Once Again, We Have to “Do Something” in Syria

There was a gas attack in Syria – everyone is pointing fingers, but the most likely culprit is the Assad regime or elements aligned with it. Personally, I don’t care who did it – some set of bastards, who are fighting other bastards for control over the rubble of a nation. But, its a gas attack and we’re all supposed to wring our hands and demand something be done.

I’m not so interested in doing something.

The reason is because we’re not allowed to win. That has been the problem since the end of World War Two: the United States has been strictly prohibited from winning any wars. There are a lot of things which go into this prohibition, but the primary thing I can see is that the Ruling Class of the world – including that part of it which is allegedly American – doesn’t want us to win. It is too scary for them.

People don’t realize how powerful we are. To be sure, there is a vague memory of World War Two in there, but even in that, the full extent of our power is not understood. When the Japanese signed the official surrender document on September 3rd, 1945, we had been at war for not quite three years and 9 months. We had, in that time, increased our Army from about 200,000 men to 11,200,000. We had already built 162 Fletcher class destroyers, 58 Sumner class destroyers and had started work on 98 of what were to be 152 Gearing class destroyers. We had built 24 Essex class carriers and were starting on the Midway class (just FYI, that class of carriers, designed in WWII, were used by the United States until 1992). During WWII, the Air Force went from 800 planes to 80,000. And here’s the real thing: our power was still waxing when the Japanese surrendered. We hadn’t really begun to impose our full power. It would have been 1946 or 1947 before we were able to do so (like this: you might have seen the Band of Brothers series…but please note those men got into the military in 1942 and their first combat action was more than two years later: it takes a while. Most of those who went in from mid-1943 on didn’t see much action). So, even without maxing out our effort, we still managed to fight and win to major conflicts on different sides of the world against first class powers. We were the only nation in the world in 1945 that could do that.

We still are.

Militarily, we are a lot weaker than we were 25 years ago – but we still have 11 fleet carriers; 9 amphibious assault ships; 53 attack and 14 ballistic missile subs; 22 cruisers, 66 destroyers; 950 self propelled guns; nearly 1,200 mobile rocket launchers; more than 150,000 transport vehicles; 2,300 main battle tanks; 6,100 armored combat vehicles; 155 heavy bombers; 1,700 fighters…you know, quite a lot. And with Trump’s new defense budget, we’re about to get a whole bunch more. No other nation on Earth has quite so much, nor the capacity to build so much. A direct attack on the United States amounts to national suicide…and yet here we are, about to send kids to Afghanistan next year or the year after who weren’t even born when 9/11 happened. Why?

Because we’re not allowed to win. Think about it. Do you really think a few thousand Jihadist/drug dealers could really withstand us for 17 years if we were serious about winning? Its not like the Taliban has an armaments industry – someone is sending them weapons and ammunition. We’re not doing anything about that. We also know where they are, and yet we don’t really go out and get them (the US military which dug the Japanese out of Iwo Jima is quite capable of dragging the Taliban out of whatever caves they are hiding in). And now people are calling for us to go deeper into Syria…but you just know they will be the first to complain if we ever used the sort of force which victory requires.

As I was saying, people in charge are afraid of our power – afraid, that is, that if the American people found out how very powerful they are, they might go on a bender of conquest. At the very least, we wouldn’t give a damn what anyone says about us. We simply wouldn’t have to care what the world says…and an America like that is just what the Ruling Class doesn’t want. They don’t trust us. The wars have to be controlled; America has to be controlled; if America isn’t harnessed, then things like the UN won’t work. See where all this goes?

So, the heck with it. No war in Syria – not unless we are allowed to win. If Trump gets up there and says we’re going in for victory and we’re not going to give a damn what the world says about us, then I’ll say “ok, we go”. But absent that, I just want us to stay out of it. I don’t want to see the picture of a 19 year old kid who got blown to pieces in a fruitless battle because some REMF saw a picture which gave him the sadz. Enough is enough.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Once Again, We Have to “Do Something” in Syria

  1. Cluster April 9, 2018 / 5:44 pm

    Well this is certainly a head scratcher. I thought the master of diplomacy Barack Obama assured us back in 2015 that through his tough posturing, Vladimir Putin and Assad got rid of all “weapons of mass destruction” in Syria. Did that not happen?

  2. Cluster April 10, 2018 / 8:23 am

    Can you imagine what Mueller could have found if he raided Hillary’s lawyers office? Or how about the DNC? Oh wait, the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI to investigate. But it seems odd that Hillary’s lawyers were not searched considering they admitted to going through and deleting the emails with Hillary although they had no clearance credentials. Hmmmmm……..

    I will say this …. if the POS Mueller continues on this banana republic investigation, I suspect THERE WILL BE A CIVIL WAR. It will be time to END the establishment.

    • Amazona April 10, 2018 / 12:01 pm

      You make some very good points. Hillary’s lawyer essentially admitted to being complicit in breaking the law yet no one has looked at them—but they are raiding the office of Trump’s lawyer. Looking for, by their own admission, information unrelated to the actual brief given to Mueller, to look into collusion between Trump and Russia related to the election.

    • casper3031 April 10, 2018 / 1:07 pm

      The raid was executed by the office of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The man running that office, interim U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman, is a Trump appointee whom the president personally met with when he was up for the job. Berman also donated $5,400 to Trump’s presidential campaign.

      • Cluster April 10, 2018 / 1:15 pm

        And that means absolutely NOTHING. Completely irrelevant.

        The question is, where is the same level of scrutiny on the other side of the political aisle? The Clinton Foundation closed up pretty quickly after Hillary lost … why is that? I thought it was a global charity doing tremendous things .. why would that not continue? And there seems to be some missing funds from the Haiti venture, don’t you think the FBI would be curious about that? How about all the smashed cell phones at the DNC? How about the Pakistani IT family that worked for the DNC but also ran used car dealerships used to launder money? Do you think there should be some more follow up on that? How about Comey admitting that Hillary lied to the FBI? Shouldn’t there be some follow up on that too?

        Your party is DIRTY Cap …. and needs to be eliminated.

      • Retired Spook April 10, 2018 / 1:28 pm

        Berman did not raid Michael Cohen’s office on his own. He did so as a result of a criminal referral from Robert Mueller. Berman’s appointment or his politics are, as Cluster notes, completely irrelevant. Had he refused to act on the criminal referral, then you might have a complaint.

      • M. Noonan April 10, 2018 / 5:44 pm

        Now we’re seeing indications that it wasn’t a Trump guy who ordered it done.

      • casper3031 April 10, 2018 / 1:50 pm

        Trump and his associates are being investigated by the a Republican led Justice department. And it looks like they are finding more on him and his associates every day. That is very relevant. Frankly, I don’t care about Hillary. She isn’t president and besides, the justice has investigated her and are continuing to do so. What they find on her has nothing to do with whether or not Trump and his associates have committed crimes.

      • Retired Spook April 10, 2018 / 2:22 pm

        Trump and his associates are being investigated by the a Republican led Justice department.

        Wrong as usual, Cap. Mueller’s team, which is completely independent of the “Republican led Justice Department,” is comprised about 90% by, not only Democrats, but highly partisan Democrats. The reason for the independent Counsel was because the “Republican led Justice Department” couldn’t perform an unbiased investigation.

        Do you ever engage your brain before you post, or do your fingers operate independent of your brain?

      • Cluster April 10, 2018 / 4:03 pm

        Those are just media talking points that Casper is regurgitating. Of course, that’s the depth of his knowledge and understanding on most any issue. Casper probably thinks this is a legitimate investigation and that any day now, collusion will be discovered. Rachel Maddow tells him that every night.

      • Amazona April 10, 2018 / 7:26 pm

        Remember, Casper is devoted to irrelevancy. The oddest things matter to Liberals.

        He earnestly explains; And it looks like they are finding more on him and his associates every day Oh, really? What have they been “finding”?

        I’m sure that when they “find” that the sister-in-law of the man whose cousin sold Trump a car in 2003 had not paid his taxes, it will be touted by the silly Caspers of the country as the investigation “finding more every day”. Raid that accountant’s office! Kick his door down! He once did the taxes of a man accused of being a tax cheat! Get a rope! See, investigating Trump is “finding” stuff all the time!

        The investigator has one task, and one task only. It is to investigate the possibility that Donald Trump engaged in some illegal activity with Russian officials that in some way affected the presidential election. Did Stormy Daniels have anything to do with the alleged events Mueller was tasked to investigate? Did Cohen? Did anyone? They haven’t even been able to prove that such an event even happened, much less link anyone to it. No one has “found” anything even remotely connected to any illegal activity even remotely connected to any alleged Russian “collusion.”

        The alleged hacking of the DNC? No one can prove it even happened, as the DNC refused to let the FBI investigate till their hired guns went in and worked over the system, till it was impossible to tell what, if anything, had happened. All they found was some suspiciously clumsy and blatant “clues” designed to point fingers Russians, though in the past Russian hackers had been quite skilled and sophisticated, as subtle as leaving an note in a wastebasket saying “Boris—buy more vodka”. The leaked info from the DNC was not acquired through electronic invasion of their records, but was copied by a DNC employee and physically handed, from human being to human being, in a meeting in a park in DC. Any electronic acquisition of DNC records can probably be traced to the foreign criminals hired by dozens of Dem Congressmen, without being vetted for security clearances but given free rein to go wherever they wanted in supposedly confidential Dem Congressional records, who illegally copied Congressional records onto an illegal server which was then illegally hidden. If any investigation is called for, that has to be near the top of the list, after the debacle of the Secretary of State breaking several laws in her efforts to hide her nefarious doings from FOIA snooping.

        “What they find on her has nothing to do with whether or not Trump and his associates have committed crimes.” What crimes? Name a single crime you think Trump might have committed. Not in his past, but related to the election. tick tock

      • Ryan Murphy April 11, 2018 / 6:32 am

        Actually, Berman was recused from the case so, no, you are full of it.

      • Amazona April 12, 2018 / 12:47 pm

        But this is what Cappy does–he is the Roseanne Rosannadanna of the blog. He constantly makes assertions that are so far off the mark they are ridiculous. The only thing is, he never has the integrity to come back and say “Never mind…..”

        Not too long ago, when we were talking about the “dossier” put together by a Dem operative, Steele, and the ugly fact that the applications to the FISA court were based on the bogus dossier without any effort to confirm any of its contents, Cappy bleated that well, gee, Steele was respected as an expert on Russia.

        ????????????? But the “dossier” was not about Russia.

        The children of Casper Wyoming, going forward, are lucky he is out of their school system. The damage he has already done will echo throughout the years, as some of his more gullible former students may still believe that a Constitutional originalist—one who thinks we need to be governed by the Constitution as written and not as amended on the fly by activist judges—-means believing women should not be allowed to vote, and we should have retained slavery.

        When called on this he first denied saying it. Faced with copied and pasted comments he had made, he said well, no, he referred not to the Constitution as it is written, but as it was written at the time. Yet “teacher” Casper could not point to a single word in the Constitution, as it was originally written, that made any reference to women voting, or to slavery.

        It is hard to call someone intellectually dishonest when you don’t think he has much of an intellect at all. That is what we have always had to deal with when Casper has weighed in with any of his simple-minded nonsense.

  3. Cluster April 10, 2018 / 8:47 am

    I can’t let this go without comment. As I type, George Will is on MSNBC proclaiming matter of factly that “by not releasing his tax returns Trump HAS something to hide and that evidenced by his 4 bankruptcies that Trump IS NOT a good businessman.”

    Hmmm, where to begin. Mr. Will I don’t ever recall you questioning Barack Obama’s refusal to release his college transcripts. Do you think there may be something to hide there? I also don’t ever recall you criticizing Obama’s refusal to release documents pertaining to Fast & Furious. Could there be something they wanted to hide there Mr. Will?

    And re: business acumen, considering that you have collected a paycheck signed by someone else your entire life, I seriously question your own business acumen particularly when criticizing someone who signs his own paycheck. And you may want to brush up on BK laws, and the reason for them.

  4. Jeremiah April 10, 2018 / 9:32 am

    We took out Hussein, we took out Bin Laden, we took out Jihadi John, we need to do the same with Assad. Just drop a missile on his head, and exclaim ‘Goodby, Johnny Bob!’

  5. Amazona April 10, 2018 / 10:11 pm

    Has anyone ever actually referenced a crime, an actual crime, an actual violation of an existing law, that Trump and/or any of his “associates” actually violated?

    There has been plenty of whining, moaning, gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, by outraged and frustrated Lefties who just can’t tolerate being defeated, but their complaints have always been about suspicions of Trump just doing something they didn’t think he should have done. Is there a law against talking to Russian citizens before or during a run for the presidency? No. Is there a law against talking with Russian officials before or during a run for the presidency? No. Is there a law against foreign citizens advocating for the election of any American candidate over any other? I don’t know of one. Is there a law against any foreign government advocating for the election of any American candidate over any other? I don’t know of one. Should there be? Maybe so. So write one and pass one.

    Is there a law against a presidential candidate promising some kind of favorable treatment to a foreign nation after an election? Not that I know of. I do know that when a sitting American president made such a promise, a recorded promise, to the official of a foreign nation the Left didn’t seem particularly upset by it. And no one has come up with any such promise made by Trump or anyone representing him. Should there be such a law? Maybe so. So write one and pass one.

    I have heard a lot of that whining, moaning, griping, complaining and general hysteria from the Left because they think Trump did SOMETHING, and they think whatever it was it was probably illegal, because they want it to be, so they think this vague nonspecific alleged act which is not proscribed by any law should disqualify him from the presidency. I get it. We all get it. We hear it day in and day out, stridently screeched on every alphabet channel on TV by every strident Lefty hack. But no one ever says what he DID, exactly. Or why it would be illegal. It all just seems so wrong to them, that he won the election, and that vague sense of wrongness has to mean something, doesn’t it?

    But still, no actual crime has been named. No statute referenced by its name or number has been cited. Casper, the old school teacher, ought to know, wouldn’t you think? What with all his book larnin’ and study of the politics of this country and all. So speak up, Cappy. Tell us what “crimes” you think Trump might have committed, related to the election.

    • Cluster April 11, 2018 / 8:19 am

      Exactly. Over a year of intense investigations and still NO CRIMES. Yet the soviet style investigations cheered on by Democrats continues. With feces in the streets of CA, endless investigations in DC, and crime out of control in blue states IL and MA, the Democrats sure do have a vision for America don’t they? Hell of a party you subscribe to Cap.

      • Amazona April 11, 2018 / 10:17 am

        They not only have not FOUND a crime, they haven’t even identified a crime, by name, statute number or any other identifier so we know exactly what the “crime” IS. They just toss out the word “crime” often enough to get some people used to hearing it, which leads to their acceptance of the idea that there actually is something formally identified as a crime, whether or not anyone has been accused of it.

        Meeting with a foreign spy, for example, is not, in and of itself, a crime. You can meet with someone who is not known to you as a spy for another nation or even with one you know is a spy. You can talk about all sorts of things with this spy. You can exchange recipes, you can talk about bird-watching or if the Tesla is worth the money. You can even talk about politics. If you are a member of the Trump team you can even tell a spy you hope that if Trump is elected he will have a good relationship with the spy’s country. You can ask the spy if he has any advice on how to improve relations with his country. You don’t cross a line unless and until you engage in an actual illegal activity, such as offering confidential information to the spy, or offering to do so, or something of that nature. A “spy” or an “agent” can be a legitimate businessman 95% of the time, and only occasionally do some covert work for his country, but who is also knowledgeable about problems or issues of that country that he thinks the leader of another nation should know about it. The possible legitimate, important, legal reasons someone can meet with someone from another country—–government official, full time spy, part time agent, whatever—-are countless. When such a meeting becomes illegal, that illegality is spelled out in a statute which identifies the action and states it to be illegal. Certainly if the FBI learns of this contact it makes sense for them to investigate it, but even then they have to know what they are looking for. Not just something that doesn’t feel right, but something specific that is specifically and clearly defined as illegal.

        All we get from the howling left is a lot of noise about how someone on Trump’s team might have had a conversation with someone from Russia who might or might not have been an agent, status known or not known to the American, during the campaign or after the election, topic of alleged conversation unknown, with the words “crime” or “impeachment” or “treason” scattered throughout the complaint to spice it up.

        What I keep asking is, WHAT CRIME? What, exactly, was illegal about what activity? Start there, before even trying to prove that the activity occurred. Assume it did, just to move things along, and then name the statute that is allegedly being violated!

        This is what drives me crazy. Even the screeching about COLLUSION !!!!! hasn’t resulted in naming any actual existing crime that may or may not have been committed. Collusion to do certain things might certainly be illegal, but the certain thing has to be spelled out.

        If Russia tried to influence an American election, what can we do about it? Go to Russia and arrest someone for doing something we can’t even define or explain? We might not like it, we might find it offensive, we might find it offensive enough to sanction Russia for being part of it, we might learn from it and take steps to keep it from happening again—but we are using an American agency to look into what someone from another country might or might not have done, not with the goal of uncovering weaknesses in our system to repair them but to…….to what? In this case, to try to use this vague sense of wrongness to undermine a presidential election and the office of the presidency, to cripple the president and distract him from his job, and to get rid of him if at all possible—while never being able to point to a real, existing, tangible, identified CRIME he allegedly committed. Or knew about. Or was party to. Or committed by someone else who happened to work with him. Or knew by someone who knew someone who knew someone who worked for him.

        Yes, I agree, it just feels WRONG to have our processes manipulated by people for their own interests. But without a specific statute, without a specific law already in place that identifies this as a specific crime, all we can do is not like the fact that it happened.

        But it’s not that no one has found anyone guilty of committing a crime—it’s that no actual crime has even been identified.

      • Cluster April 11, 2018 / 10:44 am

        Let’s contrast two recent investigations – Benghazi and Russia. In the Benghazi investigation we learned, among other things, that Hillary Clinton used an off site, unsecured server to conduct her StateSec business, and then hastily deleted emails when subpoened. We also learned the Sid Blumenthal was in Libya giving advice to Hillary, violating the Presidents direct order that Mr. Blumenthal not be involved in any State Dept. role. In spite of this, the media mocked the investigation, and reporters repeatedly asked Loretta Lynch and James Comey when they would bewrapping up the investigation.

        The Russia investigation on the other hand has yet to find a crime, let alone even identify a crime and the media is breathlessly anticipating Mueller’s next move and shouting from the rooftops that the investigation MUST CONTINUE.

        That’s the current state of our country. Pretty sad.

      • Amazona April 11, 2018 / 3:39 pm

        Don’t forget that the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, had refused to send certain arms to rebels in Syria for fear they would be used against Americans if A-Q or Isis got hold of them. So Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged for a secret shipment of those same arms through Libya. They were acquired by either A-Q or Isis, I forget which, and one of the Stinger missiles was used to shoot down an American helicopter. Because the terrorists had not properly armed the missile it didn’t explode, though it was enough to bring down the helicopter, and there were fragments big enough to find a serial number, identifying the missile as one provided through Clinton. It was an effort to recover the rest of these arms before they were used, again, against Americans, that put Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards in harm’s way, and the secretiveness of that mission is one reason Clinton refused to send them help when they were attacked.

        In other words, this would have been a very long and very complicated investigation, with a lot of witnesses and a lot of testimony. What have we seen? Very little, and that only regarding part of the secret server issue.

      • Cluster April 11, 2018 / 4:10 pm

        That is a bone chilling time line account of Benghazi. The depth of corruption and deception on behalf of the Clintons and the Obama’s, including Rice, Lynch, Holder, Powell, etc. is mind numbing. And the effort to overlook, disinfect, and sanitize those corrupt people is job #1 of Comey, Mueller, and all Deep State actors….aided and abetted by corporate media.

        I believe we are on the precipice.

      • Amazona April 11, 2018 / 8:15 pm

        I am reading a book by Howard Kurtz about the media savaging of Trump and seeing it all in print, from day to day, the attacks and lies and insults, is very disturbing. I just hope he can hang in there. A lot of his injuries are self-inflicted and one thing stands out in the book—that his rashness has enabled a lot of what has happened. It doesn’t excuse it by any means, but it has given the media things to pick at and focus on. I think if he can remain steadfast and even stop being so self-destructive things will start to turn around. The midterms are crucial. You are right, we are close to a precipice, but I think the tide is slowly turning. But someone has to rein in Mueller and his crew. They can’t continue this no-boundaries raiding, looting and pillaging. One might think that Trump could, or his DOJ could, issue guidelines to Mueller and remind him that he has one specific charter and he has to stick to it.

      • Cluster April 12, 2018 / 8:12 am

        I have noticed that the media is now calling the Mueller investigation a “probe”. An investigation is specific. A probe is broad and unspecific. And that is where we are. That is who the Democrats have become. Relentless fascists.

      • Amazona April 12, 2018 / 11:16 am

        You can look at that media use of the word “probe” in a couple of ways. One is that they are finally saying something that is true, which would be refreshing (though depressing if we reflect on how seldom it happens) and the other is that it is a purposeful first step in semantic creep, getting the definition of Mueller’s charter gradually redefined to validate his partisan free-form witch hunt, looking for any offense any conservative might have committed in the last few decades. I hope all prominent conservatives are checking their book shelves to make sure there are no long-overdue library books, or they too will be facing the Star Chamber of Mueller prosecution.

      • fieldingclaymore April 12, 2018 / 4:25 pm

        Lying to the FBI is a crime, ask Gen Flynn.

      • Amazona April 12, 2018 / 6:03 pm

        Or Scooter Libby, though I think his “lie” was just to the special counsel, maybe not to the FBI. He just had a different memory of when something happened than a different witness, and once the arbitrary decision was made that the other guy was right Libby got hit with a prison sentence, etc.

      • Cluster April 13, 2018 / 11:23 am

        Lying to the FBI is NOT a crime. Ask Hillary Clinton

  6. Cluster April 11, 2018 / 8:53 am

    As usual American Thinker nails it:

    Can’t find any collusion between Trump and Russia? Hey, why not look for collusion between Cohen and professional whore and porn star Stormy Daniels? Was she paid to go away with campaign funds? Even so, that’s an FEC violation punishable by a fine and something that does not require a SWAT team.

    It certainly does not compare with money funneled by Team Hillary and the DNC though a law firm to Fusion GPS and British foreign agent Christopher Steele to put together a fake dossier on Trump using Russian sources. But where were the raids on the offices of the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and Fusion GPS?

    This is the FBI of Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok, whose mission was to keep Hillary Clinton out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House. They never raided the home and office of Cheryl Mills, did they? They never raided Hillary’s house or seized the acid-washed server, did they? But Michael Cohen is a threat to our democracy warranting brute force? Why wasn’t Michel Cohen offered the immunity deal given to Cheryl Mills and other Clinton cronies:

    What the Democrats are doing is more of a threat to this country then Syria, Russia, Iran, or North Korea could ever pose. Democrats are THE real threat to this country.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/guess_whose_house_wasnt_raided_by_the_fbi.html#ixzz5CMrB4HSN

  7. Jeremiah April 11, 2018 / 9:16 am

    I like what that guy said on Hannity the other night, he said “Democrats don’t care about infidelity, it’s all about taking Trump down.”

    Which is just common sense for all intents and purposes. They will go to any length, height, or depth to remove President Trump from office.

    Infidelity is nothing major to Democrats, they not only approve of infidelity, they encourage infidelity. But, when it comes to someone they don’t like, oh the sky is falling, and something must be done.

    I will say that our freedom is in grave danger if we continue to allow Democrats to get away with their illegal searches and seizures.

  8. Cluster April 12, 2018 / 9:21 am

    Remember when the COMPLETELY DISHONEST media didn’t like the FBI? That was when Democrats were under the microscope. Here are some laughable reminders:

    Comey’s Decision “Worst Possible Situation for…the Country”

    “This is just the worst possible situation for the FBI, for the country, for Hillary Clinton certainly….If she’s elected, she has to live with James Comey who has a ten-year term. That is a very hostile situation and a dangerous situation.” — Correspondent Andrea Mitchell on NBC’s Meet the Press, October 30, 2016.

    Did Comey Forever Destroy FBI’s Credibility?

    “A lot of Democrats are incensed by James Comey’s actions. Dianne Feinstein, senator Dianne Feinstein, called his actions ‘appalling.’ Howard Dean, former Democratic candidate for president, says, quote, ‘He may have destroyed the credibility of the FBI forever. Put himself on the same side as Putin.’ Do you agree with that?” — Moderator George Stephanopoulos to Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine on ABC’s This Week, October 30, 2016.

    Did they forget they said those things? Or do they hope we forgot they said those things?

  9. Amazona April 12, 2018 / 12:37 pm

    As usual, VDH nails it:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/robert-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-crossroads/

    He lays out options for Mueller, and three of them require him to stop focusing on Trump and Trump associates and acting like a legitimate investigator, while one—-the path he is on now—-shows him to be a partisan hack abusing his position to advance Dem causes and swing the midterms.

    I hope Mueller reads this article.

  10. Amazona April 12, 2018 / 1:49 pm

    Because we’re not allowed to win. Think about it. Do you really think a few thousand Jihadist/drug dealers could really withstand us for 17 years if we were serious about winning?

    No, of course not. But just as any fighting force is weakened by having to fight on two fronts, ours has to deal with opposition at home, crippling its ability to succeed. It will take another 9/11 to energize Americans enough to be willing to seriously fight, and when and if that happens we need to be ready to act immediately and decisively. The year-long dithering leading up to the invasion of Iraq let the Left build up opposition to action, while weakening our position.

    When we talk about the gas attacks in Syria, have any of the media mentioned that this weapon was probably provided by Iraq during the year our satellites recorded convoy after convoy of tractor-trailer rigs going from known WMD factories across the Syrian border? Or the sworn testimony of the former Iraqi official about one of the two permitted “passenger” planes allowed in and out of Iraq being stripped of seats and outfitted with racks and brackets to hold large tanks of what he thought were WMD, to be taken across the border?

    No, or if this has been mentioned it has been ignored, because this would undermine the narrative —-now parroted by many on the Right—-that there were no WMD in Iraq to justify that invasion.

    There might have been legitimate reasons for that year-long delay. I always thought it was Bush trying to build up a solid consensus for invasion to protect him from being attacked for invading, even though it turned out that the same people who repeatedly voted to invade and provided what he thought would be a bulletproof defense turned on him and there was no flack for them doing so. There might have been reasons we didn’t know, about weakness of the military, need for time to develop additional weapons or do more training. We may never know. But we DO know that during this year known WMD factories were shipping their contents to Syria, even though the Left wants us to forget this because it conflicts with their “no WMD” mantra.

  11. Amazona April 12, 2018 / 2:00 pm

    We don’t just need people who can connect the dots. We need people who can recognize a dot when they see it. We need people who don’t let others erase dots, or camouflage them by changing them to stars or bunnies. We need people who recognize patterns and analyze them, reveal them, and act on them.

    This is why the Left is so dedicated to erasing history, and to savaging people who try to learn from it. The Left wants each dot to stand alone, not related to any other, so no one can see a pattern or remember an entire story. To the Left, when one moves from one dot to another, the last dot just disappears, so if the person looks back over his shoulder he sees only blankness. They don’t want a path to emerge, linking one event to another to another, because those paths inevitably lead to proofs of misdeeds, lies and often criminality on the part of the Left.

    Look at how the Left tries to isolate events. Illegal server? A single isolated event so no big deal. Death of an ambassador in Libya? A single isolated event so no big deal. Gas attack in Syria? A single isolated event so no big deal. Bogus dossier paid for by the Dems? A single isolated event so no big deal. And so on.

    But they spend a lot of time inventing dots they then try to connect, so a businessman who knows some Russian businessmen, who also supports Trump, suddenly becomes a conspiracy, collusion between Trump and the whole Russian government, and an illegal act that deprived Hillary of her rightful role as the next chapter of the Obama Legacy.

  12. Amazona April 12, 2018 / 5:59 pm

    I’m boxing up some books in preparation for a painting project and ran across one I bought but never read. Just glancing through it I can already tell it is a book you all would like. ( “You all” clearly doesn’t include Casper, because the book is about Caspers.) It is called The Kindergarden of Eden —How The Modern Liberal Thinks and why he’s convinced that ignorance is bliss. It is by Evan Sayet, and I want to fully recognize him and the book because I want to quote a couple of things from it.

    Chapter 1 is titled THE IDEOLOGUES AND THE BRAIN DEAD and begins “First it must be understood that there are, in fact, two kinds of Modern Liberals—the True Believer and his Mindless Foot Soldier. This is easy to miss since there is absolutely no difference between the two when it comes to the policies they support or oppose or in the rhetoric they employ in their efforts. They both follow the laws and the corollaries of the Unified Field Theory in every way, and they each end up working, only and always, on behalf of all that is evil, failed and wrong and against all that is good, right and successful.

    Later he says “…..take a second and try to think of a single argument that the Modern Liberal offers regarding any issue that doesn’t consist in its entirety of “we’re right because (our grandiose self-esteem tells us) we’re morally and intellectually superior, and anyone who disagrees with us is (1)stupid, (2) bigoted, (3) phobic, (4) greedy or (5) evil.” The truth is, you can’t name one. Not one. Seriously, try it.”

    Sayet mentions early in the book that a lecture he gave a few years ago called “How The Modern Liberal Thinks” and it went viral on the Internet. I haven’t had a chance to look it up—-I am supposed to be packing books, not reading them and writing about them—but I will. He presents it as an answer to his question Why do so many seemingly nice, caring, and in every other way smart people make the most ludicrous and hateful arguments on behalf of all that is evil, failed and wrong? Why is so much of their enmity aimed at all that is good, right or successful?”

    We have usually seen, when Libs have posted here, examples of the brain dead foot soldier. As we have noticed, for about 15 years no Liberal has been able to explain a coherent political philosophy, other than one who was an ardent Marxist who had studied Marxism and still found it appealing. The others, who have ranged in their ability to defend their positions from pathetic to sounding fairly bright, have still not admitted to understanding or supporting the actual political system they are enabling by their mindless allegiance to it. The author uses the term Modern Liberal to show the difference between this model and true liberalism, while I just capitalize the word Liberal to show the same thing—-that is not even related to any legitimate form of the word “liberal”, from its dictionary definition in common usage to a political philosophy.

Comments are closed.