best dressed guy on the planet, but who in the world taught these girls how to dress?

/RANT

Forward to me by a reader….

This was written on May 19, 2004 by a retired executive, to his grown children…

Dear Children,
As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on our present world situation.

We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs, marriage, children and so forth.  But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions.  I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.

To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and W.W.II (1933 – 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents, (regardless of party affiliation), on all matters of international conflict.  This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt – W.W.II

President Truman – Korean War 1950 President Kennedy -Bay of Pigs (1961)

President Kennedy – Vietnam (1961)

Eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 – 1991)

President Clinton’s strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).

Therefore please read this as completely nonpolitical or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country, (USA), is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in the lifetime of your children, you, and us, your parents (which includes W.W.II).  The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11th, 2001.  The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001.  I say that because of the following attacks on us:

Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;

Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;

Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;

Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;

First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;

Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;

Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;

New York World Trade Center 2001;

Pentagon 2001.

(These are included in the period from 1981 to 2001 when there were

7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush

.  Therefore we cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats.  Also there were no provocations by any of the Presidents or their immediate predecessors.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslim Terrorists.

4. What is the entire Muslim population of the World?
25%

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material.  There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who professed to be a Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated.  There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm).

Thus, almost the same number of non-Jews were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews.  We seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities because Hitler kept the world focused on his Jewish atrocities.  Hitler had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of taking over the world – German, Christian, Jewish or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way – their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else…  The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, the peaceful Muslims are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing – by their own pronouncements – killing all of us.  I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims.  Their choice is to shut up or die.

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal.  There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate whom you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – What does losing mean?  It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.  Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorize and attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them.  They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done.  Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim, (and a large percentage of those are terrorists).

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by these Muslim Terrorists.  If we can’t stop the Muslims Terrorists, how could anyone else? The Muslims Terrorists fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost.  We better know it too and likewise be committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.

Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning.  It is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush 2 selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although each and every one of the terrorist attacks was committed by Muslim men, between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling.  Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to.  We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.  Do not worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during W.W.II and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.  Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.  None of those words apply to war and especially this one.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administrations that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.  I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal.  It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar, (fueled by the politicians and media), regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying.  We have recently had an important issue involving the treatment of some Muslim prisoners of war by a very small group of our military police.  These are the same prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their own countryman’s hands, cutting out their own countryman’s tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.  Just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.  They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

Still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners – not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.  If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.  To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned – totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims – not just in the United States, but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant’. That charge is valid in at least one respect.  We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can’t. If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

Finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone – let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire.  If, that is, the Muslim Terrorists leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims Terrorists take over France in the next 5 years or less.  They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force.  Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.  They are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.  They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses.

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above.  If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.  I hope that after the election, (no matter which party wins), the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country.  It is your future and your children’s that I am talking about.  Please do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love, Dad

I posted yesterday that Bush would win by 10%-15% of the popular vote.
based on some of the chatter this morning on Moonbat Central (otherwise known as DU) and a few other spots, I’m going to confirm that, and I’ll go a step farther…. Watch for Nader’s numbers to edge upward, possibly as much as 8 percent of the total, as the far left deserts the sinking ship that is John Kerry’s Campaign.

Interestingly, the Village Voice agrees:

“Watch third-party (and Nader’s) numbers begin to climb as united-front near-lefty Dems peel off the Kerry campaign looking for somewhere to hide.”

Hat tip to Dodd Harris for the link.

Dodd thinks the 10-15% figure I’m predicting is a tad low….

“George McGovern will be pleased. His 1972 run might just cease to be the standard example of a hopelessly incompetent, out-of-touch campaign.”

Increasingly the large woman singing is being noticed.

I’ve been spending at least a couple of posts in the last week, (And some follow up via e-mail and comment sections both here and on other blogs) about the relationship between authority and trust. That’s mostly because I’m coming to the conclusion that this presidential race is about trust.  Who do we trust with the authority of the Presidency?

Kevin Drum, who I’m amazed is still a Democrat, given the comments he’s been making of late, puts these thoughts this way:

“It’s fine to hammer away on domestic issues with specific target groups. It’s fine for John Edwards to focus on the two Americas. But anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry’s campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s 9/11, stupid.”

So… Kerry’s already tried the war hero bit… In fact, it’s a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that he can be trusted with national security and Bush can’t ? and if he doesn’t, he’s going to lose.

But I guess he still doesn’t get that.”

Well, Kevin, the fact is, he does get it, but Kerry has ceded the national security issue to President Bush… Though he’d never admit it; The ‘war hero’ bit has failed miserably so.

Admitting it to us aside, he apparently has been admitting it to himself. Kerry keeps trying to change the issue off National Security because but knows it’s a fight he can’t win. Given the choice of President Bush or John F’ing Kerry, most people… even most Democrats, say President Bush is by far the person they trust more.  It’s now to the point where Bill Clinton has been telling Kerry from his hospital bed, to stop talking about Vietnam.

His being rejected by the vast majority of Vets from every era didn’t help this matter either, frankly, particularly the charge of a lack of loyalty… Something which rings true with the American public, if we can trust the polling numbers.

But let’s be honest; what has Kerry got to run on, that’s going to be enough to sway the voters?

He can’t run on his war record… Once the truth came out about it, it’s been his undoing. So what else, then? His record while in government? No. Matter of fact, let’s explore this one…I issue an open challenge: Can anyone give me a list of what great work John Kerry has accomplished during his 20 years in the Senate?

Then, there’s the argument that all which is in the past should remain there, and we should be making judgments based on each man’s ideas for the future. However, that assumes that Kerry’s word can be taken as being worth it’s weight in air. His record of being all over the board in every single matter before this nation today. 

“I voted FOR the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

So what else can John Kerry run on? His legistlative record? Fox news, who has investigated this angle at some length, reports

“WASHINGTON ? Asked what he has accomplished during his 19 years in the Senate, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) gives a lengthy answer but has a short list of laws that bear his name.”

Kerry tries to defend himself against the charges of such a shallow record in this area…

“Can I say that it wouldn’t be done, that somebody else might not have picked up the cudgel?” he said in an Associated Press interview. “I don’t know. But I know I led a lot of fights in the Senate that nobody else was doing and that made a difference.”

Kerry then goes on to list exactly none of these fights.

Says Kerry in the Kerry friendly Boston Globe:

“I think I have a much longer legislative track record and accomplishment than vast numbers of people have any inkling of. From writing the flood insurance laws for the country to redoing the marine mammal protection act to writing the fisheries act two or three times to amendments on money laundering — there are whole bunches of things that are legislative accomplishments.”

Trouble is, none of these are popular in the least. The Flood insurance laws he mentions as one example, have done nothing but raise insurance rates for everyone concerned.

The Globe tells us further:

“On education, for example, Kerry says he has quietly and successfully pushed measures for early childhood education.”

Ah, yes. That would be the demonstrably failed Head Start program that fellow far-leftist Jesse Jackson was pushing. That’s not going to sell either, particularly when Mr. Kerry voted AGAINST “No Child Left Behind”.

No, that’s not going to sell, either.
So what’s he going to run on?

However; Even assuming all those questions were answered with something that could be sold the public; it still comes down to defending this nation, and the world. Kerry has repeatedly, since 1971, demonstrated a decided lack of willingness to deal with these issues correctly. His answer to Iraq, for example: Cut and run.

Yeah, that’s gonna go over big, huh?

This election is about trust. It’s that simple. At the moment, the people are coming to the conclusion that there’s not enough in John Kerry to trust… ceratinly not enough to replace President Bush to Mr. Kerry.

So can someone please tell me what about Kerry is worth voting for?
Other than he’s got better hair, I mean.

Here we go again.
Click on the image for full size pic.

UPDATE and bump: I’ve changed the shot to IR, instead of visable light, which doesn’t work too well at night…(DUH!) I’m also keeping this entry on top of the page for the duration of the story, by means of the date fields… normal bloging will be below.

TIME.com: Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

When even TIME admits it… all one can say is… wow…

And it beats the hell outta that dead cat bounce we saw after the DNC.

I say again…. Bush by 10 to 15% in the popular vote.

A thought just struck me, and it’s one I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned before… anywhere.

All the talk of lending moral (and monetary) support to NYC, it already being network ready and all of that aside for the moment…. Could a major consideration for the RNC hodling it’s convention in NYC have been because of the Police Dept there being already trained and otherwise prepared for damn near anything? Security does seem a wise consideration, given the mental state of the Democrat party.

And I should point out that it is a testimony to the open-mindedness of Republicans that the moonbats they ended up arresting actually made it out with their skins still attached. Personally, though, I’d be interested in seeing how such people managed to make it into the place.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.

Fox and CNN are both on it but that’s all the info I have at the moment. More as I find.

Personally I question the timing of this incident… (snicker)

Update:Apparently, they’ve got him set up for a quadruple bypass operation. or, so says ABC. Meanwhile ABC says he’s got no history of such problems. Forgive me, but these gears don’t mesh very well. Something’s a bit weird.

More as I find.
By the way, Apparently I beat Drudge with this one.