Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "Harper government celebrates one year anniversary | Main | Iran and the Nuclear Age »

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

State of the Union

President Bush's State of the Union

Posted by Winston on January 24, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State of the Union:


Bush was excellent last night. It was almost gratifying to watch the cut, run and surrender crowd squirm while being presented undisputable facts.

It was about time he pointed out that most of the folks in that room voted to go into Iraq.

To continue to hear it being put all on him is disingenuous at best.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-01-24 7:21:08 AM

I was listening to Guiliani recently. He said the New York media was against Lincoln during the Civil War. In contrast to those members of the media, there are people who understand the value of sacrifice and can foresee the benefits of holding onto one's principles.

To many observers, Bush is viewed as stubborn, inflexible, and arrogant. If the Americans pull out of Iraq, those observers will feel their opinions were justified. On the other hand, if the Americans prevail, those same critics will probably not have the humility to say "I was wrong" but they will become silent. History will then be written by others who will note that Bush had his critics as Lincoln did his.

A principled man will persevere in adversity.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-24 7:50:02 AM

"The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must."

Until GW 'gets it' that Islam and Freedom ARE NOT COMPATIBLE there will be no workable strategy to secure 'our' way of life.

Islam means submission, GW, it is NOT the Religion of Peace.

When God was giving people 'heads' GW thought he heard 'beds' and said, "Make mine solid oak."

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 9:25:50 AM

You've got it wrong Speller. Its Islams who have heads of solid oak. GW is trying to turn it into 'quality furniture' while admitting there are 'odd' knots in the wood.

Posted by: Frico | 2007-01-24 10:12:42 AM

With few exceptions the populations of this world has spent most of it's history in relative misery and repression. Most often religious repression, but who cares where it comes from, it is still the denial of human choice, freedom and ultimately happiness.

I have never met a happy enslaved person. In fact I have never heard of a happy Muslim. Cheering in the streets over the death of innocents doesn't count.

Islam must be beaten back into the shadows if we are to continue our journey to the stars. Camels cannot lift off and achieve orbit let alone making it to another solar system.

We must prevail or Gene Roddenberry's dream with end.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-24 10:18:22 AM

Wrong on the 'odd' knots in the wood.
Islam is an ideological cancer.
It is not compatible with freedom or human rights.

a few Koranic quotes:

Muhammed was a VERY bad man and is considered by Muslims to be the epitome of the 'Muslim Man'.

'Odd' knots=delusion/willfull ignorance

Muslims put their faces in the dirt, butts in the air, and say, "There is no god but Allan and Muhammed is his prophet.", FIVE times EVERY day.

There is zero wiggle room for reform in Islam as long as the Koran is their holy book and Muhammed is their picture of the perfect spiritual man.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 10:39:56 AM

Sometimes (cough) media positions itself (deeper-unfeminine cough-hack!) as opposition, as if that was their role. They confuse (normal cognitive impairment considered qualification for most journalists) the state of 'being-neutral' with that of 'being-in-opposition', because people love a good angst-fest against their leaders.

And so many journalists take advantage of this situation, and insert their own clear biases and political partisanship, all the while pretending they are that so-called neutral. We have seen so many of these examples, as in Reuters and AP, as well as Canadian Press. Yet we continue to be surprised, shocked, amazed, and disgusted, that these kinds of lies are continually promoted in the media, as if media exists solely for the purpose of presenting the dissenting voices. What is missing from most media, are writers who see right from wrong, and can present the media-medium with subject-objectivity.

I, for one, have always liked President Bush. I know he has done some policies that have not worked as well as many would have hoped they would. But those issues are primarily American and internal political issues. What he has done, that has impressed me, is that he has been able, and continues to show he is capable, of seeing what would happen to America, as well as the rest of the free world, should these terrorists not be dealt with in the manner they should become accustomed.

I hope that people are able to see through the media and their biased and false neutrality, to understand that the objectives of the free world do mean a better place for all humanity.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-24 10:57:47 AM

deepblue, I agree. Watching Pelosi's facial contortions was priceless.

Posted by: Larry | 2007-01-24 11:17:56 AM

"What he has done, that has impressed me, is that he has been able, and continues to show he is capable, of seeing what would happen to America, as well as the rest of the free world, should these terrorists not be dealt with in the manner they should become accustomed."
Posted by: Lady | 24-Jan-07 10:57:47 AM

"these terrorists not be dealt with in the manner they should become accustomed"?

I'm not really sure what you mean here, Lady, but the catch and release program that has been going on at Gitmo, coupled with wasting time and political capital, as well as money and men on trying to bring freedom and human rights to Muslims is akin to trying to do the same to the Nazis while leaving them in power, instead of just laying waste to them first, eradicating the virulent ideology that spawned them and LATTER building anew AFTER the war is well and truly won.
GW is leading in the wrong direction and attempting the wrong goals.

A good beginning would be to identify the enemy.(hint: it isn't a War on Terror)

The enemy is Islam. Not Islamofascism. Not 'a few extremists'. Not 'terror'. Not the 'odd' knot in the wood.
Islam is the threat to our security, our way of life.

Our culture has been radically changed by Islam.
What changes have the Muslims made to their culture and way of thinking?

Where are the 'moderate' Muslims who should be publicly repudiating these quotes?

To be on topic, the State of the Union is precarious at best. Where did President Bush say so?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 11:42:24 AM

Pelosi`s blinking every 2 seconds was very distracting from Bushs` speech . Cheney on the other hand could go for a minute without blinking . This is quite metaphorical. I think .

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-24 1:05:31 PM

Hi Speller,

I stated that I impressed with what he sees. It is his vision.

President Bush stated:

"The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must."

Iraq is just one part of the whole picture.

And the meaning I hoped you would get from what I wrote is simpler than how I presented it.

Ok, not really simple at all.

Not simply stated, Bush is a visionary type of person. He looks at what is happening, and through his and others analysis, has determined a few facts. That is what I understand when I read what he said.

One, is that if the terrorists are not taken care of in a way that stops them right here, right now, that all our futures will be negatively effected. But, most of all, middle east futures, whatever that means.

He is looking forward.

And you are quite correct in saying there have been problems. If there were no problems, then there would be peace in the middle east right now.

I am in a quandary. There is this thing about freedom, that is very close to being relativism.

Freedom means you get to choose.

And, if you have been given the right stuff, food for thought so to speak, then you will make right choices.

These choices, in the free world, are considered to be the best choices.

We make much ado about 'best' this, that and the other, here in the West. But, at the same time, as free people, we consider it a peoples' freedom to make mistakes, or wrong choices. And yes, with ramifications. But, what we insist that people have no right to do, is to insist that others force their choices, down our throats.

We eskew being forced into submission.

OK, so you see the conundrum? A person is free to submit to a religion that demands of its followers, that they submit (Islam means submission). And, we also insist that they have the right to walk away from that action, should they so choose.

In the case where state and religion are one, there is no way they can be free to walk away, should they so choose. So how can we support the creation of a state that ensures that submission is at the core, while hoping that freedom will be manifested?

So, freedom itself is the "best practice" we Westerners embrace.

So, it would go without saying, but I am going to say it anyway, that we emphatically support freedom. We will go to the ends of the world, to support freedom. We will do whatever is in our power, to help others realize the benefits of freedom, liberty and the fundamental importance of the pursuit of happiness(if you embrace it as the Americans have done so).

Caught in this quandary, is the vexing, perplexing, relativistic issue, that reiterates; to what extent are we willing to form disciplinary bodies, and suspend our own state of freedom, in the face of something that goes against everything that we believe?

Something that is worse than the forming of these disciplinary bodies we call forces.


Ok, so we includes those who are free to choose submission?

Ok, 'we' meaning 'we' as a whole will uphold the values of freedom, and we who will respect your right to submit to whatever your religion is, if you so choose, so long as you do not try to force us into submission.

Why or How then?

As we are not going to go there.

Ok, back to President Bush. I understand, and this is my interpretation, that he is saying that we must stop those whose aim it is to force all of us into submission. That I said was number one.

And yet you are not alone when you say that this includes all of Islam?

I suppose that might be option number two if there was an answer for that question.

But, by virtue of the value of freedom, we cannot force people to not believe in whatever they want. They can believe that their dog is their god, for all we care. They are free to worship garbage, and call their dog their almighty, and pretend they can speak to their god, which they can, by opening their mouths and wagging their jaws up and down. They can even say their dog speaks to them and that they submit themselves to their dog all the time. But what they cannot do, is they cannot force us to submit to their dog.

Although one crazy person who chooses to worship and submit themselves to their dog, is maybe funny, and no threat we say, that may not be so.

Should they take up arms and threaten us, well, it is not the belief, per see, but the ideology that is put into action, that is a threat to us. Simply walking away does not mean the threat goes away. And yes, catch and release fails as well. And appeasing fails even worse than catch and release.

So, what are we left with?

We are left with a situation in which we must deal with the terrorists in a manner which would ensure they are incapable of doing what they are saying they are going to do. And, the only way to do that is to help them create a situation where they embrace freedom. Because no matter what they call their almighty, they cannot be a threat if they mutually respect freedom in the same manner as we do.

Why we help is self preservation.

How we help? I am not going to go there.

The quandry is, and remains, to what extent is their capacity for an actualization of freedom real?

And the answer to that, to me, is that I don't know.

Perhaps, as what appears to be occurring, the only way to ensure freedom rights are respected, is with a permanent footprint in the area. This would be option number three.

Interestingly enough, the conundrum in the end, is either we walk away (we meaning the west as a whole) and they come after us, with WMD, and continue to try to force us into submission, because they have said they would do that, or we actually force them to accept freedom. From our way of looking at it, it is saying, 'like it or not you terrorists, you will have what is best for you'! You will submit to freedom or be forever outside our free system.

Yes, but they want our economic system, and all the benefits, without the system itself. Yes, the free system. The one on which economy grows, goods are exchanged, and peoples' lives are improved. They want a free ride, while devoting themselves to destroying the very freedom that ensures there is something from which they can try to get a free ride from in the first place.

And we, the citizens of the free world, the ones who watch, participate in freedom, and vote, are the ultimate committee.

I do not believe current relativism is any way near what it is we are going through, as it is not a matter of all ways; only one way is accepted in submission.

So maybe, and I am positing this, there is a boundary to our concept; that they have discovered this before we have; that on this matter, they see their way of being truly as threatened. They see no alternative but to attack us. In other words, our very existence, the existence of freedom, is what threatens them. They have therefore chosen to say that just because we exist, and just because our existence threatens their way of being, that they have interpreted, and chosen to interpret this as being a cause for war.

(Pacifists should get their necks ready, because the only way to be pacificists in the face of their attacks, is to wear loose fitting shirts, with easy access to the neck region, because the only thing that would satisfy them is that we are no more.)

Please note, I never said it was a reason. Reason, would imply rationality, and rationality would imply rationale. And rationale could only exist in a place where people are free to debate.

So, this may well be the beginning of their time at the ok coral.

Or, it maybe the beginning of a deeper sense of understanding of freedom, which may lead to a distinct acknowledgement of the inherent limitation. I do believe that is at the cutting edge of the conundrum, and the quandary of which we are left to deal with, at this point in time.

In a world where people press on for no borders, no walls, and no barriers; where people can hop from one side of the world to the other, and technology abounds, and free trade is on every table (whether or not it has been made manifest), and there exists the ability of the world to feed all (even though billions starve each year), existing at present.

We could be solving world poverty.

We could be resolving income gaps through wealth development.

We could have been resolving the pollution issues, and include one for global warming, if you will.

But instead we are left with pileing more and more money into a war machine, to deal with imbeciles, who would rather kill you, and live their submissive way without your way as an option (you meaning plural) existing; and do your babies wrong without ever looking you in the eye; and do themselves in the eye at the same time, on the basis of loosing the very system on which economy is based, in lieu of accessing so called holy beings, -- 72 raisins if you will.

Id like to think that there are many people who, although they practice a version of submission, are also embracing freedom, and who have bridged that gap. Call me naive, but until that is clear, and it is not, I do not see the option as being a war against all, but rather one against islamofacism.

If we had your view, and it does seem to be very clear what you have stated, we would be left with only one choice of action, and I believe that that would go against everything we say we believe.

And that would be making ourselves into what we are opposed to.

I, for one, do not believe that that alternative is one we should consider unless you are prepared to imprison more Nazis than you can count, one by one, in a lifetime.

If you have managed to read this far, and not lost concentration, then I am impressed.

Over to you.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-24 1:19:40 PM

'Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies' - oh yeah? what about environmentalists? - they terrorize the public better than the Islamic nutters!

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2007-01-24 1:29:58 PM


Prove your statement above with facts.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-24 1:35:14 PM

Yes, Lady, I read it all.

In WWII our fathers laid waste to whole cities.
They fought brutally and many rights in Canada and the U.S. were suspended until the end of the war.

We did not allow Nazis to spread their ideology here nor emigrate here during the conflict. Same with the Japanese, Italians, and other Axis citizens.

When the war was over we rebuilt their nations, returned to a peace time footing, and forced them to create democracies which forbade those who were our enemies from forming political parties, spreading their ideology in their home countries, or holding government office there.

Those ideologies are, however, permitted here but are thoroughly discredited.

We did not lose our humanity. Humane treatment of our enemies and their nations was temporarily suspended and the ideology which caused the conflict and threatened us was outlawed in their home nations. Mein Kampf is illegal in Germany. Everybody owned a copy. It was once given as a gift to newly married couples and it made Hitler a millionaire.

The same must be done with Islam.

I don't believe Islam will ever cease to be a threat.
It is core to Islamic belief to spread their ideology through violence and although Islam is a religion with few prophesies the submission of all mankind is one of them and central to their belief.

One day they will have weapons that will make atom bombs pale in comparison.
We can never go back to the September 10, 2001 mentality.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 1:53:59 PM


I appreciate this conversation.

You are quite right about the matter of comparison. I feel like the kid in the back of the seat, who, at the annoyance of her parents has to ask the question over and over again, 'are we there yet -- are we there yet?'

When it came to dealing with the nazis, we knew we were there.

You are absolutely correct when you say we are letting them in, and we know this is wrong. By them I mean those whose aims are not freedom and mutual respect.

That brings us all the way back to the other conversation we had, when we identified that Canada had permitted entry, far too many people, who are not here to be as we are, but to take our money, and finance their old world terrorist actions.

And, as we noted, they are also here to try to create a place that falls under their way of being, so that all of us submit, rather than be who we are. I believe it was Mr Day who identified that there are thousands of people with terrorist backgrounds, who have been given entry.

But that is not exactly what I had in mind, in the preceeding discussion.

What I am referring to is the vision that Bush has, that I agree with and that I appreciate in a leader.

And if you look closely, it appears to me that he sees us as being in the place where we first try to help them have freedom. Because freedom is compatible with freedom.

And the kind of freedom he is discussing, is the freedom that exists at the core structure of a country -- aka nation (not nation in the Quebec CPC version of the term).

And, if that fails, then permanent footprint might be necessary.

Back in WWII, we never got to a place where we were helping the Germans to live in freedom. They already had democracy. They already had freedom. But what they did was choose the wrong path, that of facism, which was the one to racist policies, world bent domination, supremacy and finally genocide.

They chose that which infringed on basic sense of humanity.

And we chose to help them acheive a free society, once again. Plus, ensure they did not destroy our freedom.

And, by the looks of things, they have definately benefitted in the process. So have we, as today, they are so deeply committed to the process of peace, that no one in the west would sincerely question where they fit into the BIG freedom picture.

And what proceeded their surrender, lead to the development of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Then that spread to US... and eventually other countries, adopted some version thereof. It took us ages to develop the Charter we have. And well, all I can say is that in comparison with others, it is a bit of a dissapointment; but that is another discussion altogether.

So, back to the topic, the question remains, there is appeasement on the one hand, which has failed to do anything in light of the islamofacist element. There is a focus on one nation in particular, that has tried and is still in the process of trying to install an islamic democracy.

And, as we are witnessing, that it appears to be failing.

Maybe they will have to get to the point where they admit that there has to be a separation of their religious establishments and state?

Maybe that is the next step. How else will they be able to acheive a safe, secure and free society?

Whether they are able to admit and acheive that, in order to keep the peace, is beyond what we can establish in this forum, as that is up to them to accomplish. (Let us say, some folks never loose the opportunity to loose an opportunity).

We already know that any type of religion that places itself at the core of a government winds up hurting people.

We see that in cults all the time.

We saw that in Europe with the persecution of the witches and the mass murder of millions of women who were accussed of witchcraft.

But the issue of genocide, mass murders and crimes against humanity have also occurred in places where religion and state are not wed. They have occurred in places were ideology and state are wed. And an example of that is in regards to the khomer rouge. The people of Cambodia are still picking up the pieces of their culture, dance, music and beliefs, that was decimated by that facist ideology. They quite literally committed cultural genocide.

And, we did not go there to stop that. Not in the same manner as western nations have gone into Iraq, in order to stop what is happenning there. And the difference is a matter of time, money, and to what extent there is an actual imminent risk.

In regards to Iraq, there was no doubt at the time, that the risk analysis showed risk was great.

To what extent is risk and the threat imminent now? I do not believe that it is something we should ignore, to any extent, however I also do not believe that it fits with the criteria that you have posited. And, I rest my hope in the fact that Germany made it; Japan made it; and we here in the wild wild west, and we made it as well.

Therefore, until we have established the kind of imminence that was perceived in WWII, should we respond in contradiction to all that we have all worked so very hard to accomplish, remains a thought at large.

I imagine this must be dull reading for some folks. I have tried to address from my perspective where I see us at this point in time. Although the tools we had are still available, I for one, would not be so quick to shoot from the hip, so to speak, and apply those tactics you described, without sufficient justification. Maybe you have some thoughts on what those justifications may look like, in relation to actual indicators? If you said what they were, perhaps I might understand where you are coming from?

Over to you

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-24 4:00:16 PM

I really enjoy this reading. I would try to eradicate Islam but I don't know how to proceed.
Maybe one way would be like in Turkey where the State is not linked to religion.

In Indonesia, I believe the state is independent from religion too. I'm not sure what good it is though. We hear lots of violence done to Christians.

Maybe we could try to get independent states in Irak and Afghanistan.

I cannot see that we would wage war on any muslim state. We would be acting like Attila!

Maybe we could do it one at a time?

In Canada, I certainly would make Islam unlawful.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-24 4:32:34 PM

Speller should take to the streets and make his pronouncements in pamphlet form and see how long his "freedom" (a la Mark Harding) is preserved.


Posted by: DJ | 2007-01-24 4:41:02 PM

This is indeed a good discussion, Lady.

By February 2009 there will be a new President in the Whitehouse.

You a correct in saying, Lady, that things do not appear to be going well for our side in this war.

The fact is, things are going badly.

President Musharraf of Pakistan concluded the Treaty of Waziristan in October 2006 with the Taliban. There are now 22 al-Qa'eda training camps in Waziristan. This is where we(NATO) joined the war which has been waged against us for decades now.

Musharraf is very surly now and is no longer pretending to be an Ally.

The NorKs are trading bomb technology with Iran.
Iran is sending weapons, Revolutionary Guard advisers, money, and providing safe haven training camps to Sadr Moqtarda's militia in Iraq and the same to Hizb'allah who are in Lebanon.

The NATO General in Command in Afghanistan said in October 2006 NATO had six months to look like they are winning the war in Afghanistan and significantly improve the lives of the Afghans or
the Afghans would go over to the Taliban. This week the Taliban announced they have opened 20+ schools in Southern Afghanistan.

The American Congress has gone over to the Democrats who vehemently oppose the war, oppose President Bush, oppose sending 20K more troops, oppose bi-partisan cooperation with the President and have the backing of the MSM and many socialist countries in Europe including France.

Russia and China are training and supplying Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela while Russia has sent Spetznaz troops to Southern Lebanon.

Lebanon is disintegrating into civil war and Hizb'allah, who has three seats in the Lebanese Parliament is trying to take over the government.

Time is NOT on our side.

We don't have time for GW's plan to play out before Iraq and Afghanistan are lost and the Democrats impeach President Bush, which they will be openly calling for in a week.

If we lose Afghanistan and Iraq, the Howard government in Australia as well as the Harper government here in Canada will be living on borrowed time.

No democratic government has ever survived losing a war.

Time is not on our side.

If we lose Afghanistan and Iraq, the socialists take the reins of power.
They will gut our Armed Forces and nobody will want to enlist anyway.

Time is not on our side.

Armies are meant to destroy the enemy and win wars, not be heavily armed social workers/police/terrorist targets.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 4:42:32 PM

Can't take issue with your definition of islam Speller. I'm speechless.

Posted by: Frico | 2007-01-24 4:50:17 PM

Yes, DJ, I read all about that when it happened.

I used to read Kevin Michael Grace regularly and he was the reason I renewed my subscription to the Report magazine before they closed down, laid him off without paying him out, and he lost his house and family.

The Internet has a wider readership then handbills. Too many Left-wing crazies have been handing then out for too long and most people refuse them on principal.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-24 4:53:36 PM

Can't take issue with your definition of islam Speller. I'm speechless.

Posted by: Frico | 2007-01-24 4:56:20 PM

Lady ... Speller ... get a motel room eh


Posted by: Duke | 2007-01-25 12:23:45 AM

Lady/Speller: Keep up the good posts!

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-25 7:27:08 AM

Re: "Watching Pelosi's facial contortions was priceless" (Larry):

Was it only my husband and me who noticed that Nancy Pelosi WAS CHEWING GUM???!! Either that, or her cud.

Whichever it was, it showed the dame has no class.

Posted by: gogetem | 2007-01-25 7:50:45 AM

"Despite all else upon which we may disagree with him, what blindingly came through last night was that this is a noble man, a heroic man, standing alone against America's enemies and viciously ridiculed and reviled for it. Yet he stands there with graciousness and courtesy, as a gentleman."

Full article here:

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-01-25 9:33:26 AM

Before USA entered WWII, there was lots of politics being played. Pearl Harbor disaster finally closed the gap.

Can we expect another disaster will change the course of events?

I maintain that the first change of regime should take place in China. Can you picture a China like Taiwan?

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-01-25 11:31:10 AM

Still a very good conversation... and you made some outstanding points.

I, for one, feel strongly, that they who do not listen to what President Bush actually said (because their heads are so full of enemy propaganda) are like idiots, chewing off their own noses, to spite their faces. Takes allot of strange chewing to get through the upper lip! That's why we cultured people keep it stiff, with no whimpering, and no cowardice permitted!

You recall what happened to the last group of people who made a deal to try to appease the individuals who have now formed into al qaeda?

Mush-a-riff-Raff is an idiot, but we ladies of the world, we already knew that a long time ago.

People like him have been advocating for laws that discriminate against women, and relegate them to being vestibules for the purpose of serving the selfish wants and power lusts of incompetent beastial males (I have indeed perspired).

We are indeed looking into a world, where dignity and honour, have failed to produce peaceful, respectful, and productive nations, who cow to terrorists at the slightest provocation.

And I bet there are a pile of those freaks out there, who believe that America is the terrorist force, and who are waving their caliphate flags around, as if our successes are only in existence on the basis of their total failures. As technological advances reach their Apex, and oil dwindles, which will happen shortly, they will live to see the day when everything that has provided economie for their submissive societies, dwindles to the sludge left behind in oil barges.

And, the very nation that could have helped them through, the one that has made more economic contributions to help their poor and downtrodden, will be forced to simply walk away from their bestial natures.

I, for one, will not weep that day. They really did their best.

I too have concerns for our forces. The mistake, as I mentioned, that lead to today, occurred many years ago, when GB whimpered and pulled out of the region, permitting them to go backwards in time. I say it was a mistake, even though I do not blame them for the mistake they made. They were tired, and the decades of tours (some lasted 25 years or more) had taken their toll on these very good people. But, it was as if the losses were in vain.

I am looking forward to this next year or so, with hope that President Bush will be able to help them achieve a state of freedom. I don't believe it can be accomplished with the type of charter they have undertaken. But, maybe, through some events, that will be realized.

I hope.

I can always hope.

Meanwhile, we have been inundated through the media in regards to this so-called al qaeda view, as if it has merit. People want to believe that a religious view can be clean. But with the decapitation videos that I have seen, I doubt that the islamofacists have an honest thought in their heads.

When you read about Gaza, you get a real deep sense of what they are all about.

Right there, right now, the areas where the IDF have stopped policing, crimes have gone up by 60%. That is indeed what they have measured. Crimes such as drugs, and gang activity are an every day occurrence. So much for their pureness. And like the enemies of the US, they continue to blame their problems on people outside their society. They continue to blame Israel, and blame the US, and now they also blame Canada, because we have denied their government $7,000,000 of money. We still contribute through the UN, but as the record is showing, they are dedicating buildings and places to preserve the names of these wanton terrorists. They have even made dedications to Hussein, of all people.

And Afghanistan, it is also all about drugs and crime. Their work to produce drugs is a major contribution to crime and the destruction of our youth, in our cities, all across Canada.

I have to drop out of this debate early today. I wish you a fabulous weekend. I will check in to read your comments.



Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-25 12:05:19 PM

The explanation I heard was that her nervousness was drying out the salivary glands and she had to continually force more saliva to keep her china choppers from sticking together.

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-25 12:05:47 PM


I really enjoy this reading. I would try to eradicate Islam but I don't know how to proceed.
Maybe one way would be like in Turkey where the State is not linked to religion.

In Indonesia, I believe the state is independent from religion too. I'm not sure what good it is though. We hear lots of violence done to Christians.

Maybe we could try to get independent states in Irak and Afghanistan.

I cannot see that we would wage war on any muslim state. We would be acting like Attila!

Maybe we could do it one at a time?

In Canada, I certainly would make Islam unlawful. /quote

I like your thinking Remi. I've had a bellyfull of hearing about Islam's beefs with us. It's way past time to return the favour.

Posted by: Larry Pope | 2007-01-25 10:31:18 PM

[[For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.]]

Um, yeah. And for too long our nation has been dependent on foreign bauxite, foreign computers, foreign cars, foreign sneakers, foreign trees, foreign clocks, foreign iron ore, foreign investment, foreign workers, foreign bananas, and thousands of other imports. It is time for Americans to realize that foreign trade costs money, and having to spend money does great harm to our economy. Foreign trade is bad. It leads to terrorism. Or it leads to wealth and freedom. Whatever. I don't like it and I'm going to start spending billions and billions of tax dollars to put an end to it. Because I'm the decider. [Pause for applause]

Posted by: Justzumgai | 2007-01-25 11:17:26 PM

Look, frankly put, submission is really not a problem until it becomes treason and/or terrorism.

Call it T2 for short!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-01-26 11:43:00 AM

You can spend all the billions you want ; if the currency is deflated , who cares ?
If Duke can`t afford to fill his Hummer ,with $120 oil, then he`ll buy a Saturn and become an enviromentalist ; you`ve got to be adaptable . We`ll go thru a recession , become green and come back stronger than ever in 2040 with our Mexican labour force. In the meantime ,we`ll still have our nukes for protection.

Posted by: daveh | 2007-01-26 12:15:50 PM

Since when is Afghanistan Harper's and Howard's war?? How can they be criticized for doing the right thing for the safety of our world and the Human rights of Afghanis and taking our responsibilities as members of NATO.
The original decision for Canada's role was taken by Chretien, no debate, it was done. Damn the consequences, the job must be finished. Canada has no history of retreating from conflicts once engaged.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-01-26 2:54:54 PM

If you're writing to me, Liz J., I should point out that it is immaterial who sent troops where for what reason to most of the tuned-out voters.

The Democrats were the ones who involved the U.S. in Vietnam and when the U.S. lost the war on the Republican's watch it was the Republicans who got the blame.

Have you ever played musical chairs?
It's kinda sorta like that.
When the music stops, the one left standing loses the game.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-26 4:15:42 PM

This is how NOT to win a war.

President G.W.Bush should be impeached for this.
Some Commander-in-Chief!

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.
"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."
But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

Not only is time not on our side, GW has been wasting time, money, and lives during the time that we have.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-01-27 10:44:28 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.