Wednesday, May 30, 2007


One of the best articles I have seen on the situation in Iran. A really good read.

Opinion Journal, Wall Streen Journal editorial page.

The Case for Bombing Iran I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Reply to Letters Published 5-22-07.

Mr. Martin,
A few questions. If you think we should change our strategy in Iraq, do you now support the new commander in Iraq and his new policies with respect to the increase in troop levels and changed troop assignments?
I know you think people are calling you names and refusing to allow you to speak but exactly how did I find your information? It was printed, the same as many others of different ideologies. I have seen no one try to deny you the right to dissent. We simply think you are wrong.
If you decide to do exactly what your enemy wants you to do by withdrawing your troops, what would you call it except surrender. Redeployment? This is what the Al-Quaida terrorist have been working toward ever since we defeated them in Afghanistan.
No one that I know of has said that Hussain was operationally involved with 9-11 except for those that keep denying it in view of almost every informed person’s acceptance of that fact. Iraq was invaded for many reasons. As I recall, 28 different reasons. WMD was 1. We know Iraq was providing aid to Al-Quaida operatives.
It is clear that you and I will never agree on the increased or decreased danger caused by the Iraq invasion. I think we have been able to fight them there instead of here but you will not agree. Your freedom to do so. Just don't tell me what not to think of your ideas.
In the same edition, Ms Gall seems to imply that the President and his whole cabinet should be jailed for some imagined illegalities. If she is so tired of "Rush, Hannity and Boortz" then she should stop listening. That is what the "Off Button" on the radio is for. Good riddance. If you cannot come up with some better reason for sending our president to jail other than the fact that she precieves a lack of honest debate, I dread her ever having any kind of power over anyone.

letters I am responding to.

Bush, Cheney criminals, should be in jail
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:59 AM EDTE-mail this story to a friend Printable version
DEAR EDITOR:Re: Steve Crowley letter, "Democrats' propaganda helps enemy, hurts us," Tuesday's Marietta Daily JournalYes, Mr. Crowley, we are standing up and telling our politicians we've had enough! We've had enough of the Bush/Cheney lies - starting a war with a country that did not attack us and invading a country that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. We're tired of Bush not protecting our borders, Osama and Al-Qaida could have come across our borders on a daily basis. We're tired of Bush trying to sell our country to Mexico and Canada with his infamous North American Union.Crowley talks about the Democratic Party using every opportunity to discredit Bush as a leader - what a joke! This man is not a leader and has done nothing but try to continually divide this country. He is the one who has used propaganda and continues to do so. Remember "Mission Accomplished," Jessica Lynch and Patrick Tillman? Don't you notice that when times get a little rough for him, he once again goes to his 9/11 speech, but he forgets to tell you that Saddam had nothing to do with it - it was Osama Bid Laden and Al-Qaida who are in Afghanistan where the fight should be. But no, we had to go to Iraq where more than 3,000 of our bravest have been killed and more than 15,000 seriously injured and Afghanistan is more dangerous than ever. And then, of course, we take such good care of our troops when they get home - remember Walter Reed Hospital - but, of course, when Bush says he supports the troops, we never look any further than that do we?
This so-called leader has surrounded himself with incompetence and we are all paying the price. You too, Mr. Crowley, but I guess you just can't see it yet!This country was founded on honest debate. The problem with this president is he can't take the honest debate without name-calling. I am so tired of Rush, Hannity and Boortz that I could puke. They sure preach honest debate, don't they -- they do nothing but call names and if you disagree with them, they hang up on you or cut you off or start yelling, because they can't debate and hold ground.We had eight long years of the Republicans going after Clinton. No honest debate there, but if someone goes after Bush, then they should be tried for treason, right? Bush and Cheney are the ones that have violated our Constitution and should be in jail. They are certainly criminals.Jeanette GallSmyrna
Those who criticize war dissenters are ignorant
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:59 AM EDTE-mail this story to a friend Printable version
DEAR EDITOR:In recent days MDJ columnist Laura Armstrong and letter-writer Steven Crowley attacked those who voice disagreement with our policy in Iraq as somewhere between the aging "peace" crowd and traitors. They take the stupefying ignorant approach that anyone who doesn't agree with them and our current policies are somehow against America and for terrorism.These arguments are both fundamentally wrong and cowardly. Both writers have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, that much of America's glorious history was shaped by those who disagreed and dissented. Our founding fathers, the women's movement, civil rights reform, all required Americans to seek and speak about aspects of America that required change. I think Ed Morrow said, "We are not descendants of fearful men." The fact is that dissent is the most quintessentially American of activities.Let me make clear that I am conservative by nature and favor an aggressive worldwide anti-terrorist foreign policy. I understand that in some cases that policy must be enforced by our military. Let me also make clear that I fully support our armed services, and I am humbled and proud that our forces continue to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. That does not mean that I will support policies based on falsehoods and failed strategies. I am stunned by the cavalier way both writers insist that we mindlessly extend our existing plans, continuing the sacrifice of our troops, without debate or discourse.
We know now that Iraq did not have WMDs. We know through the 911 Commission that Iraq had no role in the 9/11 massacre. We know from our own intelligence organizations that terrorists have been galvanized by our Iraq strategy and we are less safe from terror now then before the invasion. We know from centuries of world history that occupying a foreign country - regardless of the nobility of the effort - is a brutally difficult task.Already we have lost 3,800 of our best and brightest, somewhere between 75,000 and 250,000 Iraqis, and spent billions of dollars with no end in sight. More of the same is a recipe for disaster (please see the definition of insanity).Consider where the war on terror might be had we made that investment in rebuilding Afghanistan, in new technology, and in controlling our own borders. We have to be smart enough to learn from our mistakes and adapt to the realities of today.Please do not accuse those who desire to change our strategies in Iraq with surrender to terrorists. Do not confuse efforts in Congress to expedite an end to our presence in Iraq - a platform on which many were elected - as anything less than executing their sworn responsibility to constituents.Finally, do not engage in the most un-American of all activities, the suppression of free debate in an open democracy.Not only is it the right of Americans to vigorously debate these issues, it's our duty to do so.Bill Martin

Friday, May 18, 2007

Open Letter to Congressional Delegation

Open letter to Georgia Congressional Delegation


I read today that our two Senators, Isakson and Chambliss are members of the commission that negotiated the new bill on immigration reform. Both of them indicated they were concerned about the border security issue but supported the bill. The statements I have seen indicate Sen. Chambless perhaps more than Sen. Isakson.
I have heard the Democrats repeat ad nauseam that they got the majority in Congress in order to send a message that the war should end. Not so. Most of the people I have spoken to support the idea that the message to Republicans was and is to act like Republicans. Stop being Democrat Lite. Border Security should be the number one issue in ANY discussion about immigration. As far as I can see, this bill treats security as an afterthought. This is not acceptable. Where is it written that bipartisanship is always a good thing? Sometimes (and lately, frequently) partisanship is what is needed. The Democrats have the majority. The Republicans should fight any Bill that relegates security to a side issue. It may be that they lose but at least put up a token resistance. This bill doesn’t seem to address the next 20 million illegals to come into the country. We must stop the bleeding.
We don’t, of course, know what will actually come out of the Senate. It may be that the triggers mentioned by Sen. Isakson, including employer verification and biometric id cards will be in the bill. If so, then and only then is it an acceptable bill.
I try to have an open mind on this but I don’t see this bill as helpful to the country in the long run. The most important issue in the country is the National Security. I have and will continue to support the War because anything else is just wrong. We have a wonderful and unique country and we need to do whatever we can to protect it. I think that the fine young men and women in the military generally understand the importance of their work and ask only for support for those they are protecting. God Bless Them! They are doing a wonderful job in difficult conditions. We must also have an eye to security at the border. It is too easy for illegals to come in--either well meaning people looking for work or evil meaning people looking for death and destruction.
Immigration is a difficult problem. Very few people want to go around deporting mass numbers of illegals. Most people do want the flood to be turned off. Then we can talk about "path to citizenship" and "guest worker programs".
In addition to the security end of the argument, there is a cultural argument. There is a distinct American Culture. It is being diluted by the hoard of illegals that come in without end. Legal immigrants come in an generally tend to assimilate to that culture. Illegals tend to group themselves together and try to maintain the old country cultures. We are in dire need for that to stop. We do not need to become Balkanized.
I don’t know yet where the delegates to the House stand on this, I simply hope that they will understand the importance of standing firm on principle. I have heard that my congressman, Tom Price is strongly opposed. Thanks Tom! There is no need to make decisions simply on the basis of compromise. There is a time for that and a time for not giving up your ideals. It is sometimes better to lose than to surrender. Even better, let’s WIN!

Monday, May 07, 2007

response to editorial letter


Re: Jim Stillman--Marietta Daily Journal, Sunday, May 6, 2007.
The sane and informed majority of Americans know that in fact the war is not over. If you think that, please explain the media’s favorite subject, the body count. Any war can be stopped, including civil wars. One just needs to apply enough force. The decision to do that is a political decision and is not necessarily the right approach. Please note that six months ago, the Democrats were screaming (along with some Republicans) that we needed more troops over there. The Democratic Senate approved David Petraeus to take charge. They then proceeded to refuse to allow him time to do what he was going over there to do--increase troop levels in Baghdad and win the war.
Mr. Stillman, if you think our military is under trained, under equipped and undermanned, ask a soldier. You say no jobs, water or electrify. How much did they have before we invaded? I suppose you think the pre war Iraqi’s were better off? I suppose so if they were Bathist Otherwise, they had to worry about rape rooms, torture chambers and mass executions.
I suppose you think that if we had not invaded Iraq, for the 23 reasons the Democrats approved as well as the Republicans, the world would love us and all these terrorist would be throwing flowers instead.
They HATE the US. They hate our way of life and want it to change. One of the problems is that whatever we do, it is not enough. They do not like the religious freedom we enjoy. They do not like the right of women we endorse. They do not like anything about us and unless we submit to the Caliphate, it will not be enough. Are you ready to do that?
If you think pulling out of Iraq will end the war, you are being very foolish. Which Iraq were we in on September 11, 2001? Bush is right in his veto. Please read the constitution. The President is charged with being the Commander in Chief. The Congress approves (as it did) the war and then funds it. If they want to cut off funds, do so. Playing games with our troops is not the way to support them. Saying you do is simply words. Remember, none of these troops were drafted, a fact that many of the so-called advocates of "Peace at any Price" seem to forget. These marvelous young men and women embody the ideal of peace through strength.
And finally, Mr Stillman, please note the Lie that these jackals who absolutely, irrefutably used to start this war. You cannot because there was no lie. That is simply another case of: Say it often enough and loud enough and some people will believe it.