TT and BF = Purveyors of Pessimism

[au9596 0]

Purveyors of Pessimism

Friday , February 02, 2007

By Lt. Col. Oliver North

ADVERTISEMENT

• E-mail Lt. Col. Oliver North

London, UK — Those who think that U.S. political and media elites have “exclusive rights” to negative perspectives on how the War on Terror is being fought need to visit this ancient capital of a once great empire.

Here in London, the valor of 5,600 British troops in Afghanistan and roughly 7,000 in Iraq is rarely mentioned. Nor is this week’s apparent success by police and intelligence officers in deterring yet another radical Islamic terror attack — this one in the industrial city of Birmingham — a cause for acclaim. Instead, all the talk in the press and parliament is about how to “bring the boys home” and ways to “find common ground” with those who would blow themselves up just to kill Anglo Saxons.

Our FOX News “War Stories” team is here to shoot two documentaries — one a biography of Winston Churchill and the other about Americans who served in the Royal Air Force during World War II. Having now spent the better part of a week on these endeavors, it is clearer than ever that both our English speaking democracies have changed dramatically in the six decades since a terrible war united us in common purpose against horrific adversaries.

Then, most Americans and Britons knew who they were, who the enemy was, what they needed to do about it — and were blessed to have leaders who could mobilize and motivate their populations to get it done. Now, the people of neither country know who they are, who the enemy is or what to do about it.

Worse, leaders in both nations seem unable to mobilize their countrymen to the challenge of fighting radical Islamic extremists who are literally dying to kill us. Both London and Washington are beset by a hostile media seemingly intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The purveyors of pessimism on the Potomac are little different from the transmitters of trepidation on the Thames. In both places powerful people ignore good news, accentuate the bad — and seek to reap political advantage from the situation. It’s enough to make one wonder how we managed to win World War II.

Case in point: Last week the much maligned Iraqi Army — trained, equipped and advised by the U.S. military — inflicted a stunning defeat on a well-armed Shia militia in a pitched battle. The Iraqi 8th Division, based in the Al Sadr stronghold of Najaf, conducted precisely the kind of operation that’s necessary for the government of Nouri al-Maliki to assert control over areas heretofore heavily influenced by Iran. Though President Bush declared, "My first reaction on this report from the battlefield is that the Iraqis are beginning to show me something," the U.S. and British press generally disregarded this good news.

Instead, media and political elites in Washington and London decided that that “the big story” was an anachronistic anti-war rally on the Mall in Washington, D.C. led by faded actress Jane Fonda. Though many of the marchers were too young to remember “Hanoi Jane” posing atop a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun or her description of American POWs as “war criminals,” potentates of the press on both sides of the Atlantic fell over themselves to cover the event. One British commentator trumpeted, “It’s about time!”

Watching here in London, it was apparent that the thrall on the Mall included the usual fellow travelers in the “Blame America First” coterie — including the aging Hollywood starlet Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Rhea Perlman, and a handful of elected officials. Among them was left-wing Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) — whose message was the only one that really mattered: “The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today,” he told the thinning crowd.

And then, in words reminiscent of the barbs thrown at Winston Churchill as he futilely urged his countrymen to prepare for the storm that was about to descend upon them in the 1930s, Mr. Conyers added, “Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

That may be “red meat” to those in the U.S. who despise this President. But the message isn’t lost over here where advocates of a strong defense have just lost out in Parliament to those who want to scuttle the Royal Navy. One Member of Parliament, appalled at the number of ships to be deactivated asked me if Congress really would “de-fund the war in Iraq like they did with Vietnam.”

I replied that “given the makeup of Congress, it’s hard to tell,” and then asked, “What did Sir Winston do in such a circumstance?”

He smiled and answered, “He went to the people — and eventually they listened. But by then it was almost too late. Can President Bush do that?” We should hope so.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's the template of the Left. Hate and pessimism. Their only 'positive' message is defeating conservatism, capitalism or the concept of indivualism.

While Reagan told us of a shining city on the hill, or Bush41 talked of a 1000 points of light, the Left gives us the misery index, the 'culture of coruption', and calling our troops nazis, and equal to the khmere rouge.

The message of the Left is fear, loathing, hatred, class warfare and distrust between the races.

[CCTAU 3,349]

It's the template of the Left. Hate and pessimism. Their only 'positive' message is defeating conservatism, capitalism or the concept of indivualism.

While Reagan told us of a shining city on the hill, or Bush41 talked of a 1000 points of light, the Left gives us the misery index, the 'culture of coruption', and calling our troops nazis, and equal to the khmere rouge.

The message of the Left is fear, loathing, hatred, class warfare and distrust between the races.

And God help us, they have the keys to the family sedan. I jus thope they don't drive us all off into the river and leave us.

[AFTiger 282]

Don't try to talk them off the ledge. They will call you names.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What? Like chickenhawk?

[au9596 0]

What? Like chickenhawk?

Respect for flag

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

The Flag Code states that the flag flying upside down is used as a sign of imminent danger. The use of an upside-down flag for political purposes could cause its intended use to be ignored, in the future, possibly endangering someone's life. People who wish to express their political views should find a different way to do so.

[AURaptor 1,126]

No one likes to cry "wolf " like the Left.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

No one likes to cry "wolf " like the Left.

Funny.

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."

• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."

• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”

• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Left cries wolf at EVERY occasion. Whether it's a Healtcare CRISIS, or a Global Warming CRISIS, or a Homeless CRISIS , or an Education CRISIS..... the list goes on and on. EVERYTHING is constantly in a CRISIS state w/ the Left.

Want something to laugh at ? Here are all those 'war mongering' Libs, before and even after Bush came into office. Seems they only mean it when .....well, never.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 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."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

At least the GOP reserves their alarm bells for when it really matters.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

At least the GOP reserves their alarm bells for when it really matters.

Terri Shiavo? Flag-burning ammendment, when flag burning is exceedingly rare? Gays?

On terrorism, Bush will cry about Iran and the world will not care to listen anymore, even if the threat is greater.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Terri Shiavo? Flag-burning ammendment, when flag burning is exceedingly rare? Gays?

On terrorism, Bush will cry about Iran and the world will not care to listen anymore, even if the threat is greater.

You saw only a few, very vocal minority GOP types making a fuss over Terri and the Flag. And I agree, partially , about the Flag. There's no legitimate reason to deface, burn or stamp on it. Who ever sold the country the line that it's FREE SPEECH to destroy our flag was one hell of a BS artist.

If the world doesn't listen , then it's the worlds fault. Maybe a few nukes need to hit Israel before the world wakes the hell up.

Naww..I doubt that'd even do it.

( I like how you completely ignored all those quotes from the 'war mongering ' Left )

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You saw only a few, very vocal minority GOP types making a fuss over Terri and the Flag.

Talk about selective memory. It would obviously been too painful to confront the truth about your beloved party:

Voting 203 to 58 at 12:42 a.m., the House joined the Senate in approving the measure and rushing it to President Bush. He signed the bill into law at 1:11 a.m., saying, "I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities."

The Republican House and Senate push it through, and Bush jets back to sign it. Jebbie gets in on the act in Florida.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Oh yeah, excuse them for trying to save a life and actually taking a stand. Those evil ba$tards!

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Oh yeah, excuse them for trying to save a life and actually taking a stand. Those evil ba$tards!

So you supported their action on Terri Schiavo?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

What? Like chickenhawk?

The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

Signaling distress for our country has been attack and we are to be vigilant until the terror war is over.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Oh yeah, excuse them for trying to save a life and actually taking a stand. Those evil ba$tards!

So you supported their action on Terri Schiavo?

Not personally, but I felt they were being consistant w/ their views. If there's any question w/ respect to the issue of life, they came down on the side which was for it. Not to open up that can o' worms agian, the whole affair taught us to at least to make a living will, should such tragedy befall any of us.