« FDR: The Defining Moment | Main | Introducing Blogging! »

May 05, 2006



Hi Monica,

The new look looks good. And if you're becoming a blogophiliac, even better.


Walid Phares wrote a great column on the Moussaoui trial this week. He explains why this was the wrong court and the wrong debate. It's on his website at walidphares.com

The False Dervish

Good day, Monica:

How are you today? Glad to see this new feature on your site! And congratuations on going national-about time, too!

Concerning Moussaoui-this is indeed a victory for him and a defeat for the USA by not sentancing him to death. There is only one language that terrorists (and other enemies of our nation)understand...The Language of Death. Even if it part of their ethos, we should oblige them by killing them, whether it be on the battle field, or prounouncing the death sentence in the courts. By not acting forcefully at every opportunity, the terrorists see us as weak, without resolve. Remember what they say about themselves: "You choose life while we choose death."

We should oblige them accordingly.

BTW-Monica, it is I, Sal from MFEMFEMF (I hope you remember me!) I use a different name while blogging and posting.


Tyical redstate garbage, Dervish.

Very disappointed in you, Monica, for not seeing this clearly. You spent a big part of tday's show on how we should not treat terrorist activities as a criminal matter, when the evidence is stark and glaring by the dismal failure of our occupation in Iraq and the resulting massive (and growing) Anti-American insurgency that there IS no military response to terror: It is an act performed by civilian irregulars, and therefore our tanks, APC's, and Air Force have no adequate response other than using ordnance and missions that create terrible collateral civilian damage that further fuels the fire.

It's just plain stupid: You get stung by a gnat, and you smash in the side of your face with a sledge hammer.

President Clinton had EXACTLY the right response: Give it to the courts, and show these terrorists up for exactly what they are: criminal vermin who deserve to rot in some obscure prison after a show of American Justice, not soldiers, not patriots, and especially not martyrs.

Even Monica's best internationalist friend and contributor, Frank Gaffney, agrees that terrorism is not a problem that even the world's best military can solve.

The problem in Iraq and the Middle East is quite simple: because of our entanglement with oil interests, we cannot afford to provide Justice there, and until we provide Justice, we will never have Peace.


Congratulations Dear Monica.
Thank you Jake for your wonderfuil website-redesigning & the blogging option.

I shall put your blog on my page to 'spread the word around even more'.

As to fanatical liberals' illusion of "If we'll just be 'nice' (aka SOFT) to the Islamists they'll behave".
Israel learned it the hard way in Lebanon where they were welcoming the Israelis with candies and cheers in 1982 as rescuers from the 'palestestinian' murderers [search: "Damour"] trouble makers that turned Lebanon upsdide down, then quickly the "natruarl" radical Arab racism & Islamic Jihadism sunk in, the Israelis were demonized and the Iranian Islamic backed Hezbullah terrorists are so stroibg now there, that the Lebanese Christians that were protected by the Israeli "infidels" are shivering even to voice a sigh over every other Syrian/Iranian assassination upon their community.

We in the US [did not learn it in Somala & in Bosnia helping the Muslims, so much for us "provoking them"...] are learning it in Iraq, after saving their skin from beneath the boots of the butcher of Baghdad, closing down the torrure chambers and stopping the 'millions of victims' [ http://massgraves.info ] , still we are hated by them, ever more so.

Because it's a matter of their radical twisted educating to 'hate us no matter what', especially us the USA the backbone and the main power of the "infidels", (or as the radical Islam calls other faiths: 'appes & pigs').

I agree whole heartedly with Monica that they despise our benevolance as they despise Israel's give away of their own land (to the people that call themselves "palestinians", who's most ancestory does not date back more than the 1880's http://palestinefacts.org) as signs of weakness and get only more motivation to continue their Satanic crusade.

Good luck Monica & Jake.

Keep! It! Up!

http://lightonthings.blogspot.com - The Reality Show

The False Dervish


I would be VERY DISAPPOINTED if Monica DID NOT treat terrorism as an act of war!

What I have signaled is not typical redstate garbage. It is cold, hard reality.

Appeasement, defeatism, kumbyeyaism, burkaism, rationalization, is blue state garbage...AND WILL GET US KILLED.

I did not listen to Monica's program today because the timer on my tape recorder did not work (I know, Monica, it is indeed a sacriledge!), but I have been listening to her since her first broadcast when she was on every night, so I have a pretty good idea of what she said...AND MONICA IS CORRECT CONCERNING TERRORISM.

The terrorists are nothing but low-like, murderous, toilet bowl water drinking animals.

The terrorists have declared holy war in the west. Since they call it a holy WAR, then I have to assume that we are at WAR. They did not declare a holy CRIME against the west, but a holy WAR. You have used the term irregular civilians. Is that not a term used during WAR? Have you ever heard a news broadcast announcing the arrest of "irregular civilians" for bank robbery, or rape, or arson? Indeed, I have never heard a news report about an "irregular civilian" being arrested for flashing Grandma in Central Park. HAVE YOU?

If we are experience a dismal failure in Iraq, then how do you explain the formation of a new government and how do you explain the people voting despite terrorist attempts to stop them? Granted, whoever thinks that ANY war is a cake walk is indeed foolish. But you cannot deny the existence of a new government, of the voting, and also of new hospitals and schools that were constructed.

Collateral damage? Yes, that is being done in great length by the terrorists.

You say that we get stung by a gnat and we smash in the side of our face with a sledge hammer. You have it wrong. We get stung by the gnat and we smash in THEIR face with a sledge hammer.

Clinton was wrong for classifying terrorism as a criminal act. He did not want to deal with terrorism in any other way. It was easier for him to throw the situation at the courts when the WTC had that explosion back in the early 1990's. And do not forget that Clinton's Administration was dangerously negligent and gleefully derelect of duty (but not of booty). Perhaps he could have done so much good as President if he at least kept to the middle as he originally presented himself. Terrorists train themselves for hardship. They welcome hardship. Solitary confinement means nothing to the hardcore terrorists. They welcome death and judge us as weak when we do not engage them and kill them. Remember what they say: "The difference between you and us is that you choose life and we choose death." Moussaoui stated that he won and America lost. Why? Because we failed to demonstrate resolve in destruction of the enemy which is terrorists. I do not care what their ethos is. When we have the chance to kill a terrorist whether it be on the battlefield or giving out the death sentance (and the death sentance is not to be taken lightly, it is a serious matter), and we do not do so, then we are classified as being weak. Strength, power, the resolve to do what one sets out, and the resolve to do what must be done is what is understood, respected, and even feared in the Middle East.

Frank Gaffney says that not even the world's best military can solve the problem of terrorism? He is correct. It is not for the military to solve the problem of terrorism...it is for the military to DESTROY terrorism. Problem solving is a job for diplomats.

Finally, you say that because of our entanglement with oil interests, we cannot afford to provide justice, and without justice, there can be no peace. First of all, the entire Middle East is an oil interest. Many of those countries exist because of their oil, hence the creation of OPEC, and hence their great wealth and involvement in commerce. Other countries have oil countries over there, so why is it wrong that America has oil companies over there. Secondly, it is not our purpose to provide justice to anyone. We are there to destroy terrorism. Justice will be provided by the government of Iraq (see the trial of Sadamn-it Hossain going on). Thirdly, you say until we provide justice, we can never have peace. You have it sideways. There can be no peace until there is freedom...freedom from terrorists. With the terrorists destroyed, then there will be peace. After all, how can you enjoy peace when you ARE NOT FREE TO ENJOY IT?

Remember, two things happened on 9/11:the world became frightened at the destruction of the WTC, and the world became more frightened AND angry when President Bush responded.

Well, I must go now. Please forgive any incomplete sentences and incoherent thoughts as I had to scroll back and forth to read what you have signaled, Wellstone, and I fear that I have lost my place from time to time.

It was a pleasure signaling you.

Ending transmission.


Tripe, Dervish.

Every one of your adolescent talking points is a regurgitated right-wing non-sequitur, and you really do make me laugh when you post garbage like this:

"...It is not our purpose to provide Justice to anyone..."

Well said, Dervish, well said.

We have failed to bring Justice to anyone. That's why we're in the fix we're in.

Like the buffoons in our administration, all it takes is letting you talk to show what end results a condescending, evil, and incompetent point of view brings to this world.

Tom TB

Wellstone, I worked at both World Trade Center Towers for the Port Authority of NY&NJ, and I would have been murdered on 2/26/93, as well as on 9/11, had I been in the RIGHT place at the wrong time. These people want us dead, and you are included! Quit Bush-bashing, and join us to defend OUR country!

The False Dervish


"Tripe, adolescent,regurgitated right wing non-sequitur, garbage, condescending, evil, and incompetent point of view."

Well, well, Wellstone. Looks like you pass the liberal test of hurling insults when you hardcore lib/Dem people (and you people ARE YOU PEOPLE, and don't you forget it) can't prove your point. Another demonstration of the philosophy of tolerant INTOLERANCE from your side of the political aisle. But, I forget, YOU people have double standards to live up to...just like Ali McBeal does!

If I agree with Pres Bush or a Republican, or a conservative, I speak garbage, tripe, and have an evil, incompetent point of view. But, when YOU people cheer on Al Gore who accuses Pres Bush of treason and screams so loud that you would think that Gore got a certain part of his anatomy stuck in his zipper, and tries to sound like Jessie Jackson preaching away, that demonstrates high intellect on your part, right?

When Hillary Clinton made the "planation" comment, that was OK, despite the fact that was an insult to my ethnic roots (I will let you figure our which root I am referring to) it is OK for YOU people to praise her because she was just using her keen analytical skills to describe the Washington situation, even though the purpose of her remarks was to stir the racial pot, right? And her skills just happen to be on the same level as the keen analytical skills of YOU people, right?

When Pres Clinton decided to give authority to the Commerce Dept concerning vital satellite technology to be given to China (in 1996)despite warnings not to do so, it was OK for YOU people to praise him because he was just improving commerce right? Oh, and let us not forget that there was "no controlling legal authority" to prevent him and Gore from his fund raising activities from INSIDE the White House which YOU people accepted because it made perfect sense when Pres Clinton and VP Gore explained it that way, right? When the The Times decided to leak the story about wiretap capabilities and any other techiques we use to hunt down terrorists and YOU people praise those leaks despite the harm it can cause our national security, that is OK because the people (and the terrorists) need to know what is going on, right?

I have my opinion, and you have your LSD induced delusion, along with your tolerant intolerance philosophy, and your rudeness.

The next time you go outside by yourself and if you encounter terrorists, be sure to tell them that you have a man's permission to be outside by yourself (in fact, there might be a burka sale in your neighborhood).

If God forbid you ever become a victim of crime, remember that there was "no controlling legal authority" to prevent it, so do not blame the criminal.


First, to Tom:

It matters little where you work, or worked on 911. You want to match 911 credentials? I am a native New Yorker, and my wife was on the last subway before the attack, and I walked over the 59th street Bridge into what was considered a possible watr zone to look for her. That doesn't mean squat in terms of the future, or how to plan a strategy to prevent future 911's.

Many people want us dead, the US has been a target of evildoers since our birth as a Nation.

I am not going to cower under my bed and fear any man, or any Nation. I walk in freedom, blessed with it by the blood and sacrifice of patriots.

And I will not give up one iota of that freedom to George W Bush or any of his cult following.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those willing to give up essential liberty in exchange for a little safety will end up with neither liberty, nor safety."

Warrantless wiretapping, secret propaganda wars ON AMERICANS run by the Pentagon, the highest lvel of secrecy by any Administration ever, ongoing lies, misleads, propaganda, political manipulation of all war issues, news, and policies.

These are not American values, nor American liberties.

And you cannot deny these Bush policies and tactics have made us LESS safe, by any measure you want: Annual terrorist attacks around the world, lives lost to terror around the world, look up the recent State Department report on terror, a report that was HELD UP for weeks because they did not want to publish the sad truths in it.

PLEASE do not respond with "Well,we have no had a repeat of 911 under Bush" as if that was some kind of accomplishment.

We have not had a meteor strike us either, and that is as equally beyond Bush's control as our current safety.


ANd to the whirling Dervish, spining Right-wing NewsMax WorldNetDaily talking points and shock stories in a little Bush-cult circle of his own making:

I am PROUD to be one of YOU PEOPLE, meaning one of WE THE PEOPLE who like the fact that, as Stephen Colbert said during his delicious roast reality has a Liberal Bias.

It only took you two posts to start Clinton-bashing, didn't it?

I have no reason whatsoever to tolerate you, except for the fact you are such a little caricature you kmake me laugh.

You are a cult follower, and have provided little of value so far except standard right-wing dogma and propaganda.

At least Monica is beautiful and charming. What do YOU have?


Tom TB

Well, Wellstone, we can share our commonalty as native New Yorkers, and unite in our fight against a common enemy, that would like nothing better than to see us divided. The Islamo-murderers don't care what song we are singing, they just want to kill us, and will, unless we stop them,or kill them first. Monica, I never miss a Saturday without you on WABC!

The False Dervish

WhatEVER you say, Wellstone.

I notice that it only took you ONE POST to begin insulting me because I do not think your way, right?

When I point out Pres Clinton's errors (and I still believe that he could have done wonders for this country), that is Clinton bashing, right? But when you point out Pres Bush's errors (and he has made a lot of them, no question about it) you are not bashing, you are making a keen and fair observation, right?

Nice double standards you practice.

And I notice how you increase your insults when I defend myself. I guess you are not used to dealing with people who stand up to you, right?

As far as what do I have as compared to Monica's beauty and charming ways, feminine beauty and charm DO NOT apply to me since I am not a woman, so your second-rate insult/question is foolish. But, based on your writings and temperment, I can see what you DO NOT have.

But, my life could be more difficult...after all, I could BE YOU!

LOL, LOL right back at you.

Monicamemo.com Webmaster

Hello everyone-- let's avoid personal attacks on this blog, and stick to the issues. Otherwise, we'll be forced to restrict usage. There's plenty to debate without getting nasty. Thanks!


Webmaster, point taken. I do not mean to insult our charming hostess, or the fancy new digs she's moved into.

Tell that Whirling Dervish Sal to keep a civil tongue in his head, please.

He started this, as freeper right-wing trolls always do.

As Senator Paul Wellstone showed this world before he was taken from us, Liberals can fight, fight well, and we will win. The days of Liberal bashing are over.

Tom, thanks for your kind words. You are an intelligent man who will obviously contribute something to this debate, and this nice place.

I am a French-loving, war-protesting, elitist Ivy League intellectual and professor who also happens to have a belt in karate, plays a Steve Nash-John Stockton style point guard, plays to a single-digit golf handicap, runs marathons, and worked in the past as a garment factory floor and held a warehouseman's union card for awhile.

I am humble, polite, and tolerant to all but right wing ideologues, liars, and sycophants.

These I will fight like the Marine I once was, proud part of the 2/4 2nd Battalion 4th Marines, the "Magnificent Bastards" as a Combat Engineer in a company which served in Kuwait until I left the service in 1992.

Do not mess with me.

The False Dervish

Understood, Jake.

Please be sure to inform Wellstone that it works both ways.

And it was HE who started this with his intolerance, not me.

Civility begets civility. Rudeness begets rudeness.

And as for you, Wellstone, I say the following: You have stated a lot of interesting things about your accomplishements and what you adhere to. Well, good for you.

Do not be so quick to decide that I am some hardcore conservative, a lacky of Pres Bush or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps you will find that the people who will eventually join this message board are more conservative than I am.

You love the French. Fine! The French people are OK, it is the French govt that appears to be the problem.

You are an elitist Ivy League intellect and a professor? Great! As far as I am concerned, that is not a crime. Does that make you smarter than me? I do not know. Maybe you are. Who cares?

Union card holder/working class hero,eh? Not a problem. Been there, done that (general laborer-construction).

Liberals can fight well and win? Well, who says they should not do so and cannot do so? Indeed, with the way the Republicans are right now (for the most part), I would be surprised if Dems do not win back some seats come election time. You never know.

You say you are an ex-combat Marine and Karate belt holder? Those are difficult accomplishments, to be sure. God only knows the number of horrors you have seen on the battle field. I am not a Marine, I do not hold a Karate belt, nor do I pretend such things. But, I have learned that a person does not have to be a Marine to have a Marine attitude...AND I DO NOT FEAR YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE, AND I DO NOT CARE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE ME OR NOT.

I will always demand that terrorists should be killed quickly and skillfully without bravado and fanfare. And I will never support policies that weaken our nation, pervert the Constitution and Bill of Rights (and neglects those fine documents), and give an advantage to the enemy. And I will never tolerate double standards.

So, insult me all you wish. Call every name you desire. Fight like a Marine to disagree with me, or anyone else for that matter. Just be certain that you do a proper job of it. My reading time is valuable.

That's all. Ending transmission.

The False Dervish

BTW-You are a war protestor? Excellent! There is nothing fun, enjoyable, or desirable about ANY war. But as long as our troops are engaged in a war, I will support them AND the war. Such is my right to do so, and do so I shall.

The False Dervish


Hmmmm...interesting analysis. Well, I do not think myself worthy much anything, but who knows?

All I can say is...stay tuned...same Monica time, same Monica channel.


Regarding members of Al Qaeda, can anyone please tell me why they are not all in either of two categories:
1. actively being interrogated for intel
2. being killed as the enemy they have left no doubt they are?

If anything, I wish this country was MORE aggressively pursuing the enemy. I wish the president had used Trident 2 assets to eradicate all known or suspected Afghani-based Al Qaeda training camps within days of the Taliban's refusal to hand him over.

If the President ever concedes a mistake, I hope it is not handling Moussaoui in the Military Tribunals. Moussaoui should be executed by either shot by firing squad or (better yet) hung as was proper for captured spies during the 18th century. I prefer hanging since Moussaoui was not in uniform and therefore, to my mind, qualifies as an enemy spy and sabatour.

The False Dervish

Good day, Lane:

I am not an expert in CIA and military intel operations, but I think that it is a pretty sure thing that our guys are interrogating the terrorists as aggresively as possible.

Sadly, our troops, to a certain extent, have to fight this war like a gentlemen's war, so to speak. Same thing with interrogations. Our troops are only permitted do so much. This is NOT to say to let them run around like murdering, torturing, beheading maniacs (like the terrorists are doing), but because some of our Bill of Rights have been confered to the enemy (something that has never been done before during wartimes)and other forms of sensitivity (no loud music, no sleep deprivation, etc.,)it is difficult for them to more be aggresive than permitted. And if the tiniest incident happens that might OFFEND or EMBARASS the enemy, then there is a whole congressional investigation.

Indeed, I think that our troops are facing MORE restraint than during WW II, and Korea. Some Vietnam vets have told me that there were daily reminders on what they can do and cannot do, and they felt that those regulations greatly hampered their efforts to really stick it to the communists.

That is how I see it, but, then again, I am not an expert.



It looks like my post was deleted, and with no explanation. If that's the way this site is to be managed, I do not think it's for me---despite a long-time fondness for Monica. I expected better (and found you spirited, too.) I wouldn't post where I don't feel welcome.


Although Wellstone might take the prize for personal insults, his thoughts at least appear to be those of his own—as opposed to mirroring a party line. Personally, I think that it is philosophically absurd to label oneself, so I don't call myself left or right, but I will say this: It is much easier and less admirable to automatically fall in line with the thoughts of leaders than it is to think for oneself. (Those that fall victim to such automatic indoctrination are usually unaware that they have been bullied, manipulated and/or frightened into it.) And Armchair quarterbacking our flesh and blood warriors could be considered by a reasonable person to be almost immoral.
Mind you, I do not totally eschew armchair quarterbacking—especially when it comes to putting a check on those in power who willy-nilly send our troops into mortal danger and think nothing of trashing our constitutional and homeland freedoms.

The False Dervish


Providing that I understand you correctly, your point is that anyone who agrees with Pres Bush or Conservatives either totally or partially is simply not thinking for oneself, but if a person is a liberal who agrees with Hillary, John Kerry, Al Gore without the slightest hesitation is thinking for themselves?

You are suggesting that I am not thinking for myself, yes?

I have not been bullied, or frightened, or manipulated into supporting Pres Bush on some of his policies. Indeed, I have yet to hear of any Bush supporter or conservative bullying, frightening, or manipulating anyone into supporting their policies.

But, I do know from experience what happens when I sometimes do not agree with a Democratic and/or liberal philosophy, don't I?

In what way am I behaving like a philosophical/political automaton?

And, as far as sending our troops into danger, I do not like them being there. It is a brutal situation, but let us remember that BOTH sides of the political aisle voted UNANIMOUSLY to permit Pres Bush to send out troops into Iraq. And I do not see how it was willy-nilly or blindly on both sides.

I think the irresponsibility lies in those who voted for the war and then complain that we are at war.

Am I wrong?


Ok Homeboy, let’s go.
In regard to Hilary, John and Gore, it would be pretty difficult to think the same as those three because they are vastly different in their approach to things.
Hilary is open to influence, whereas Kerry doesn’t seem to know whether he’s growin’ or shortenen. Gore on the other hand . . . who knows what he has become?

Hilary, with Barrack Obama as her running mate would get sixty percent of the vote, Republican, Independent, and Democratic.
In terms of archetypes, we would have Father Hilary and Grandmother Obama—a great team.

The Republicans could send up Milt Romney, (Patriarch of Ancient Rome), and Condelessa Rice, (Patroness of the ‘50s).

Americans must decide whether they want to end up somewhere between Ancient Rome and Elvis Presley, or in 2006 and onward.

What a thought, Hilary and Obama. They have great chemistry. They could fall in love, and make love on history right there in the Whitehouse. (Eat your hearts out, Jack and Bill.)
Washington and the country would then be under the protection of LOVE. . . LOVE. . . LOVE.
Remember the Yellow Submarine?
The Aquarian Age has begun my friend. Wake up and poke your head out from behind that Piscean moon.

You said: “I have not been bullied, or frightened, or manipulated into supporting Pres Bush on some of his policies.”

Glad to hear that. You are one of the two.

Yeah, I know, the Democrats are junkyard dogs and they’ll tear you to pieces if you approach that chopper.

So you know from experience what them nasty junkyard Democrats can do to you when you criticize them, eh? What? Did one of them brush against your shoulder when you tried to beat them through the elevator door, and they didn’t even apologize, did they? Or did they apologize too much, and make you ill?
You said, “I think the irresponsibility lies in those who voted for the war and then complain that we are at war. “
Am I wrong?


The False Dervish

"Ok Homeboy, let’s go."

Hmmmm... Yeah, man, I'm down with that (wait, didn't a certain presidential candidate say those words during the last election? No, of course not! That would be deja-vu never again, and a person should never say "never again").

Most definately Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore are three different people with different styles. It is not merely the question of simply agreeing with either of them. It is that agreeing with any of them for any reason is looked upon as independent thinking. But to even agree with Pres Bush or any conservative as to even what time it is is looked upon as blind obedience, a lack of independent thought.

I agree with your comments about John Kerry and Al Gore, but I do not agree with you about Hillary Clinton.

To be open to influence, a person must be willing to listen to other opinions without feeling threatened. During her tenure as the First Lady, she and Pres Clinton had the FBI gather some 1000 files on those who would oppose them politically and philosophically for the purpose of using such gathered personal information against them in the event of such opposition. Malcolm X stated during a news conference that people should be able to sit down at the same table and bring up what ever issues they want without the fear of insulting each other and without the fear of creating hurt feelings-the key here is being able to bring up whatever issues without fear. The gathering of those 1000 files does not convince me that Hillary is open to influence or to different opinions.

Hillary and Barrack Obama? Why not? It would be most interesting in terms of debates and campaigning. But, don't be too sure about them getting ALL the votes from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Hillary is constantly shifting from left to middle to right and back to middle then perhaps a few degrees back to the left. Her traditional support groups are criticizing her heavily (gay groups, feminists, etc). Her ratings are quite low (as of last week). For the most part, Republicans do not believe her right wing stance. But, I do think that if the Republicans senators, representatives, and congressmen do not return to those principles that get them elected to begin with, then they will lose many Republican votes. Indeed, it is very possible that the Democrats can have some major victories come election time. Don't know how the Independents will vote.

Cannot say anything about Mitt Romney as I have only seen him interviewed once or twice quite a while ago.

How is Condy Rice a patroness of the 1950's? Did she experience an Elvis sighting?

"Americans must decide whether they want to end up somewhere between Ancient Rome and Elvis Presley, or in 2006 and onward." You are quite correct about that!!! EVERY American must pay strict attention to the debates, and campaigns, concerning the upcoming elections-from someone running for local sheriff all the way up to and including the White House. The future and survival of our nation is at stake. To mimic Ancient Rome, and to introduce legislation while wearing blue suede shoes is suicide in the 21st Century and beyond.

However, I see you make references to the AGE OF AQUARIUS (is that Gerome Rado and Galt MacDermot I hear singing in the background?). And the Yellow Submarine. I never saw the Yellow Submarine, but weren't the crew was menaced by Blue (state?) Meanies? I find it interesting that you rightfully claim that Americans must choose between ending up somewhere between Ancient Rome and Elvis Presley, but your referal to the Aquarian Age and the Yellow Submarine seems to suggest that you favor a 1960's atmosphere INSTEAD of 2006 and beyond.

The Age of Aquarius and "Love...Love...Love" would be fine by me. It would be great. But, unfortunately we do not and cannot enjoy such luxuries at this time. The current political and military realities that exist during this point in our country's history do not permit it.

"So you know from experience what them nasty junkyard Democrats can do to you when you criticize them, eh? What? Did one of them brush against your shoulder when you tried to beat them through the elevator door, and they didn’t even apologize, did they? Or did they apologize too much, and make you ill?" You know exactly what I am refering to. No need to be coy. Furthermore, I am not in the habit of rushing to anywhere for the purpose of beating anyone. Indeed, if I were to rush in the manner you suggest, then it would probably be my fault for bumping into them and it would be up to me to appologize. I find it interesting that you bring up this type of situation. Are YOU in the habit of pushing your way to the head of ANY line and demanding an apology from those whom YOU bump into?

Indeed, I find that, many times, many hardcore liberal/Democrats that I have encountered (and have seen in their dealings with others) very rarely apologize for anything, and if they do apologize, they do so with hatred, with bitterness, and lack of sincerity. Not to mention the traditional cursing, insults and obscene hand gestures directed towards anyone supporting Pres Bush.

Not all Democrats and liberals are like this, of course.

Since you equated Democrats with Junkyard Dogs ("Yeah, I know, the Democrats are junkyard dogs and they’ll tear you to pieces if you approach that chopper.") Michelle Malkin's book, UNHINGED, sites numerous examples of Junkyard Dog (your term)behavior. Because I am not certain if it is legally permitted, I will not quote those examples from her book without permission even though Michelle Malkin has footnotes from various sources.

I will mention that at one or two rallies, I have seen liberal democrats give the finger and curse at Republicans and conservatives for no reason other than them being Republican, conservative, or supporting the war; and trying to steal private property, i.e., a person's American flag.

I witnessed two incidents where people pulled the "we support our troops" yellow ribbons off of cars. One incident was done by a man and a woman where I stopped them (no, I am NOT a hero). The other incident was when some guy not only pulled the ribbon off of an Army veteran's car, but tried to deface the vet's US Army Pathfinder sticker, as well. Unfortunately for that person, the owner of the car just happened to come out of the store and saw what was going on. He then quickly demonstrated just how well an Army Pathfinder can fight. The would be vandal went on his way crying for his mommy (along with a broken nose, a black eye, and possibly a fractured rib). And yes, that guy got exactly what he deserved for trying to deface that Pathfinder's private property. IF IT AIN'T YOURS, DO NOT TOUCH IT.

And finally...in your reply to my "I think the irresponsibility lies in those who voted for the war and then complain that we are at war. Am I wrong?" You simply answered "Yes."

Well, all I can say is that for those govt officials, it is a good thing for double standards. After all, if it were not for double standards, some people would not have any standards at all.


I don’t have a “Support Our Troops” ribbon on my car, because I don’t support our troops being over there. They are the hapless victims of a renegade regime in Washington. According to a recent poll over 60 % of them think they are in Iraq to retaliate for 9/11.
I find that disturbing, don’t you? They clearly have been lied to and propagandized.
Their courage, sacrifice and value is indisputable, but they have been shanghaied into a venomous and immoral act of war. Not immoral in the sense of the men responsible, not having good hearts. They do. But they suffer, individually and collectively, from Thought Disorders.
I would have asked George Bush at the very beginning, what kind of a kid was he? Was he the kind of kid who enticed or brung a neighborhood kid into his barn or cellar, only to inflict harm on him or her. Or was he the kind of kid who silently suffered the oppression of impossible standards set by a family with unquestioned integrity, but incalculable ambition and drive.
But whatever his or their personal maladjustments, and beyond the very real and imminent threat of terrorism, as a result of their ineptitude, they are creating a generation of men and women whose psyches will be permanently fractured—not to mention the emotional scars on the scores of children who will never see their fathers and mothers again, and the thousands more whose fathers, or mothers will be in wheelchairs and/or missing eyes, ears, arms, legs and other precious body parts. Those are the lucky ones—the ones who get out of the hospital. Some will be in there for the rest of their lives.

Those Guardsmen, Army, Marine, Air, and Shipmen in Iraq need to be home here in America with their families—protecting our borders, ports, airports, malls, tourist sites, trains and ships.

Why aren’t they?

Because we have elected the wrong leaders, at the wrong time—leaders who are unable to deal with terrorism and solve international disputes, other than to bully, threaten, and dispatch our best and brightest to their doom.

We spit and rage over our losses on 9/11 while millions are dying, unnecessarily in Africa, and other afflicted parts of the world.
As a nation, we should extend ourselves only to make friends, seek help, or help out when help is needed—not so much with money, but with technology, machinery, people and ideas.
Instead of simply debating with you, I challenge you to add to my starting point—broadening that benign image of America into what might be possible if things were done differently and specifically what can, practically, be done in real time, without disturbing other humans who simply want to be left alone to practice anything that doesn’t hurt or endanger any human being or animal. What values might emerge from such a dialogue?
What picture might emerge?
Wait. . . a picture is emerging. . . Bin Laden and George Bush debating each other over international TV.

Do I "Support the Troops" over there? No. But I support their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jack Flynn
May, 15, 2006

The comments to this entry are closed.