Hey he actually denounced the ideology without taking the name of islam. Is it a positive ? And he seems to believe that "al qaeda" means "the base". That is why he is sticking on his story of one country. Somebody tell him al qaeda means "the (right) way". It ain't no base. And there are 52 islamic countries from which to launch attacks. And scores of others where there are sleeper cells.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 30, 2006 7:38 AM

Robert Spencer offers:

Naval Academy grads: congratulations. Contact me at director@jihadwatch.org. I'd be happy to help you understand the enemy. Mr. Cheney, I'm available if you would like to discuss this as well.

Please do take him up on this genuine offer, boys. You (we, all) will be glad you did!

Posted by: justamomof4 at May 30, 2006 7:54 AM

Maybe they could sign the whole country up for the course.....I thought I was reading John Kerry for a momet.........Ahmadinejad: No, I'm not insulting anyone. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Bush was polite.

SPIEGEL: We don't mean insult, but provoke.

Ahmadinejad: No, we feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense. Why is there war when there is reason as well?

SPIEGEL: Is your letter to the president also a gesture toward the Americans that you wish to enter into direct negotiations?

Ahmadinejad: We clearly stated our position in this letter on how we view the problems in the world. Some powers have befouled the political atmosphere in the world because they consider lies and fraud to be legitimate. In our view that is very bad. We believe that all people deserve respect. Relationships have to be regulated on the basis of justice. When justice reigns, peace reigns. Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not criticize them.

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept. 11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented without the coordination with secret and security services or without the far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 30, 2006 8:00 AM

"the war on terror...."
"the enemy..."
"they...they...they...they"
"this ideology"

We are told that "the war on terror has influenced the course of study at our service academies..." and we learn elsewhee that both at the Naval Academy and at West Point there has been an expansion of studies, more professors assigned,to teach about "the enemy."

One would like to know what is taught in those courses, what the assigned reading is, who the instructors are, and what students who go through those classes in "learning about the enemy" still not identified anywhere above are taught. "Perversion" of "noble religion"? "Tiny handful of extremists"? Or are they taught exactly what is in Qur'an and Hadith, taught about the doctrine of abrogation, taught to understand the real meaning of the handful of phrases either quoted out of context or understood not as Muslims have understood and applied them, but as we, the Infidels, would (for example, that deceptive phrase, so often repaired to, "there is no compulsion in religion")?

One needs to know. Are they being taught, or are they being mis-taught? And if there are on the faculty Muslims whose sensibilities must be kept constantly be mind, who must not be offended, then an entire department, then course after course, can be rendered not merely valueless, but worse than valueless -- a propagandistic exercise, that will continue to churn out minds that, when it comes to the things they need to know about -- the teachings of Islam, and not merely the teachings but also the attitudes and atmospherics to which those teachings, suffusing Muslim societies in Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb, naturally givfe rise. And they need to know the origins and contents of the doctrine of Jihad, the appeal of Islam to the marginal inthe West, the campaigns of Da'wa, the clearly-expressed hope that demographic conquest will succeed where outright military conquest could not, the entire scope and menace of Jihad, with the instruments that cannot be countered by "boots on the ground" in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, and then they need to know the sources of Muslim division and conceivable demoralization, and they need to know about the ex-Muslims, the defectors from Islam, and their testimony, and their appeal, and how to make that appeal more widely known to Muslims who may be open to thought, despite that belief-system that encourages the habit of mental submission.

Finally, those graduates of the service academies need to be taught how, in what way, the belief-system of Islam (call it that, do not call it a "religion" -- a word which evokes too much automatic respect among some) explains the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic polities and peoples, from despotism as a political system, to inshallah-fatalism as explaining the inability to create modern economies, despite Muslim Arabs being the recipients of the largest unearned wealth in human history.

Posted by: Hugh at May 30, 2006 8:03 AM

Ahmadinejad: Then we would accept that Palestinians are killed every day, that they die in terrorist attacks, and that houses are being destroyed. But let me say something about Iraq. We have always favored peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces. Fortunately, the Germans haven't been involved in this. We want security in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.

SPIEGEL: What are you trying to say?

Ahmadinejad: We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job. They have sent us messages several times asking us for help and cooperation. They have said that we should talk together about Iraq. We publicly accepted this offer, although our people do not trust the Americans. But America has responded negatively and insulted us. Even now we're contributing to security in Iraq. We will hold talks only if the Americans change their behavior........(Look at the last line contributing securtity....Must be those shia hit squids......or the Madhi amry paving the way for the 12th Demon.)

Posted by: storagemanager at May 30, 2006 8:08 AM

I think not mentioning America may be prudent at this time.

Al Qaida clearly thinks Islam should rule the world, but its current tactics and military strategy seem focused on establishing the Islamic Caliphate as it once existed (which would include Southern Spain).

It's a reconquista.

Al Qaida's propaganda re: America has focused on kicking us out of the Middle East, not on taking America over. This is shrewd as it is a good way to gain the support of Leftists who can conveniently ignore the theocratic ideas that they normally find repugnant.

Cheney is being shrewd also by clarifying Al Qaida's stated, undeniable, short term goal.

If Cheney and Bush keep saying America is at risk, Al Qaida can say, "Only because of your foreign policy, which if changed, would no longer attract our wrath. We have no intention of invading you. Just get out of our way and let us do our business here in our part of the world that we understand and you don't."

This message is resonant among those who think a fight can be avoided.

Also, the "International Community" doesn't care if America is at risk, but I don't think it wants to see the Ottoman Empire re-established minus whatever tolerance it might have bestowed upon its non-Muslim citizens.

For all these reasons, I think focusing on Al Qaida's short term military goals has a lot to recommend it.

Posted by: Snippet at May 30, 2006 8:31 AM

It would be funny if it was not tragic how our leaders dance around Islam, the 'ideology.' If Cheney and Bush had any sense, they would ban Muslim immigration to America. Until I see that reality, I believe they are all in fools in deep denial. ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM. Keep dancing VP Cheney.

Posted by: John Sobieski at May 30, 2006 8:51 AM

Future World Belongs to Asians

TERHAN (Fars News Agency)- States Expediency Council Secretary stressed that the Untied States would experience a demise while Asians rise in the next decade, adding that the future world belongs to the Asian countries.

Speaking during a meeting with the Ambassador of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea to Iran, Mohsen Reza'ee stated that the eastern and Asian powers who enjoy large possibilities and high potentials, can play a decisive role in future international developments, saying that recent world events substantiates the very same fact.

Asserting that Iran, North Korea, China and Russia enjoy a pivotal role in this regard, he reminded that the four can start an Asian movement in the international relations through solidarity and insistence on their principled and fundamental stances.

The official said that occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States and its allies has revealed the weak points of the system of the West in confronting global developments, reiterating that occupiers are in desperate need of the Islamic republic to get rid of their problems in the said two countries.

(NOW IF THEY ONLY HAD SOME BURKA CLAD CHEER LEADERS WITH SOME PALM TREE POM POMS YELLING..WHAT DO WE WANT...THE WORLD....WHEN DO WE WANT IT...NOW!)

Posted by: storagemanager at May 30, 2006 9:14 AM

"Iran, North Korea, China and Russia enjoy a pivotal role in this regard, he [Ahmadinejad] reminded that the four can start an Asian movement in the international relations through solidarity and insistence on their principled and fundamental stances."
-- from a posting above

In the late 1970s the Shah of Iran was predicting that within a few years Iran would become the "second industrial power" in Asia. It didn't work out that way. One doubts that either Iran or North Korea will enjoy the "pivotal role," if such pivotal role there be, to be played by countries of the size and weight of China and Russia.

North Korea is unlikely to exist, as North Korea, under the last of its Glorious Leaders, a decade hence. Iran? Will Iran exist, in its current configuration, if the Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris and Arabs all decide to express their resentment in the only way they know how? Barely 50% of Iran consissts of Persians; what happens if the non-Persians decide to leave, and the Arabs of Khuzistan decide to take with them that oil which is the source of whatever power and wealth Iran currently posseses?

Can revenues from Persian rugs, pistachio nuts, and caviar replace that oil of Khuzistan? The tireless Chinese now produce pseudo-Persian carpets apparently satisfactory enough to diminish demand for the first; Californian farmers do the same for the pistachio nuts; riparian sharers of the Caspian caviar crop have through overfishing laid low the sturgeon population and Crimean caviar is now banned for export. What's left?

Posted by: Hugh at May 30, 2006 9:38 AM

Hugh....my point was they will make an axis just long enough to make the Chaos mahmoud wants....Like nazi Germany, Japan and Italy....If Hitler had won...I doubt He would have given Japan a role....But we will never know that answer.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 30, 2006 10:19 AM

Dear Vice President Cheney:

In your search for synonyms for "the enemy", here are a few:

Islamic Imperialism

-the "ic" at the end of the first word softens the idea that it may not be "Islam", as such, that is the problem... although it is, since the Koran clearly preaches the ceaseless Muslim domination of all humanity and the endless spread of the cruel and intolerant tenets of a pedophile warlord around the globe ...but we'll let that little detail slide for the moment

-while the second word harkens back to Communism's failed attempt at the same kind of Empire, minus the supernatural "god" idea.

Islamo-fascism

-all of the same advantages of the previous name, with a little anti-Nazi/Mussolini thrown in, for those military students who may have heard of Hitler and the Italian socialist Brown Shirts.

Muslim Terrorists

-less clear, since it fails to address the ideological roots of what a "Muslim" might be terrorizing for, but at least it names a specific human opponent, by a recognizable title.

-the nebulous formulation -"Terrorists"- which would apply equally to the IRA, Basque Seperatists or Shining Path Maoists, leaves much to be desired and should be relegated to a descriptive adjective for their methods, and not utilized as their name

Islamic Extremists

-this begins to lose focus, failing to first question the notion of "What is extreme in Islam?" or whether it is "extreme" by their standards. Terroristic imperialism may be "fundamentalist", or "pure" or "devout" to the average Mohammedan, and not "extreme" at all. To us, cutting peoples' heads off over a religious disagreement may seem "extreme", but it really is not, at least according to Mohammad, or his vengeful "god" Allah (SEE: Sura 9:29-30, etc.).

Muslim Fundamentalists

-as noted above, this may be accurate, but it will only confuse "Christian fundamentalists", who may think that anything "fundamental" is good, no matter what the "religion" involved is, especially since few "Christians" have cracked open a Koran, or read the bizarre biographical tales of Mohammad, slave master, director of assassins of poets, beheader of 900 captive Jews, husband of a 9 year old, etc., in the Hadiths.

Koranic Crazies

-the alliteration may be tempting, but, without a better understanding, by the average Westerner, of the contents of the Koran, not yet recommended.

Mohammedan Maniacs

-the same quibble applies to the previous title for "the enemy": too few in our Civilization enough about the "prophet" of Islam to make this a useful appelation, yet. [A "Mohammed For Dummies" isn't on the bookshelves.]

Hope this little list helps.

Best wishes for our ultimate success in the "War On Terror", AKA "The Long War", AKA- "The War Against Islamic Imperialism", ad infinitum,

PB

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 30, 2006 10:55 AM

Robert - you are so right. Why can't they admit who the real enemey is. Terrorists? BS. Even al-Queda has told us what their plans are.

In a blog entry entitled Al Qaeda Building Army in Preparation for Long War, the Jawa Report summarizes a long analysis from a fascinating article at the Jamestown Foundation - http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=181 . In the Jamestown Foundation analysis, Michael Scheuer reports on the strategic writings of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia leader Abu Hajar Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin. It seems that al-Muqrin has given a lot of thought to the "long war" against the United States.

al-Muqrin says in so many words that those who use terrorism must build “a military force….that becomes the nucleus of a military army.”

In other words, insurgents who use terrorist tactics can not win the war themselves. To do that, like in every war before this, you must occupy enemy territory to win and force your ideology on the population. That means putting boots on the ground.

Read more of my analysis at http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=336069

WC

Posted by: Thomas Paine at May 30, 2006 11:18 AM

The link in the posting above offers a piece about the thinking of Al-Qaeda strategists. Worrisome is the name of Michael Scheuer, whose blend of Cub-Scout innocence about Islam and Buchananite views on "neoconservatives" (used as a code word) entitle him to a non-hearing, and worrisome as well the belief that if members of the enemy camp discuss military matters, then it follows, somehow, that military means are what we, the Infidels, must focus on. This leads to ignoring, or minimizing, other, more effective means to contain, or undo, the spread of Islam (for Jihad is the duty to remove all obstacles to the spread, and subsequent dominance, of Islam to every place on earth).

Here is an excerpt:

"al-Muqrin [an al-Qaeda strategist] argued that the resources, political will, morale and manpower of the insurgents' enemies would be eroded, and that their forces would assume more static positions in order to limit the attrition they suffered. In this stage of the insurgency, al-Muqrin predicted that the United States and its allies would conduct far fewer large-scale combat operations in the countryside and would turn toward conducting smaller raids on specific targets, while simultaneously hardening their bases and protecting their supply routes and lines of communication..."

Note how it is taken for granted that the Americans will remain in Iraq, attempting to deal with the insurgency. It is beyond the imagination of Al-Qaeda or other Muslim groups (Al-Qaeda being merely one among many) that the Americans might pull out completely, deciding to let the Shi'a militias deal with the Sunnis, and vice-versa, and the pesh merga to push the Kurdish program in Kirkuk and possibly even Mosul. So obvious is this as a way to exploit the ethnic and sectarian fissures that were always present, and that inevitably would reappear just as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed -- for only a despot like that could, through mass murder and the threat of more mass murder, keep the Sunnis, some 19% of the population, or some subset of them, on top.

And if the assorted Jihad strategists can't imagine the Americans being willing to abandon that whole "everyone-wants-freedom-democracy-is-on-the-march-Iraq-can-be-a-Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations stuff, apparently neither can the American administration. It is as if such things, so obvious to some, cannot even be contemplated, even discussed. Could it be that Al-Qaeda "strategists" never mention these ethnic and sectarian fissures, and the danger that the Infidels might exploit them or allow them to explode by simply leaving Iraq, cannot be mentioned for fear of giving those dumb Infidels ideas? Could that be it?

Posted by: Hugh at May 30, 2006 11:40 AM

Found this on the Net. A not so tongue in cheek satire "Remembering What a "Peaceful" Religion Brought Us Back in `41"

December 7, 2002: President George W. Bush Issues Statement, Hosts Japanese-American "Sunrise" Breakfast To Mark Pearl Harbor Anniversary.

Following yesterday's message from President Bush honoring the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr, the President today hosted a "sunrise breakfast" for leading Japanese-Americans, the Japanese diplomatic community and a delegation of Shinto priests from Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which commemorates Japan's war dead.

In his remarks delivered before the breakfast, President Bush said, "I want to thank all of you for joining me on a day that means so much both to Americans and to Japanese. Our countries are and always have been good friends. Our cultures are very much alike. We both place great value on individual freedom and opportunity. We both value frankness and straightforward dealing. We have both always been peaceful countries, at home and abroad. And we both have great respect for other cultures and peoples.

Read it all at http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=336234

Posted by: Thomas Paine at May 30, 2006 11:42 AM

I have a simple question: Did Cheney actually give a whole speech on the so-called "war on terror" without mentioning the word "jihad" even once? If so, then it wasn't a credible speech.

In the 2006 and 2008 elections, I will vote for any candidate who is willing to discuss jihad openly, without flinching. Even if their views end up differing from mine, at least they have the ideological courage to call it what it is.

Posted by: Steven L. at May 30, 2006 12:30 PM

Notice too that Cheney emphasizes the stateless aspect of our enemy.

Now compare to the comments in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, where GW said that STATES had to make a choice, they were either with us, or the terrorists. And GW said that if you harbour terrorists, you're a terrorist.

Now the administration is getting away from the destabilizing aspect of their policy, and returning to the terrorist policy views that prevailed on September 10th, which went of its way to ingore the state sponsorship behind every major terrorist organization on earth.

Hezbollah couldn't exist without Syrian and Iranian support.

This speech, and others by the President, seem to indicate a slow return to the policies of September 10th. The elites never liked GW's statement about no difference between states that harbour terrorists, and terrorists themselves. And they wore him down.

In short, all of the worst elements within the State Department and the CIA have won the intense bureaucratic battles.

Posted by: Dan at May 30, 2006 1:52 PM

And Fitzgerald's right about Scheuer, the guy even looked like he hadn't a clue. They say don't judge a book by its cover, but in Scheuer's case, you should heed Solzhenitsyn's words, "it's all there in the face."

Posted by: Dan at May 30, 2006 1:55 PM

It is clear to me by now that the current U.S. Administration and most of our Representatives in Washington are part of an intentional lie when it comes to this "War on Terror" strategy. I can not find it in my own mind to believe that Dick Cheney is stupid enough to believe the rhetoric he gives in this speech to the cadets. So, the answer is obvious: he's lying.

We must all sit back in sheer amazement that we are being lead by such people. I used to respect Cheney, but now I'm thinking that he's just one more cog in an engine that has some secret, predetermined goal, and that goal certainly does not have "clarity of purpose" and "truth" as part of its manifesto.

If, on the other hand, these men in Washington are not corrupt, then we should perhaps consider administering IQ tests to our elected officials, because the only possible excuse is utter stupidity and ignorance, and neither of these traits is excusable in a national leader, at any level.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 30, 2006 3:33 PM

Doesn't it say somewhere in the Constitution, or was it the words of Lincoln, who said something to the effect that if the government is failing the people, then the people have a moral right, indeed a legal right, to dispose of the government?

How does that square with sedition laws? And how many people have to be in favor of a coup?

Personally, I think the US government should be overthrown and new order installed, one that does the bidding of legal american citizens. What would Lincoln say of this situation? What does the constitution say?

And what would it take to overthrow the government? Who, really, has the power when push comes to shove? The military?

Just as an intellectual exercise, if you wanted to perform a coup, what steps would be necessary and in what order?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 4:09 PM

I don't think we need overt revolution in a system where the November Revolution is built in.

We need to use our system more effectively (in the United States), not subvert it or work around it.

People operating in a Parliment-style environment - I defer to you for your own solutions.

I for one am doing several things:

a) voting out everyone at every level of government
b) writing letters to the editor on the issues of
* nature of the war
* what's been asked of the American people
* supporting Hamas
* why I'm voting to get new people in place

c)I'm trying to find an agent for the novel I've written. It's a repudiation of Islam disguised as a commercial thriller. Took me 3 years to finish. I'm not saying it's the next 'Farewell To Arms' but ...

d) I'm also contacting the people who are supposed to be representing my interests in the various levels of government to remind them who they work for. They aren't supposed to be working entirely for their own self-interest or the interest of those groups which gave them the TV advert. monies. They will be reminded of this fact.

I will continue to do these things until we have effective change or I'm dead or something happens to the United States our communication systems are temporarily ineffective.

I'm too old to join the service and I have a bad eye anyway. My head still works and I can type for the time being....

Never give up.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 30, 2006 4:56 PM

November Revolution is built in.
______________________________________

Ah, but in November you get only two choices. Between bad and worse. That's the point. Nobody who will address the problem can ever work within the democratic system. Case in point. The toughest guy on terror is supposed to be Bush. And bush is a dhimmi. Think the democrats will be better? Hilliary and her leftist friends? Or what about John 'don't-torture-the-bad-guys' McCain?

In November '08 there will no candidate that will name islam and attack it. Guaranteed.

The American political system will never allow anyone in that will rock the boat, expose Saudi Arabia, take us off foreign oil, deport the illegals, etc. Someone like that would be suppressed, vilified by the media, and spat out of the system. Same goes for Canada, UK, Germany, Spain, you name it.

The only way to save the US is to overthrow the existing system. Liberal democracy can not handle the threats of the 21st century. It can not produce a man that can address them. It can only produce game show host-type politicians that smile and kiss babies and take donations.

Remember, if Washington was nuked, the civilian leadership would be taken out anyway. The military would take over in the interim. I suggest that America not wait until the city is nuked and have the civilian leadership disposed of now and replaced with new leaders handpicked from an elite group of enlightened knights. We can go back to wishy washy democracy once the threat is dealt with. Until then, we need a King Arthur and a Round Table of knights. What a chapter in American history that would be.

If we are to defeat islam and preserve the culture of the United States, and by extension, the whole west, someone will have to step up to the plate. A great leader is needed. Someone who not only understands the gravity of the situation, but understands the solution and is willing to implement it without hesitation. Someone with charisma, superior intelligence, an effective oral communicator, and nerves of steel.

People like that could be all over the United States. We may even have some members here that fit that bill.

Any takers?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 5:25 PM

We can produce someone if we ask for one often enough.

"Give the people what they want" Someone will have enough sense to hear what we want if we ask the right question and so far we haven't asked the right question often enough. That's why I'm doing the other things in addition to the voting.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 30, 2006 5:28 PM

somethingaboutislam asked

Just as an intellectual exercise, if you wanted to perform a coup, what steps would be necessary and in what order?

Step 1. Vote for a different candidate, one who generally supports your beliefs.

Step 1a. If no candidate exists for Step 1, then file papers to run as a candidate yourself.

Step 2. Convince a majority of your fellow citizens to vote likewise.

Voila! No messy tanks driving around; just a little elbow grease, a little hot air, and you can get a completely new and improved government.

Posted by: special_guest at May 30, 2006 5:36 PM

Hey ...

does anyone out there know whether or not some wise fool in the U.S. has tried to bring suit against the Qur'an as 'Hate Speech'? I know the idea has been tossed around these forums, but do we know if anyone has tried to do it?

Wasn't it attempted in Germany in the recent past?

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 30, 2006 5:36 PM

somethingaboutislam said

The only way to save the US is to overthrow the existing system.

Not too keen on this whole democracy thing, are we? And only one day after Memorial Day?

It can only produce game show host-type politicians that smile and kiss babies and take donations.

Then don't vote for gameshow host politicians who smile and kiss babies and take donations, and convince those around you not to do it either. Good candidates are out there, but they're not necessarily in the limelight, they could use your help.

Posted by: special_guest at May 30, 2006 5:46 PM

I believe We are at War, for War has been declared against us by all Muslims of the Koran and we should act like it!
"Islam is such a useful tool" Mughal Timur the Lane FEBRUARY 24, 1568 and
its modern day guiding light social-Marxism philosophy found wallowing in Our government via Lenin's political correctness Moscow 1923 and an
education for idiots via Progressive Education, over 80 years of open borders via greed, and the re-colonizing US the demographics of defeat from within via liberal academics and leaders with will power and soldiers of absolute Koran, etc.

The right to bare arms is to protect US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, to War against all enemies for uncompromised Victory!
I guess that includes politically correct US Government leaders found under compromise and capitulate to Treachery and Treason aka With an alien or foreign allegiance to The New World Order of Dependents of Lesser Standards and Values, an agenda that is to democratically over throw US Constitution of We the People, an Allegiance of Citizens.

Posted by: SirSeth at May 30, 2006 5:50 PM

Good candidates are out there, but they're not necessarily in the limelight, they could use your help.

No, I do not think that such candidates exist. Why? Because people like that can not exist in the political world. As soon as they open their mouth, they are dumped like a hot potato. In order to be successful in politics, you have to be a diplomat. Diplomacy got us into this mess. We need something much stronger to get us out.

As far as memorial day is concerned, democracy is not worth dying for if it is corrupted by dhimmis and our troops' lives wasted in a vain attempt to bring civilization to those that do not want it. Indeed, let the military run the show. What better salute to memorial day than that?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 5:59 PM

somethingaboutislam-

Who is worth a ballot?

Tom Tancredo and Curt Weldon in 2008.

Border security and global security in one team.

Vote for yourself as a write-in if nothing else seems tolerable.

The time of popular literal revolutions ended with the increased firepower of the Civil War.

Now you must form the New American Revolution with your persuasiveness.

If you tell the truth calmly but passionately, it'll penetrate.

A good slogan helps.

"DEFEND FREEDOM- SECURE AMERICA!" maybe?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 30, 2006 6:48 PM

Cheney Urges Naval Academy Class of 2006 to Know the Enemy

Physician, first heal thyself.

Posted by: special_guest at May 30, 2006 7:18 PM

Profitsbeard, I nominate you one of the Knights of the Round Table of America. Claim your title, sir______?

Who else doth dare to join us?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 7:33 PM

somethingaboutislam-

"Sir___________?"

I'll take "Gical".

(As in "strike".)

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 30, 2006 7:39 PM

I'll be Sir Martel, descendant of Charles Martel.

Not really, but it sounds good. Actually I am Spanish by heritage, so maybe there is some Moor-fighting DNA in me. And a bit of Franco.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 7:50 PM

Once we have 13 Knights agreed upon, then we will select a King from one of those.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 7:52 PM

Does Dick Cheney get his foreign policy advise from daughter Liz, who worked in the State Department, and just left on maternity?

Hope it was the other way around, and that Liz, who I belive assists Karen Hughes, knows better than her boss about Islam.

I'd think a history buff like Lynne "A-is-for-Abagail" Cheney would know better about Islam. Doesn't she?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 30, 2006 7:56 PM

Just read Mr. Prez's speech "from Damascus to Tehran". It had the most depressing effect on my morale. No wonder the cadets' and the marines' morales are affected. The leaders are completely ignoring the ground reality, even the feedback from iraq and afghanistan. They live in their insulated worlds, and fail to open their minds that muslims don't want freedom, they want tyranny. The West left afghanistan "free" for a long time, they hacked each other. The West "liberated" afghanistan, and hey, they are hacking each other and us as well. Same with iraq.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 30, 2006 11:00 PM

Regarding the political debate, we need a viable third party in America, and we need it desperately. Our next presidential candidates will probably be John McCain vs Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. There is no way I could vote for any of them; Hillary is a Marxist; McCain is an internationalist, multiculturalist, open-borders elitist prig; Gore is certifiably insane. They are equally repugnant and potentially lethal. It won't be a choice between bad or worse come November of 2008, it will be a "pick your poison" event.

No, the president is not all-powerful, but just look at the damage George Bush has managed to inflict, with the help and cooperation of our elected officials in the House and the Senate.
The only people they represent are special interest minority groups. The mainstream majority that put these people in office are ignored.

By the time the next major election rolls around, the uninformed, ignorant electorate will vote for whoever they think will end the war in Iraq and redistribute wealth with wild abandon. I have no doubt that after eight years of irresponsible, egregiously squandered Republican power, Democrats will prevail. Has anyone seriously contemplated the carnage Al Gore would inflict on our economy with his hysterical global warming agenda, or the consequences of abandoning the war against Islamic jihad? How about socialized medicine, the number one priority of the Democrats after they surrender what's left of our sovereignty to the UN? The future of this country looks bleak indeed.

Once upon a time, I was not at all interested in politics. I voted a straight Republican ticket when elections rolled around and paid little attention in between. Even local politics didn't interest me until I was subjected to a very unpleasant and unfair eminent domain scam. Believe me, unless you have experienced this horrible injustice, you cannot imagine the toll it takes on your innocence, your finances, and your mental stability. Any illusions you once had of governmental fairness, justice, integrity, impartiality and decency are forever shattered. That nightmare was an epiphany, my awakening to the seedy, corrupt world of politics. But if we sit back and allow the bullies, elitists, intelligentsia, and pundits run the show without fighting back, we deserve whatever we get.

Posted by: Susanp at May 31, 2006 1:24 AM

Ahmadinejad: Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not criticize them.

Ahmadinejad sounds like one of Ahmadinejad's most ardent acolytes.

Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 2:49 AM

"it's all there in the face." -dan above

You got it right Dan! When they flicked on the light and the head of the Osama desk at CIA blinked those (whites showing all around the iris) eyes of his, I knew a big part of "why did it happen?".

That credulous freak nearly sank our boat with his mediocre mind and his anitpathies. We can all be glad that periolous pig is OUT of the agency now. Now some other crumbs should follow his lead...

And he should be skewered mercilessly... Mr. Fitzgerald could help.

Posted by: jsla at May 31, 2006 3:07 AM

... urged the U.S. Naval Academy's graduating class to understand the nature of the enemy in the global war on terror...

Right out of the gate with those three delusional words global war on terror the midshipmen are already hopelessly lost.

Ain't no global war on terror. There's the Islamic War and no leader on earth is willing to confront it. Too skeert even to call it by name.

That's flinching.

I wonder how many Moslems were in this graduating class. And, as I recall, the USNA has an Esposito style professor now. Nukes & pukes. Recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 31, 2006 5:08 AM

A great leader is needed. Someone who not only understands the gravity of the situation, but understands the solution and is willing to implement it without hesitation. Someone with charisma, superior intelligence, an effective oral communicator, and nerves of steel.

People like that could be all over the United States. We may even have some members here that fit that bill.

Any takers?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 30, 2006 05:25 PM

A NAME COMES TO MIND??

RUDY RUDY RUDY

Posted by: Catherine at May 31, 2006 7:41 AM

RE: somethingaboutislam

Since you are of Hispanic heritage how about Sir Matamoros?

Posted by: daryl at May 31, 2006 8:24 AM

I completely agree that we are overdue for a viable third (Independent) party on the U.S. political platform. I have supported such movements in the past, but was hugely disappointed when McCain didn't have the courage to break away and do it when he clearly had the momentum, but in hindsight, I now see why: he's not the man I thought he was either.

What I do lately is try to make bookmarks on every single state representative that I find is speaking my language when it comes to two issue: immigration and Islam. All other matters are just a nuissance in comparison to those overwhelming problems.

I will probably never be someone that could stomach direct political ambition, but I can tell you all that I have one true gift when it comes to people in positions of power: I have a knack for being the "kingly advisor", and people know it. Perhaps one day I will be in a position to influence the right minds, either acting as a friend to a candidate or part of the staff, or just a vocal supporter with a good pen and paper style, but everyone of us should already be doing what we can to pepper an ear of the few people that we trust in Washington.

We need clarity of purpose and thought in this War. That is what is so utterly missing right now, and why we so often feel powerless to affect the right changes. A strong third party alternative is the first step towards this solution.

Foehammer

Posted by: Foehammer at May 31, 2006 11:11 AM

Sorry, something.a.i., but as a Soldier, I would be obliged to stand against you. Not because of loyalty to the government (bunch of shits that they are), but because of Loyalty to the Constitution.

What a chapter in American history that would be.

I, for one, am not interesting in sewing a leaf from the French book into the American story.

They can make me remove the uniform, but the oath is laser-carved in diamond.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at May 31, 2006 4:52 PM

"They can make me remove the uniform, but the oath is laser-carved in diamond."

I was thinking the same thing. One must excercise the utmost care when advocating sedition, no matter how legitimate one thinks the reasons. You'll find that alot of us take that oath as something that binds us for the rest of our lives and tend to be the most conservative when it comes to a discussion of radical national change. Look through a history book and count up how many times a violent revolution has replaced a bad government with a worse one. The "American Revolution" doesn't count. The latter was a war of independence.

One may have reasonable concerns and be justifiably frustrated with the system as it is, but if one is not gettin satisfaction within the system, one must first try to peacefully change that system. Only when all peaceful and legal options have been tried and failed, and then only when the government is proven to flagrantly violate the Constitution, may one advocate replacing that government.

Trust me, I had to put up with that vile cretin Bill Clinton as my Commander in Chief for eight years in service, and if anyone made a large percentage of military folk want to see something radically change in government, it was him.

Posted by: Eisenhund at May 31, 2006 5:48 PM

Right on, Eisenhund. I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, but Bill Clinton's perfidy was clear enough to me that I left my ballot blank for President in both national elections. The only time I did anything remotely supportive of Bill Clinton -- and really it was in defense of the office not the man, was to vote a straight Democratic ticket when the Republicans tried to usurp the office through impeachment. Strangely enough -- I felt that his offense of perjury was totally impeachable, but the manner in which it came about was so slimy, that I considered it a wash (with sewage water, of course). But America survived his smooth negligence -- and our system once again showed a tremendous flexibility -- Of course, while we slumbered, our enemy gathered momentum. I blame Clinton's negligence and his pathological need to be liked for this state of affairs far more than all the stupid things Bush has done combined...

Anyone advocating for or acting out to effect supra-legal means of harming our Nation is committing a grave crime against our Nation...

Posted by: jsla at June 1, 2006 3:49 PM