Katrina Vander Heuval:

Last month, the bipartisan Rand Corporation concluded in an important report that the very notion of a “war on terror” is counterproductive, and that intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy. More recently, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman — no milquetoast when it comes to using military force — criticized the Dems’ position on Afghanistan as ill-conceived “bumper sticker politics.” Friedman quoted a valuable Time article by Afghan expert Rory Stewart. Reporting from Kabul, Stewart explains: “A troop increase is likely to inflame Afghan nationalism because Afghans are more anti-foreign than we acknowledge, and the support for our presence in the insurgency areas is declining … The more responsibility we take in Afghanistan, the more we undermine the credibility and responsibility of the Afghan government and encourage it to act irresponsibly.”

Stewart, a longtime observer of Afghan politics, makes clear that the temptation to throw more military forces at the problem may do more harm — to our security, to the Afghan people who are already angry about mounting civilian casualties, and to the stability of a region whose underlying conflicts require political resolution not more US or NATO troops.  ~alternet.org

Shattered windows and bomb scares are growing threats for recruiters working to find young men and women to join the U.S. military, according to a new report that claims attacks on military recruiting stations are on the rise.

The report, issued by a not-for-profit group that supports members of the military, calls the incidents — including the spray-painting of graffiti — “attacks,” and claims there have been more than 50 since March 2003.

“The peace protesters are not peaceful,” said Catherine Moy, executive director of Move America Forward, which released the report. “They are violent. They are causing havoc in an illegal manner on recruiting offices across the United States.”  ~foxnews.com

This should not be a surprise at all since good communist have always supported ‘resistance’ and revolution in the face of the ultimate evil (America).

Besides attacking recruiting stations anti-war communists have decided that abridging the religious rights of others is fair game as well.

I’m talking about this clueless and insulting article at Time.com (to both audiences and the troops).

The author mentions how tough it is for far-leftist-liberal Hollywood, “to turn this war into edifying entertainment for the mass audience.” How tough could it be?

…there’s a slew of American movies on the subject: In the Valley of Elah, The Kingdom, Rendition, Lions for Lambs and Redacted–and soon, Badland, Grace Is Gone and Charlie Wilson’s War. Most are worthy; some feature Oscar-winning actors and directors. And so far, all show how tough it is to turn this war into edifying entertainment for the mass audience. ~time.com

Obviously, it’s pretty damn hard for liberals to make edifying war movies. But then we know they would have an easier time making movies about the glorious revolution of Hugo Chavez. (Minus the creation of AK-47 factories and the closing of media outlets who dissent from Chavez’s dictatorship.) Their ideologically colored glasses won’t allow them to see anything heroic, useful, or dramatic in this war (or our soldiers). And unfortunately they think that audiences are too stupid to realize that they should revel in the anti-american education the left is trying to give them.

But quality, or lack of it, was irrelevant to audiences. They avoided both films like summer school. ~time.com

Imagine that. Why won’t American audiences take their medicine?

As a critic, I give the Iraq films now in release passing marks for good intentions and audiences an incomplete for poor attendance. ~time.com

What this film critic brings to light is the incredible disadvantage that Hollywood labors under. That is, the albatross of their own liberal anti-american politics. With films like Lions for Lambs and Redacted filmmakers seem to have reached the nadir of their preachy influence. Americans stubbornly refuse to convert to the ‘New Patriotism’ which looks a great deal like old fashioned treason and subversion but is now marketed by progressives as, “dissent,” the new and highest form of patriotism.

For example, a host of liberals will accept nothing less than defeat in war for American troops. Murtha (and Obama) says that our criminals, uh, I mean, rapist cold-blooded murderers, er, American soldiers can’t win this war. Harry Reid said the war was lost a long time ago.

All hail the new patriotism! Long may she waive.

Imagine an ideology that sees American Soldiers as no better than Al Qaeda. Yes! That’s liberalism!

According to Ted Rall, American Soldiers and suicide bombers are the same:

• Male
• Willing to die for a cause
• Filled with religious fervor
• Poorly Edukaded
• Blindly obedient
• Desparately Poor
• Believes in life after death
• Immature (! – Oh, Kettle.)

Click read more to see the cartoon.

Michelle Malkin calls it, ‘naked contempt,’ for the troops

Each and every one of these points has been voiced by ‘mainstream’ liberals publically …recently in fact, not just in the ancient past. From John Kerry to Charles Wrangle (troops are poor, hence we need a draft) we have been treated to these kinds of incredibly untrue statements. Untrue, as in, lies liberals want to believe. But liberals don’t care about how true their preconcieved notions are. The gospel of liberalism is eternal, immutable, and exclusively moral. That’s one helluva combination.

John F. Kerry

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Charles Wrangle

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005

Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is ‘Unforgivable’
She Has Called for an Investigation Into Why Soldiers Are Not Fully Protected, Jan. 10, 2006 —

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration “incompetent” when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines “unforgivable.”

So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued. ~abcnews.go.com

And yet these same liberals are even today actively seeking to downsize and disarm our military in order to dismantle ‘the threat’ we pose to the rest of the world so that we can create a socialist heathcare system and cradle to grave welfare.

“Currently there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less producing additional warheads,” the House Appropriations Committee said in its report, released last week, on the fiscal 2008 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. The full House is expected to vote on the measure this week. ~washingtonpost.com

So when we finally have no useful nuclear warheads with which to retaliate against the inevitable nuclear attack, will the liberals blame Bush for, ‘unforgivable incompetence?’ Most certainly they will. Without batting an eye progressives and liberals agitate for slashing the military budget in order to fund their socialist agenda and yet turn around and claim that someone else is to blame when troops aren’t 100% safe when going into combat.

Liberals seek $60B in cuts to defense

George Bush says that they attacked us on 9/11 because of our freedom, the left says they attacked us because of our military strength. Which is more probable? Does the War on terror and our weapons make us less safe as the left claims?

NEWSWEEK: You say that the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States. That’s a pretty strong statement.
George Soros: Yes, but it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that’s rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a “war on terror” after September the 11th, we set the wrong agenda for the world. This is something that people in America find difficult to understand because war seems like the natural response. ~msnbc.msn.com

This liberal doctrine of America’s inherent evil is at the root of today’s political disunity. The incoherent and illogical lies of liberal ideology is a poisonous meme in our society which, like a virus, will eventually either be overcome or will overcome us.

Blaming America is what liberal policies are built on. When the left says that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer he, she, (or transgender) is merely repeating Marxist propaganda meant to undermine the capitalist system. When a leftist claims that fighting the War On Terror makes us less safe they are building on this foundation. When liberals claim that the, “root causes,” of terrorism are economic and political injustice they are lost within their own progressive propaganda.

The terrorist attacks have nothing to do with religious faith and everything to do with genuine injustices. Until the US addresses the root causes and its own double standards, the bombings will increase. ~commondreams.org

The capstone to this ideology is how it has cast about for an alternative to the war on terror and found it! Global Warming. And here too we find that America is to blame as the world’s leading polluter. Now even terror can be lain at the feet of America through this avenue as well since climate change is to blame for terror in places like Darfur as well.

The liberal disarming of America is an idea. An idea that has infected far too many.

The Vietnam War Template is the left’s political weapon of choice. It is also an utter disgrace. (The word treasonous comes to mind.) HotAir reports that John Kerry has uttered what he dared not utter during his aborted candidacy.

Incredible but unsurprising. He is after all an “internationalist” who cynically used the Vietnam war as a platform and tool to gain power. Have these people no shame at all?!@#$%

At HotAir: Video: Kerry says Iraq is worse than Vietnam

I’ve embedded the YouTube video below as well. Here’s exactly what he says in the video:

“I think Iraq is worse than Vietnam. And the reason it’s worse, is that, it– it– came about as a war of choice not the extension of the major… ah, ideological effort like the cold war. And I think that the deception and– and– the inadequecies of the leadership have been far greater in the long run.”

[flash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OCzvs6RXig]

Coming on the heels of the Reid Sedition it starts to look like a co-ordinated effort. An offensive seemingly co-ordinated with foreign enemies of the United States.

Reid: Baghdad Troops “Out of Touch” with Gritty Reality of War

…It turns out you can learn far more about how the war is going by just picking up an American newspaper than by walking the streets of, say, Baghdad for four months.

Reid seemed most provoked by an article in yesterday’s edition of USA Today, which quoted the general as saying that he sees “astonishing signs of normalcy” in the Iraqi capital. ~villainouscompany.com

Perhaps Ann Coulter had it right after all:

treason, noun

1. Willful violation of allegiance to one’s country: sedition, seditiousness, traitorousness. See trust/distrust.
2. Willful betrayal of fidelity, confidence, or trust: perfidy, treacherousness, treachery. See trust/distrust. ~answers.com

Q: What kind of American would view the adoption of, “a more pro-American,” outlook by Al Jazeera as essentially ‘going over to the enemy?’

Yea, it’s a trick question because such a view would be anti-American by definition. Nevertheless, this view is held by many who believe that the War on Terror itself is a Goebbels-like propaganda ploy.

Is Al Jazeera about to Become Al-Foxeera?

Sources inside Al Jazeera confirm that there is an internal struggle underway that may dilute Al Jazeera’s independence and steer it in a more pro-western, pro-US direction. ~alternet.org

To the left, Fox News is the ‘Goebbels’ News Network, not to be trusted and dangerous to even listen to. (Apparently it might poison the liberal mind with the truth.) Therefore the idea of Al Jazeera becoming more pro-western and pro-US — i.e. more like Fox News – is a catastrophe. Inherent in such a liberal declaration are several telling admissions about what they believe:

• Pro-American is not good
• Pro-American journalism is not good
• Liberals are liberal first, Americans second
• Media that is not liberal is ‘biased’ and needs to be actively opposed or shut down
• A pro-jihad Al Jazeera is much preferred to a pro-American one

The left loaths the Fox News Channel for daring to depart from the Left-wing Main Stream Media bias that they have come to expect and enjoy. This bias is a handicap that they feel entitled to and helps to explain the vitriolic response when there are any dissenting voices from their own.

But the question is why does the left only support the, “voices of dissent,” if they oppose the U.S.? Indeed, “dissent,” and, “independence,” is honorable even when it is supporting the views of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, but Fox News? A heinous pack of lies and distortions that must be eradicated at all costs.

Doesn’t it seem odd that Democrats have no problem being photographed with terrorist dictators but refuse to attend a political debate on Fox News. We are told we must “understand” the enemy and not fuel the fires of conflict– except when the ‘enemy’ are American conservatives.

“We wanted to send a clear message to voters, the media and the presidential candidates that Fox is part of the right-wing smear machine, not a legitimate source of news,” said MoveOn civic communications director Adam Green. ~washingtonpost.com

In other words, opposing terrorism with a ‘War On Terror’ only creates more terror but opposing the Right somehow won’t create more conservatives but will lead to their defeat?

Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists. ~abcnews.go.com

So is the left’s opposition to conservatives merely a slogan designed only for politics, or do they actually believe that America and George Bush are the true problem?

“It is now clear that George Bush’s misnamed ‘War on Terror’ has backfired — and is now part of the problem,” Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. “The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.” ~foxnews.com

Ah, the left. You gotta love ‘em.

Chalmers Johnson has made a name for himself as a documenter of the evils of American Empire. The Military Industrial Complex^tm in particular is his meat and potatoes. After all, without jackbooted babykilling peasant torturing stormtroopers what kind of evil empire would we be?

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize — or do not want to recognize — that the United States dominates the world through its military power. ~commondreams.org

This, in a nutshell, is everything you can learn from Chalmers Johnson. Without reading another paragraph one can deduce nearly everything Chalmers has to say on the subject of America.

Starting with the progressive version of American exceptionalism, Johnson summarizes his disdain and summary evaluation of the ignorance and passivity of the American people. “As distinct from other peoples,” America just won’t go along with the Communist/Marxist/Progressive vision of America as the impediment to world peace and socialist utopia, “…or do not want to recognize…”.

Chalmers both dismisses and demeans the American people by insisting that his delusional visions of the world constructed around the rigid framework of Marxist propaganda must be subscribed to in order for intelligence and perception to be bestowed upon them. Obviously we are all idiots for not seeing that America is an empire bent on dominating the world.

“The United States dominates the world through its military power.”

Typical.

Chalmers ideal wish is for this evil empire to crumble. For his vision of utopia to prevail over the dominating fear-based dictatorship of capitalist power and set free the proletariat to acheive their ultimate potential.

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

…I believe that there is only one solution to the crisis we face. The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge (still growing) military establishment that undergirds it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain avoided the fate of the Roman Republic — becoming a domestic tyranny and losing its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate much of the world by force.

For the U.S., the decision to mount such a campaign of imperial liquidation may already come too late, given the vast and deeply entrenched interests of the military-industrial complex. To succeed, such an endeavor might virtually require a revolutionary mobilization of the American citizenry, one at least comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. ~alternet.org

Unlike any other ‘empire’ before it, America does not impose it’s will on the world through military force. We are in fact much too nice to be an empire. In equating and trying to spin the United States into a global dominator in the image of what the Nazi’s would have been is both stupid and irresponsible. The simple fact that some people will actually believe Chalmer’s twisted premise should be enough for him to get some kind of balanced perspective.

But this is impossible. The left has an ideology and a utopia to create and nothing like the facts should get in the way of that. Popular uprising is part and parcel of the Marxian rhetoric so it is not surprising that Chalmers see this as part of the solution of his fabricated dilemna.

TexasRainmaker digs up the truth: Democrats lie readily. How else to describe Richard Clarke claiming that Iraq was helping Bin Laden make WMD?

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted, although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Uganda.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton’s decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden’s role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is “sure” that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president “would have been derelict in his duties if he didn’t blow up the facility.” ~Washington Post via Texasrainmaker.com

So when Hillary Clinton says that she believed that Saddam had WMD she isn’t lying. Or is she? Did Richard Clarke lie when he said Al Qaeda and Iraq were actively working together to make WMD, or did he lie when he there was no connection? Either way, the lies are not Bush’s.

• Byrd assailed for Nazi remark
• NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison
• Siege Heil: The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus and the Destabilization of California
• Neo-fascists and Terrorists Against Liberty
• Prescott and Adolf: W’s grandfather helped fund Hitler and the Nazi party
• 1. republican nazi (Urban Dictionary)
• A Fresh Look: Nazis and the Republican Party
• It is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to make Nazi comparisons
• Garofalo Says Inked Salute Like Nazis
• Art: Republicans, Nazis and Communists
• Republicans ARE nazis

If only I had a nickel for every time a liberal has mentioned Geobbels in reference to conservatism I’d be a millionaire.

The Nazi reference is pulled out all to often. For instance, decry the filth and perverted priorities of Hollywood and your a Nazi.

In doing so, Medved echoed the sentiments of other conservatives who, whether they like it or not, are promoting a standard of art that the world has seen before. A standard marrying a style with a political attitude. A standard used to keep an ill-informed public brainwashed. A standard adopted by Communists and Nazis. ~mydd.com

There’s absolutely no reason to go there. Disagreement is not grounds for creating a Nazi strawman.

The Nazi neocons are supposedly following the well worn path of Hitler. 9-11 is the reichtstag.

Hitler wrote about his plans in advance in Mein Kempf. Hitler’s regime used patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Germans never questioned the official line on the Reichstag Fire, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Poland would be so stupid as to invade Germany, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Enabling Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

The neocons in power wrote about their plans in advance with The Project for a New American Century. The Bush administration uses patriotism and fear of terrorism coupled with religious rhetoric to convince the masses to quietly go along with their plans. The Americans never questioned the official line on the 9/11 attacks, even though it made little sense. They never questioned why Iraq would be so stupid as to want to attack the U.S., even though it made little sense. They never questioned why their rights were being “temporarily” suspended through the Patriot Act because it was necessary to fight the terrorists, even though it made little sense.

“We must never forget that everything Hitler did was legal.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

~democraticunderground.com

I’m not sure that the MLK quote is accurate… hmm.

The Nazi Conspiracy

Some even cross over into the conspiracy swamp, where not only are Republicans acting, talking, or resembling Nazi’s in some tangential and fabricated manner, they ARE Nazi’s! (Maybe even Hitler himself?)

Investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says in BLOWBACK that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions in the Republican Party’s “ethnic outreach committees.” Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the Republican Party. ~Carla Binion

The problem, of course, is that this is not just an overt problem, it is a covert problem as well. The reason so many easily take that step into Nazi accusations is that the entire liberal political theory is based on this exact idea.  Don’t believe me? Then what are they talking about when they say America is an empire? That we are an imperialist and militaristic nation which is dangerous to the world?

What is fascism but imperialism and militarism? Warmongers and rascists is how a majority of the left paints Republicans. Isn’t this essentially the same thing as outright calling Republicans Nazis?

Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us?

In politics, as in medicine, a cure based on a false diagnosis is almost always worthless, often worsening the condition that is supposed to be healed. The United States, today, suffers from a plethora of public ills. Most of them can be traced to the militarism and imperialism that have led to the near-collapse of our Constitutional system of checks and balances.   ~Chalmers Johnson