Archive for the ‘Iraq’ category

Stick A Fork In ‘im, He’s Done!

Thu,8 June, 2006

So al-Zarqawi (bin Laden's left nut) is toast.

Look for the liberals, kooks and team killing fucktards to spend the rest of the weak and this weekend, at least, lamenting the fact. Not only that, but the Washington liberals and pundits will be clamoring all over each other to get on TV to proclaim how this means and changes nothing. After all, Bush is the true enemy of the U.S. and the military is nothing but liars and murderers anyway.

I suspect that by the time the Sunday talk shows are over, it will be no big deal and by the time the news cycle starts on Monday, nobody will be talking about it. I'm almost willing to bet a paycheck on my predictions.

Good job, FAGs.



Tue,6 June, 2006

Now as you may know, I'm one of the first to admit that I'm not as "nuanced" as our liberals are. Still, I'm hoping that somebody out there can explain to me how slandering our military (e.g. Haditha, Club Gitmo, Abu Grahib etc.) is considered "supporting the troops".

Further, how exactly is demanding our surrender and capitulating to the terrorists (e.g. lord BJ & The Mog, which brought about 9/11) "supports the troops". Not only that, how exactly does turning tail and running away going to help "our international image", since the only ones who might admire that would be our "allies" and douchebags, the French?

Why, exactly, should I believe a team killing fucktard Representative from PA. who SHITS on his brothers and calls that support? With support like that (and the traitorous media leaks) from the libs, who the hell needs enemies? No matter how much you polish a turd, Mr. Murtha, it's still a turd.

It's very clear that the libs would sacrifice their country and their defenders, even so far as to practically demand another terrorist attack, just to get their birthright of political power back. So when these douchebags tell you that they "support the troops" and they're more patriotic than you are, just beg them not to. We can't afford their "support" anymore.

Wait. WHO Lied???????

Sun,28 May, 2006

Who Thought Iraq Had WMD? Most Everybody
By Larry ElderMay 25, 2006

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem — the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly — unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "


Bad News For Liberals

Tue,9 May, 2006

Via Powerline Blog:

Who's Winning? They Say We Are

So how are the libs gonna spin this now that their lies are shot to hell? How about 3 cheers for America, her soldiers and the coalition?

A Little Help!

Wed,12 April, 2006

Could somebody please look up Blessed July and tell me how Saddam Hussein was not a threat?

Anyone? Anyone?

Zarqawi Out

Tue,4 April, 2006

Evidently, Zarqawi has been thrown under the bus.

Al-Zarqawi 'stripped of political role'

April 05, 2006BAGHDAD: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most feared commander in the Iraqi insurgency, may have been forced to surrender his leadership by rival groups.

The groups were angered by his bloody tactics and the interference of foreign fighters in the Iraqi conflict. According to Huthayfah Azzam, the son of Abdullah Azzam, Zarqawi's former mentor, the notorious commander of al-Qa'ida in Iraq was stripped of his political duties two weeks ago.

"The Iraqi resistance high command asked Zarqawi to give up his political role and replaced him with an Iraqi because of several mistakes," Mr Azzam told an Arab news channel. "Zarqawi's role has been limited to military action." The fugitive al-Qa'ida leader, who has a $US25 million ($35 million) bounty on his head, is held responsible for some of the bloodiest episodes in the Iraq war.

The Times

Too bad. Wonder if anybody'd be interested in collecting the bounty.

An Agenda!

Fri,31 March, 2006

Brilliant. However, I would change the exclamation point to a question mark. To suggest that the libs have something someone calls an “agenda” is, at the very least, laughable.

And despite the lack of an agenda, I’m supposed to grab my ankles and vote for them. Yeah. Right.

You terrorists out there listening and watching this, watch out! The Democratic Party is coming after you; they have a new agenda. New York’s other senator, Chuckie Schumer, said that his party will “take back the security issue.” If they win Congress, Democrats say they are going to catch Osama bin Laden. Yeah, the bin Laden that Bill Clinton let slip through his fingers (two or three times). Democrats say they are going to increase the number of spies, double the number of troops in Special Forces, and be real “tough and “smart,” says their senate leader “Dingy” Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic house leader, said they are going to be “strong” and “smart;” she forgot to say “tough.” Yes, my friends; Democrats are going to get Osama. Really? Look at their track record. They’ll stop spying on terrorists phoning into America, for starters. And even though Dingy Harry claimed that Democrats killed the Patriot Act, it passed. Give them a chance, elect them, and they’ll really kill it next time. Democrats want to cut and run from terrorists in Iraq — Pelosi backed John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal because they think we lost the war. And believe this! Democrats will make sure that enemy combatants — terrorists — have their legal “rights” protected with the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, and that our interrogators won’t treat them badly. (Like making them stay awake to answer questions.) Oh, and Democrats will vote for funding our troops… before they vote against it. And if you doubt their commitment, consider this. The day they announced their security agenda, Democrat Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney slugged a Capitol Police officer who asked her for some identification. Yeah. Democrats will take back security — back to the stone ages…if you’re dumb enough to ever give them a chance to regain power.

Rush’s Morning Update

Pardon me, but wasn’t it the libs who forbade the CIA from using spies and sources?