Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The Best Thing on The Internet.....Ever

Unintentionally Funny Online Petition to Fire Elisabeth from 'View'

Posted by Lynn Davidson on May 30, 2007

A website has sprung up called

  • Fire Elizabeth

  • and has a petition for people to sign if they think token non-liberal Elisabeth Hasselbeck should be fired. So far over 18,880 people have signed in support of firing the woman the petition calls the "aggressor throughout the entire discussion." The petition reads like a satire of what actually happened but with the two hosts' names reversed.

    "Elisabeth began by interrupting Joy with sarcastic comments as Joy attempted to provide some facts about the George Bush presidency, and then continued as Elisabeth angrily defended her refusal to respond to the Republican pundits who incorrectly said that Rosie called the U.S. troops terrorists. As the discussion progressed, Rosie repeatedly tried to de-escalate the situation and not get into a disagreement. However, Elisabeth angrily continued in her blind defense of this administration and her criticisms of Rosie's views. While many have portrayed this fight as one over politics, it was really a fight about friendship and Elisabeth's refusal to support Rosie by denouncing what these pundits were attempting to say about her."

    I see that the petitioners went along with Rosie's claim that she was simply asking very rational patriotic questions and just "inquiring" when she said "655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?"

    When Hasselbeck asked "Who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?"Rosie replied, "I'm saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United Stated, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens what would you call us?"

    Yeah, she definitely didn't intend to insinuate that American troops are the terrorists in Iraq. In fact, she was actually explaining how much she supports them and what a great job they are doing. I bet if it weren't for that petulent "aggressor" Elisabeth, the very next words out of Rosie's mouth would have been, "USA all the way! These colors don't run, baby!"

    Here's the most unintentionally ironic part:

    "It is unfortunate that Rosie chose to leave The View after this incident, when it is Elisabeth who should be removed from the show for her angry and hateful tirade. Elisabeth has consistently used The View as a platform to perpetuate inaccuracies about the Iraq War and has shown a blatant disregard for the feelings of others who disagree with her.

    While the purpose of The View is for different views to be expressed, each co-host should be able to express their views without being attacked by a closed-minded co-host who blindly refuses to listen to facts and uses the show to angrily spout propaganda.

    This petition calls for ABC to fire Hasselbeck from The View to ensure that all reasonable views can continue to be heard."

    That's classic. It's like I'm reading "A Modest Proposal" for the tin foil hat talk-show set.

    Rosie's own words need no further comment. As Newsbusters reported.

    O'DONNELL: I haven't -- I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?

    HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?

    O'DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis -- I'm saying you have to look, we invaded --

    HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?

    O'DONNELL: I'm saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?

    HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?

    O'DONNELL: We're invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.

    and then this gem:

    O'DONNELL: I believe, Elisabeth, that 6,000 dead Americans from 9/11 and from this war is a lot less than 655,000 dead Iraqis.

    HASSELBECK: But do you believe in terrorism?

    O'DONNELL: I believe every human life is equal.

    HASSELBECK: Do you believe there is terrorism?

    O'DONNELL: I believe in state sponsored terrorism. I believe there is government sponsored terrorism by every nation in the world, including ours.

    By the way, that number didn't use a body count !!!!
    Lancet's 650,000 Iraqi Casualty Study Has No Scientific Standing.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, May 29, 2007

    A Bad Week For Bad Americans



    And finally, when Rosie is finally challenged by the blonde lightweight, she goes into victim mode and quits the show early. Good Riddance!

    Here's the clip if you haven't seen it:

    Remember, liberals will say anything, regardless of how inane, until someone challenges them. Once that happens, there is no way the majority of their arguments can survive even the lightest grilling, sprinkled with a even a dash of fact.

    Kudos to Elizabeth for finally growing a pair. (No, I'm not referring to her cleavage.)

    Sphere: Related Content

    Wednesday, May 23, 2007


    A new, terrifying Pew poll reveals that a quarter of young American Muslim males believe that suicide bombing is all right.

    Remember, this is the “religion of peace”.

    These are the same people who, we have been told, are not representative of the extremists who took down the World Trade Center.

    The mindset of one in four Muslims under the age of 30 is that suicide bombings in defense of Islam are "acceptable, at least in some circumstances."

    About 29 percent of those surveyed had either favorable views about al-Qaeda or did not express an opinion.

    A third of those polled believe the invasion of Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda training camps after 9/11 was wrong.

    In addition, only 40 percent of all American Muslims believe Arab men carried out the 9/11 attack.

    There is something terribly wrong with Islam, not just in the parts of the world that are expected to be nutty, but in our own back yard.

    And then comes John Edwards, saying that there is no "global war on terror," calling it no more than a "bumper sticker" slogan advanced by the Bush Administration.

    We’ve got 25% of young Muslims who believe that blowing up buses full of innocent people is ok and Edwards is bitching about THE NAME OF THE DAMN WAR!

    Yet, perhaps we underestimate just how much the Democrats care about security against Islamo-Facists. They seem to think that we Republicans are just as dangerous.

    35% of Democrats believe that the Bush Administration was either behind the 9/11 attacks or knew about it and did nothing. 26% of them are not sure whether he did or not. So, only 40% of Muslim Americans believe that Arabs carried out the attacks on the WTC, while 61% of Democrats think that Bush did it or are not sure.

    Now I’m not that good at math so could someone tell me how many American Muslims that leaves who do not believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks?


    And who exactly do the Muslims believe did carry out the 9/11 attacks if not Arabs?

    In related news, ABC has 9/11 conspiracy Moonites who are attached to the internet film “Loose Change” scheduled to appear tomorrow on……are you ready?……THE VIEW!

    It must be a going away present for Rosie.

    These are the guys who believe that the planes never really crashed into the buildings and that the passengers were whisked away to Ohio and then taken somewhere else where they were never heard from again. The LOST island I guess.

    Whoa! Maybe I just figured out the mystery of LOST! It is on ABC.

    My question is when is ABC going to give time on The View for supporters of creationism, or folks who think that they have been inappropriately probed by aliens(The Space kind, not the illegal kind.)

    Those guys are just as nutty as the “9/11 truthers” and there are probably more of them out there.

    The American Broadcasting Company is about as “American” as Islam is “peaceful” but maybe Disney will come to its senses and leave “Loose Change” where it belongs. Right next to the fat kid swinging the lightsaber on YouTube.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, May 21, 2007


    Look! Presidential polls out in June of '07! Let's jump to conclusions!

    Seriously though, if you're following the horse race at this point, you're a junkie. Perhaps even the political equivalent of a obsessive Star Trek Fan or someone who dresses up in lingerie every weekend and goes to see The Rockey Horror Picture Show.

    Undeniably however, three new polls that have been released over the past week show that the momentum in the race for the GOP nomination has very likely passed from Rudy Giuliani to the guy who is currently polling in single digits in national polls.

    How can this be you ask?

    Check it out.

    In Iowa, a poll taken by the Des Moines Register shows Romney with an astounding twelve-point lead over his nearest competitor, John McCain. Zogby gives him a more modest lead, within the margin of error.

    In New Hampshire, Zogby has Romney up 16-points, while Survey USA has him up by 9.

    Indeed, it appears that Mitt has momentum, which should lead him to eclipse his competitors in the early primary states at some point this summer.

    This, of course, means nothing.

    Romney will pull ahead for a bit. But the fickle GOP base has had two front runners already, with McCain as the first favorite and Giuliani as the next flavor of the month.

    Then, once the GOP base examined their records and studied their unattractive flaws, they moved down the line to the next potential heir to the Reagan legacy.

    All of this is leading us to this November and December when every candidate who has been the front-runner at one point or another will have had time to focus his message, and the base has had time to forget about the reasons they didn't like them before.

    They will then decide once and for all who will take on Hillary in '08.

    Romney's surge does not guarantee that he will emerge victorious, but it does cement his place among the front-runners and assures that he will be considered when primary voters make their final decision early next year.

    Of course, before all is said and done, it is likely that there will be yet another front-runner, when Fred Thompson enters the race, emitting that wonderful, new candidate smell.

    Thus far, the GOP race has focused on three candidates, each with undeniable strengths as well as glaring liabilities. Romney will undoubtedly lose some of his luster under the penetrating glare of front-runner status.

    The question is whether he can maintain his lead.

    Either way, he should remain competitive for the remainder of the campaign.

    If he fails to capture the nomination this time around, his prospects will remain good for '12 or '16 as long as he doesn't take a Gary Hart-style beating that is impossible to recover from.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007

    Moore vs. Thompson. Round 1

    Michael Moore is back and, as usual, he is more than willing to support murderous dictators and regimes.

    His latest film "Sicko" is a condemnation of the American health care system. The film points to Cuba's health care system as an alternative model to our own.

    Like "Fahrenheit 9/11", expect "Sicko" to be filled with lies, distortions and unfair editing practices aimed at making America and its leaders look like uncaring jerks and making our enemies look like benevolent, socialist visionaries.

    Many law-abiding Americans questioned whether or not it was ethical for Moore to visit a government which is an admitted enemy of the U.S, and on which there has been a tourism embargo for over fifty years--especially when the purpose of that trip was to make his own nation (which he claims to love, but anyone who has followed the guy knows that he despises) look bad.

    Of course, there are lots of other nations that Moore could have wisited to try to make his case. I assume he chose Cuba because its government hates America the most and because Castro is the foreign leader whose ideology most closely resembles Moore's own.

    Anyway, now Moore is convinced that the government is out to get him and has decided to target Fred Thompson for questioning the legality of his trip as well as his motives.

    Here's the letter:


    May 15, 2007

    Senator Fred Thompson
    American Enterprise Institute
    110 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20036

    Dear Senator Thompson,

    Given that it has been publicly reported in The Weekly Standard, a leading neo-conservative publication, that you support Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime by being a purveyor of fine Cuban exports despite the trade embargo, I was surprised to see your recent op ed in a more traditional conservative outlet, The National Review, regarding my trip to Cuba (I suspect you choose The National Review in an effort to pander to an outlet that had criticized you for your opposition to medical malpractice legislation).

    In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, "Paradise Island," you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated was somehow going to support Castro ad the Cuban government:

    "It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro." []

    Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about Castro's reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard's April 23, 2007 story, "From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role" (emphasis added):

    "Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like -- though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana." []

    In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the "box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana" that you have in your office have contributed to Castro's reported wealth?

    While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the "box upon box of cigars" violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.

    Survey after survey has indicated that health care is one of the top issues to the American voters. Today, more than 46 million people lack health are coverage, including 9 million children. We pay significantly more than any other country in the world -- and get less back. Americans life expectancy is lower than other Ground Zero 9/11 workers live in a society where the Bush Administration has shown more concern about their travel than about their health.

    Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.

    Over the course of the debate, we could specifically address the following issues:

    (1) Your work as a lobbyist in light of the fact that the health care and insurance industries have maintained the current health care system through their effective control of the political establishment.

    (2) The fact that you raised hundred of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries.

    (3) Discuss the fact, highlighted in yet another conservative outlet The New York Sun, that you inexplicably wanted to cut funding for AIDS research. []

    (4) Your relationship with the Frist family and by extension HCA, one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains. It has been reported that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who was renowned for his over-the-television-screen Schiavo diagnosis) is serving as one of your confidantes on your potential presidential campaign. The Frist family has historically controlled HCA, which paid a record $1.7 billion in civil and criminal fines, including a $631 million penalty for Medicaid fraud -- in other words, ripping off the taxpayers.

    (5) Discussing whether Arthur Branch, as the District Attorney of Manhattan, supports a woman's right to choose, gun safety reforms, gay marriage, the trans fat ban and anti-smoking laws (which would impact Cuban cigars, including your Montecristos).

    Like American Idol, we could even have the country vote to determine which one of us wins the debate. Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I feel obligated to forewarn you that I was the winner of the 1971-72 Detroit Free Press Debate Award for the state of Michigan.

    The winner of our health care debate could even light a Victory cigar with one of your Montecristos (though we may want to consider shopping them to the safe house where I have put a master copy of SiCKO in the event that the Bush Administration tries to seize the film).


    Michael Moore

    Now, I could spend hours tearing apart any argument thrown my way in favor of Universal Health Care and of Fidel Castro's murderous reign which has impoverished a nation for half a century.

    However, I want to save my health care ammo for when Moore's movie actually comes out or when the Democratic Presidential Nominee tries to sell it to the American people. Whichever comes first. So for now, just check out Thompson's response.

    Thompson's Response:

    Sphere: Related Content

    The Contented Young

    The Contented Young
    By Michael Barone

    Ronald Reagan in the 1980s attracted young voters to his party. Bill Clinton in the 1990s did the same. But in this decade, George W. Bush has conspicuously failed at the important task of capturing the youth vote. Rather to the contrary. Voters under 30 were the age group least likely to support Bush in 2000 or 2004. They were the age group least likely to support Republicans when they had a good year in 2002 and when they had a bad year in 2006. The weakness of Republicans among young voters is one reason-and, you could argue, the main demographic reason-that Democrats go into the 2008 campaign as the party more voters would like to see win. Democratic candidates do not always run ahead of Republicans; Rudy Giuliani has been running ahead of Hillary Clinton in most polls. But if the Republicans are to regain the narrowly held majority status they enjoyed for 10 years (they got more votes than Democrats in the six House elections from 1994 to 2004), they are going to have to run better among the young. Among other reasons: They are going to go on voting for a lot longer than the rest of us.

    Bush's failure to win over young voters was not for lack of trying. His conviction, and Karl Rove's, was that his proposal for changing Social Security would surely appeal to them. Logically, it should have because those in their 20s today have the most to gain from reform. In their report last month, the Social Security trustees told us that Social Security costs will exceed revenues by 2017. So just 10 years from now, Congress will have to start dipping into other government revenues just to pay off Social Security beneficiaries. By 2041, when today's 21-year-old voter will be 55, Social Security will finance only 75 percent of benefits. The government will have to raise taxes, borrow more, or cut other federal spending programs. Changing the system to allow individuals to have personal investment accounts could avoid this crunch. But when Bush's call for doing that was opposed by Democrats, the response of young voters seemed to be, "Whatever."

    My sense when I look at what young voters tell pollsters is that they assume that everything is going to be just fine if things roll along pretty much as they are. They have grown up in an era, lasting nearly 25 years now, when we've had low inflation coupled with economic growth 95 percent of the time. They may grouse about gas prices or paying off college loans, but they're able to get jobs that mostly pay pretty well and often are more interesting and less backbreaking than the vaunted factory jobs of the past. They have grown up in an era when personal choices that were stigmatized as immoral not so long ago are accepted and even respected. You can live with your girlfriend or boyfriend before you get married; you can be gay: Nobody is going to give you a very hard time. In fact, young people are delaying childbearing until marriage more than they used to and seem to be divorcing somewhat less often. We're learning as a country to balance freedom with responsibility.

    Iraq exception. The one issue on which young people seem dissatisfied with things as they are is the military conflict in Iraq-that would be with the exception of most of the young people who have served there and who are re-enlisting at higher than projected rates. The attitude of those without military ties seems to be: If we just get out of Iraq, if we just get rid of George Bush, then everything will be all right. We won't see suicide bombers and IEDs on our television screens; we won't see mass demonstrations by Europeans and Muslims against us; we won't have all this controversy and bitterness in our partisan politics.

    Today's 21-year-old was 3 when the Berlin Wall came down; his or her parents were born well after World War II. Unlike people who lived through the experience of 1914-1918 or 1939-1945, they have no reason to draw the conclusion that everything can-and sometimes does-go terribly wrong. It is tempting to turn your eyes away from the possibility that Islamist terrorists could get their hands on nuclear or chemical or biological weapons and wield them against us. Just as it is tempting to turn your eyes away from the certainty that current programs will lead to the state gobbling up much of the private sector here as it has done over the past generation or two in a number of European countries, most notably France. But as we saw this month, even the comfortable French finally voted against that

    Sphere: Related Content

    Friday, May 11, 2007

    A Younger, Better Looking, Walter Mondale

    Hedge funds, $400 haircuts and renegade bloggers. The Presidential campaign of slip and fall lawyer John Edwards has been a rough one thus far.

    Edwards, who seems to be willing to say just about anything that those at and Media Matters want him to say, has been offering anything and everything to the American people in order get some primary momentum in his race against the black guy who gives a hell of a speech and the woman who is married to the cool former president.

    When you total everything up that Edwards has proposed so far, including universal health care, and his “college for everyone” concept, it all adds up to nearly 1 Trillion dollars and that’s without adding up all of the disastrous long term costs of these social programs.

    But this is the kind of social, nanny state; kind of stuff that Liberal, Democratic primary voters eat up.

    If Democrats were not in such anti-white male mood this election cycle, Edwards may actually be in the mid-twenties right now.

    Remember, for Democrats, the word “moderate” simply means ‘A Democrat with a Southern accent’, perhaps that’s why Hillary has adopted one in recent weeks.

    Of the top tier candidates however Edwards is far and away the most outwardly liberal. We’re talking Dennis Kucinich, only from Earth.

    So Edwards, who precariously straddles the fine line that separates a charismatic politician from a used car salesman, finds himself drifting towards the fringe, in an election where he was supposed to represent the second coming of the “New Democrat”. Remember, the kind of Democrat that can actually win a national election?

    In his quest to appeal to the base, he has now officially said and done too many things, which will lead to an overwhelming rejection by the American people in a general election.

    Wow. That was fast.

    But with Edwards, I say, the sooner the better.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Thursday, May 10, 2007

    Al-Sharpton Sounds Like Al-Qaeda

    "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation,"

    Sphere: Related Content

    Thursday, May 03, 2007

    A DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN IRONY:My Experiences At A May Day Rally

    Irony is the word of the day.

    Tuesday, here in The Sanctuary City of Angels, thousands of lawbreakers flooded the streets and demanded things which they feel they are entitled to, simply for being lucky enough to have made it across the southern border.

    As if to laugh in the face of real Americans, who watched helplessly as the protesters yelled in Spanish, held up signs belittling our President and waved the flag of the nation responsible for this whole mess in the first place. (For all of you Liberals out there I’m referring to the Mexican flag.)

    These lawbreakers flooded the streets and listened to speeches of support from radical groups like The Nation of Islam, who patrolled the streets in their pinstriped suits, giving aid to their “oppressed brothers.”

    Insane, cop punching, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, used her speech to rail against Republicans, not a word on illegal immigration.

    Communist and Socialist groups waved pictures of Hugo Chavez, and handed out propaganda, seemingly unaware of the rank hypocrisy of calling for open borders in the U.S, while simultaneously supporting regimes such as Cuba, which forbids its citizens from leaving the country.

    Speeches were given in English and then translated into Spanish. Only after the translation did the vast majority of the crowd burst in supportive cheers, as if they had no clue what the English speaking orator had originally said.

    The media here in L.A. loves the lawbreakers, and after the rally they saved their vitriol, which should have been cast on those here illegally, upon those whose job it is to uphold the law.

    How screwed up of a world to we live in when the lawbreakers garner sympathy and those attempting to keep the peace are treated like criminals?

    In one of L.A’s worst neighborhoods, cops attempted to disperse a rowdy group of protesters. In keeping with third-world tradition, the protesters began hurling bottles and rocks at the police. The police were finally able to disperse the crowd using rubber bullets and batons when necessary.

    But someone caught the cops hitting people with a baton on tape. Oh my!

    It must be police brutality.

    Forget that there are no tapes of what occurred before force was used against the mob. The media wouldn’t want to make the protesters look bad, now would they?

    Yes, media types did get in the middle of the fracas, and at times needed to be prodded out of the way. Sorry. It’s a dangerous job.

    Politicians all over the city took the side of the protesters, not wanting to upset a minority and have the city burn down again. Even when the alternative is tantamount to spitting in the face of L.A’s best and brightest, and giving the already morally confused protesters and the poor and uneducated across the country more reasons to hate cops.

    Demanding “workers rights” is a dangerous business. Especially when, those making the demands shouldn’t even be here in the first place.

    In fact, we do these protesters a favor by allowing them to borrow our constitutional rights for a day and bestowing upon them freedom of speech and the ability to peaceably assemble. Then when the assembly is no longer “peaceful” we give them a pass and then pass harsh judgment on those who enable real Americans to practice these rights.

    It’s not that I don’t like illegal immigrants. Mexico sucks. We all know this and we don’t expect you to put up with it.

    You are great for our economy. You do jobs that we don’t want.

    But don’t come here, take advantage of our resources and then march in the streets and yell at us, making demands and accusing us of treating you unfairly.

    That makes Americans who want you to succeed, and who want Mexico to become part of the developed world, far less sympathetic to your cause.

    All day protesters chanted, “Yes we can!”(in Spanish of course). What does that mean? You “can” do what? Flood the streets, wave signs, hold up traffic, make the American people who are already irked about the situation at the border even more upset?

    The bubble in which most Americans live is more or less confined to themselves and those around them. It rarely goes beyond the city in which they live.

    That’s why these rallies are so counter-productive for illegals.

    While they revel in the celebration and surround themselves with thousands who support their cause, they have no idea that the rest of America is watching them on TV and becoming less and less sympathetic towards their behavior.

    I arrived at the L.A. rally as one who wanted America to compromise with undocumented workers and find a way for them to stay her legally, and eventually become citizens.

    I left as one who still believed that these were the proper steps to take, but who was far less enthusiastic about helping illegal workers than I was at the start of the day.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, May 01, 2007


    It’s nice to see the President taking the right steps towards winning the war on terror instead of buckling under to pressure from an opposition dedicated to failure for political gain.

    With this veto, and despite demands for surrender coming from the Democrats he sends exactly the right message to those who are causing the trouble in Iraq.

    When Democrats were voted a majority in Congress, largely due to the American people’s dissatisfaction with the way the war was being handled, insurgents who expected the president to cut his loses politically must have been dismayed when he instead sent more troops to Iraq.

    Now, he has once again shown resolve in the face of stupidity and political posturing.

    He deserves credit for rejecting arbitrary timetables which would essentially tell our enemies exactly when we are going to leave the area. With such a roadmap they would simply hold out until we are gone and then massacre the Iraqi people in even greater numbers for the benefit of Al-Queda and Iran.

    Speaking of arbitrary, the Democrats who should have been negotiating with the White House to find a way to get our troops the funding they need instead delayed that process for five full days even though their version of the funding bill was DOA.

    Why? They did so in order to send their non-starter of an Iraq spending bill to the President on the anniversary of “Mission Accomplished.” Reid and Pelosi have once again chosen the politics of personal destruction over our national interests.

    Rudy Giuliani was dead-on when he said that the Nation would be safer under a Republican President. This week we have seen proof of this first hand.

    Every Democratic presidential candidate is promising that we will leave Iraq immediately if he (or she)is elected. Even if the job there isn’t finished.

    This would of course embolden our enemies, allow Al-Qaeda a base from which to regroup and give a fundamentalist theocracy, hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, control over a huge portion of the world's oil.

    That’s the alternative to the President’s actions on Wednesday.

    But the Dems want to embarrass the President.

    So be sure to take a good hard look at your priorities, before you select a candidate for ’08, because you might just be longing for the good old days of GWB before too long.

    Sphere: Related Content