Well, there's just not enough time to opine on everything that is happening in the world right now. I've got plenty of opinions on plenty of subjects. Wordy, long-winded opinions, the kind my darling sweet husband might be accused of writing. But I won't do that to my readers (this time). Instead, I'm just going to do a quit hit-and-run post. So take a deep breath...here we go...
Hugo Chavez: He's a communist idiot who is having great fun being able to call the U.S. president, on U.S. soil, "the devil" and telling him, quite literally, that he stinks. Nice. In case you didn't know, as I didn't until this morning, Chavez owns Citgo Oil. I shall do my best to never ever use Citgo again. That'll be a good start to express how I feel about Chavez.
The U.N.: Simply put - the U.N. must go. The idea of allowing someone like Hugo Chavez to call the President of the U.S. "the devil...who smells of sulfur" while sitting in a multi-million dollar building in the U.S. is unbelieveably distasteful to me and millions of other tax-paying Americans. I no longer want any of my tax dollars to go for the support of the U.N. They are useless and they, for the most part, agree with Chavez' opinion of the U.S. and President Bush. So fine, let's just kick out the U.N. Let them find somewhere else to meet. Maybe Cuba would be a good place...or Iran.
NBC and pretty much any t.v. network: Trash, propaganda, anti-Christian in every way. NBC agreed to air Veggie Tales, a Christian cartoon with a Christian theme, then told the producer 2 weeks before it was to begin airing that all references to God and the theme Bible verse must be removed. Meanwhile, Madonna can wear a sparkly crown of thorns and "crucify" herself on a disco-ball cross with NBC's blessing and Rosie O'Donell can say that Christians are equally as bad as muslim terrorists with no regret on ABC. THEY'RE GARBAGE!!
The "Blame America First" crowd: Go join Chavez and Ahmadinejad and the anti-American U.N. in Cuba or Iran. See how you like it without America's support. Go with my blessing and good riddance, because if I hear one more person say that America brought this on ourselves, I think I'm going to explode.
Muslims and the Pope: I'll post more on this when I have a chance, but for now suffice it to say...if he was trying to prove a point, the pope could not have done a nicer job (and I'm not Catholic). Score one for the Pope. (I only wish President Bush had said it instead.)
And on a more personal note, little 2 year old Kayden is in very bad shape, with his too-young life on the line. For those who pray, pray for peace, comfort, strength and healing (in many ways).
Some days, it's all just too much.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Christina Does "Meet The Press"
Okay, I'm not proud of it, but I'll admit it...I listen to "Meet the Press" (or Meet the Depressed, as my dear husband glibbly called it yesterday) while driving home from church each Sunday. It's a half-hour commute, so I usually only hear the first 30 minutes or so, but based upon that, I have decided that I no longer need to tune in. After all, I think I've got the basic idea down pat now.
For those who are not familiar with the format of the program, let me air the typical transcript of the first 30 minutes:
Tim Russert (host): Today on Meet the Press, we'll talk with Senator Joe Biden, democrat from Delaware and the Secretary of State under the current embroiled republican administration, Condoleeza Rice. Hello and welcome to both of you today. Let me begin with Secretary of State Rice. Ms. Rice, knowing what you know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still have supported the President's decision to go to war?
Rice: Well Tim, the information we had at the time seemed credible and was circulated among several governments and believed by everyone who received the information. As a result, we felt there was a solid justification for going to war in Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans alike saw the same intelligence and voted for the war.
Russert: But knowing what you know now, that there absolutely were no WMDs, would you have supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq?
Rice: Tim, the administration was given information that was credible at the time and we were forced to make a decision...would we allow Sadam to continue to gather WMDs and hope that this brutal dictator would not use them, as he had in the past, or would we take action against a dictator who had consistently defied U.N. resolution after resolution in the hopes of stopping him before he posed a greater danger to his own people or the U.S. The choice to take the war to the enemy seemed obvious.
Russert: But Madam Secretary (full of sarcasm) there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would you still support the decision of this administration to go to war?
Rice: Well actually Tim, there were WMDs found. Perhaps they were not found in the quantities that our intelligence had indicated, but they were there in Iraq. There is also evidence that they may have been hidden or moved out of the country just prior to the U.S. invasion, so yes, I stand behind my decision, as does the President.
Russert: But there were no WMDs. Sadam didn't have stock-piles of WMDs. He had not been gathering WMDs. Knowing this, would you still have supported the administration's disastrous decision to go into a pre-emptive war with a country that had no ties with the War on Terror?
Rice: Yes, Tim, as I said before, I would still support this war, based on the intelligence we had at the time, and even now, Iraq has a much brighter future without Sadam Hussein at the helm. The Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom. Women can now vote. Children can now get an education...
Russert: But we entered into this supposed "War on Terror" with a country that had no ties to terror. What has Iraq ever done to us? Why didn't we invade Iran instead? Why didn't we try diplomacy first? Why did the President and this administration rush into a war based on faulty intelligence?
Rice: Tim, as I said before, we acted on the intelligence we had at the time, which was deemed by many, many others on both sides of the political aisle to be credible. WMDs were found and we deposed the region of a terrible dictator who did support terrorism. We had tried diplomacy through at least 17 different U.N. resolutions and sanctions, all of which Sadam ignored. We had no other option.
Russert: But the intelligence was faulty. There were no WMDs and now we are stuck in a quagmire, the likes of which have not been seen since Vietnam. Now let's talk with democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Sen. Biden, based upon what we now know for a fact, that Iraq and Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction, would you still vote for this pre-emptive war in Iraq?
Biden: Absolutely not, Tim. I believe this administration acted foolishly and did not want to listen to any critics of the plan for war. They wanted to get rid of Sadam Hussein and they used the guise of WMDs to get the American people and it's representatives in Congress behind the plan. They used faulty intelligence to make the situation appear far worse than it was and of course we believed the intelligence because we did not believe that the White House would lead us astray, yet now here we are 5 years later, stuck in a terrible situation in Iraq, with our brave young men and women in uniform dying by the thousands, because of a personal vendetta. This situation makes me sick. Of course if I had known that the intelligence was false and that there was no real plan for the war and that the situation would be this out of control, I would not have voted for the war. In fact, I think we should bring our troops home as soon as possible. This is getting ridiculous.
(Meanwhile, Condi's head explodes at the absurdity of it all.)
Well, I think you get the idea. The guests are different each week, but the topic and the questions are almost identical. Russert must not have any new ideas. Or maybe he's just stuck on stupid. That gets my vote.
For those who are not familiar with the format of the program, let me air the typical transcript of the first 30 minutes:
Tim Russert (host): Today on Meet the Press, we'll talk with Senator Joe Biden, democrat from Delaware and the Secretary of State under the current embroiled republican administration, Condoleeza Rice. Hello and welcome to both of you today. Let me begin with Secretary of State Rice. Ms. Rice, knowing what you know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still have supported the President's decision to go to war?
Rice: Well Tim, the information we had at the time seemed credible and was circulated among several governments and believed by everyone who received the information. As a result, we felt there was a solid justification for going to war in Iraq. Both Democrats and Republicans alike saw the same intelligence and voted for the war.
Russert: But knowing what you know now, that there absolutely were no WMDs, would you have supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq?
Rice: Tim, the administration was given information that was credible at the time and we were forced to make a decision...would we allow Sadam to continue to gather WMDs and hope that this brutal dictator would not use them, as he had in the past, or would we take action against a dictator who had consistently defied U.N. resolution after resolution in the hopes of stopping him before he posed a greater danger to his own people or the U.S. The choice to take the war to the enemy seemed obvious.
Russert: But Madam Secretary (full of sarcasm) there were no weapons of mass destruction. Would you still support the decision of this administration to go to war?
Rice: Well actually Tim, there were WMDs found. Perhaps they were not found in the quantities that our intelligence had indicated, but they were there in Iraq. There is also evidence that they may have been hidden or moved out of the country just prior to the U.S. invasion, so yes, I stand behind my decision, as does the President.
Russert: But there were no WMDs. Sadam didn't have stock-piles of WMDs. He had not been gathering WMDs. Knowing this, would you still have supported the administration's disastrous decision to go into a pre-emptive war with a country that had no ties with the War on Terror?
Rice: Yes, Tim, as I said before, I would still support this war, based on the intelligence we had at the time, and even now, Iraq has a much brighter future without Sadam Hussein at the helm. The Iraqi people now have a chance at freedom. Women can now vote. Children can now get an education...
Russert: But we entered into this supposed "War on Terror" with a country that had no ties to terror. What has Iraq ever done to us? Why didn't we invade Iran instead? Why didn't we try diplomacy first? Why did the President and this administration rush into a war based on faulty intelligence?
Rice: Tim, as I said before, we acted on the intelligence we had at the time, which was deemed by many, many others on both sides of the political aisle to be credible. WMDs were found and we deposed the region of a terrible dictator who did support terrorism. We had tried diplomacy through at least 17 different U.N. resolutions and sanctions, all of which Sadam ignored. We had no other option.
Russert: But the intelligence was faulty. There were no WMDs and now we are stuck in a quagmire, the likes of which have not been seen since Vietnam. Now let's talk with democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Sen. Biden, based upon what we now know for a fact, that Iraq and Sadam did not have weapons of mass destruction, would you still vote for this pre-emptive war in Iraq?
Biden: Absolutely not, Tim. I believe this administration acted foolishly and did not want to listen to any critics of the plan for war. They wanted to get rid of Sadam Hussein and they used the guise of WMDs to get the American people and it's representatives in Congress behind the plan. They used faulty intelligence to make the situation appear far worse than it was and of course we believed the intelligence because we did not believe that the White House would lead us astray, yet now here we are 5 years later, stuck in a terrible situation in Iraq, with our brave young men and women in uniform dying by the thousands, because of a personal vendetta. This situation makes me sick. Of course if I had known that the intelligence was false and that there was no real plan for the war and that the situation would be this out of control, I would not have voted for the war. In fact, I think we should bring our troops home as soon as possible. This is getting ridiculous.
(Meanwhile, Condi's head explodes at the absurdity of it all.)
Well, I think you get the idea. The guests are different each week, but the topic and the questions are almost identical. Russert must not have any new ideas. Or maybe he's just stuck on stupid. That gets my vote.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Rosie O'Donell's "View" of Christianity
I have never been a big fan of Rosie O'Donell, but I can guarantee that I will never watch, read or support anything she has a part in ever again. Her latest comments are absolutely infuriating...so much so that I really don't have the words to adequately express how I feel right now. Perhaps I should cool down first, but I don't think time will make her comments any less maddening.
According to a message from the American Family Association, Rosie O'Donell made the following comment on ABC's "The View" this week:
" 'Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state,' O'Donnell said. She had been saying that America was attacked 'not by a nation.' She continued: 'And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people.' Even her liberal co-hosts were shocked by her comments. "
The fact that even the other very liberal co-hosts of "The View" were shocked by her comments is pretty amazing. Joy Behar, who is neither conservative nor Republican, nor a supporter of this administration disagreed with O'Donell. She differentiated between the muslim terrorists and Christians by pointing out one major difference: Christians are not trying to kill anyone, much less commit mass murder, as a part of their faith. Radical muslims are. She said, " 'This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us.' Replied O'Donnell: 'No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?' "
Ummm...FALSE, Rosie! The United States of America is not off on a killing spree of innocent civilians, nor is it doing any killing in the name of Christ. The U.S. is defending itself against terrorism by seeking out muslim terrorists and capturing those they can and killing those who will not be captured, all while doing more than they sometimes should and thus putting the lives of our men and women in uniform at great risk, to avoid innocent civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the muslim terrorists routinely kill innocent civilians and hide behind women and children and in mosques in order to make their capture far more difficult.
When was the last time a Christian group did that, Rosie?
According to the AFA message, neither O'Donell nor ABC has apologized for the comments. Nor do I expect them to. After all, it's always open season on Christianity. Still, I will be emailing ABC to express my outrage at the comments and demand an apology, at least from ABC. I don't care if Rosie apologizes or not...she obviously believes what she says, so any apology would be empty.
According to a message from the American Family Association, Rosie O'Donell made the following comment on ABC's "The View" this week:
" 'Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state,' O'Donnell said. She had been saying that America was attacked 'not by a nation.' She continued: 'And as a result of the attack and the killing of 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people.' Even her liberal co-hosts were shocked by her comments. "
The fact that even the other very liberal co-hosts of "The View" were shocked by her comments is pretty amazing. Joy Behar, who is neither conservative nor Republican, nor a supporter of this administration disagreed with O'Donell. She differentiated between the muslim terrorists and Christians by pointing out one major difference: Christians are not trying to kill anyone, much less commit mass murder, as a part of their faith. Radical muslims are. She said, " 'This group (radical Muslims) is threatening to kill us.' Replied O'Donnell: 'No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?' "
Ummm...FALSE, Rosie! The United States of America is not off on a killing spree of innocent civilians, nor is it doing any killing in the name of Christ. The U.S. is defending itself against terrorism by seeking out muslim terrorists and capturing those they can and killing those who will not be captured, all while doing more than they sometimes should and thus putting the lives of our men and women in uniform at great risk, to avoid innocent civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the muslim terrorists routinely kill innocent civilians and hide behind women and children and in mosques in order to make their capture far more difficult.
When was the last time a Christian group did that, Rosie?
According to the AFA message, neither O'Donell nor ABC has apologized for the comments. Nor do I expect them to. After all, it's always open season on Christianity. Still, I will be emailing ABC to express my outrage at the comments and demand an apology, at least from ABC. I don't care if Rosie apologizes or not...she obviously believes what she says, so any apology would be empty.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Are We Serious About Winning the War?
Well, as requested by jihadi tracker, the "wordsmith" (his/her word, not mine) is back. How could I not return after such flattery? (Or was that mockery?)
I've been trying to decide what to write about for some time now. I think I have writer's block. Not the kind of lack-of-creativity writer's block, but more of the type where there are tons of topics that catch my interest, but I can't seem to get behind any of them enough to use my precious time to opine upon them. After all, I'm only alotted 2 hours of "Mom Time" per day by her royal highness, the almost 2-year-old toddler, Miss Emily.
So, after perusing the various news headlines and reading all sorts of infuriating "reports", I've decided to just go out on my own with an opinion piece. So, this one is for you, jihadi tracker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The question that has been floating around in my mind lately is this: Is America really serious about winning the war? The answer I have come up with is a resounding No. We are not serious about winning in Iraq. We are not serious about winning against illegal immigration. We are most definitely not serious about winning against islamo-facism. We are not serious about winning the moral battles here at home, either. As a whole, the nation seems content with the status quo. After all, if nobody's happy, then I guess neither side has won, right?
That's what it all comes down to in the end. We are once again so completely caught up in partisan political posturing that we are setting ourselves up for trouble. After all, hasn't this summer seemed eerily reminiscent of a summer about 5 years ago, before the single worst act of terrorism in recent history took place on American soil?
It seems to me that 5 summers' ago, American's were more preoccupied with the Chandra Levy mystery and the bitter political fight over the "illegitimate" election of President Bush than with terrorism. We never even gave it a thought.
Then September 11, 2001, happened. Suddenly, America had a new focus. We had been attacked. We had been dealt a terrible death blow. We had lost thousands of innocent civilians in an act of war. We were hurting. We were searching for answers and leadership. We were angry and we were determined to find and destroy whoever had done this to us. We were focused, determined and fairly united...for a little while.
We all agreed that we had to act, that we had to take the battle to the enemy. We all waved our flags and supported our troops and voted for the war....before it started taking too long. Then about half of us started to get impatient and in doing so, lost their focus.
Half of us continued in our support of the war and the troops and for victory. The other half grew weary of fighting and impatient, in part because they never really understood who and why we were fighting in the first place.
Over time, the discontent of the other half grew and deepened, causing a further lack of focus and political rancor became the battle of the day, instead of fighting a war for our lives.
As a result, the resolute half had to work twice as hard to pick up the slack, all the while fending off attacks from the other half who had given up on the real battle.
And so, this summer and even now, we find ourselves, our America, torn in two, with no real focus on what is truly important. Instead, our summer was filled with a preoccupation over the man who claimed he killed Jon Benet Ramsey and Tom and Katie's baby hysteria. We've spent the summer seeing which party can run the meanest campaign ads and we've argued on whether we are winning the war....all instead of trying to figure out how to win.
It's discouraging. We apparently have learned nothing.
Well, some of us learned our lesson. Some of us are still doggedly supporting our troops and our President and our country. Some of us still remember who attacked us and why we take the fight to them and why we must win and win decisively.
But the other half still hasn't figured it out. They will continue to call for our pullout in Iraq, which will be disastrous and will make all the human sacrifices of our men and women in uniform be in vain. They will continue to push for amnesty for illegal aliens, which will put our national security at risk. They will continue to bow to the muslim leadership and be too afraid to stand up to them, affording the terrorists civil rights they do not deserve and would seek to destroy for the rest of us. They will continue to push for homosexual "marriage" and abortion "rights" and free speech-so-long-as-you're-not-a-Christian rights and in doing so, further erode what makes America special. They will stand firm for all the wrong things and continue to distract the resolute half from focusing on winning the war for our future.
So, in short, we are not yet serious about winning the war. Apparently, losing over 3,000 of our innocent citizens was not enough. So what will it take? I don't think I want to know. But what I do know is this: Until we get serious about winning, until we identify and totally anihilate the enemy, we will be living in danger because the enemy is focused and determined and undistracted and they know how to use our distractions against us. I wonder when we will become that serious about this struggle for our freedom?
I've been trying to decide what to write about for some time now. I think I have writer's block. Not the kind of lack-of-creativity writer's block, but more of the type where there are tons of topics that catch my interest, but I can't seem to get behind any of them enough to use my precious time to opine upon them. After all, I'm only alotted 2 hours of "Mom Time" per day by her royal highness, the almost 2-year-old toddler, Miss Emily.
So, after perusing the various news headlines and reading all sorts of infuriating "reports", I've decided to just go out on my own with an opinion piece. So, this one is for you, jihadi tracker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The question that has been floating around in my mind lately is this: Is America really serious about winning the war? The answer I have come up with is a resounding No. We are not serious about winning in Iraq. We are not serious about winning against illegal immigration. We are most definitely not serious about winning against islamo-facism. We are not serious about winning the moral battles here at home, either. As a whole, the nation seems content with the status quo. After all, if nobody's happy, then I guess neither side has won, right?
That's what it all comes down to in the end. We are once again so completely caught up in partisan political posturing that we are setting ourselves up for trouble. After all, hasn't this summer seemed eerily reminiscent of a summer about 5 years ago, before the single worst act of terrorism in recent history took place on American soil?
It seems to me that 5 summers' ago, American's were more preoccupied with the Chandra Levy mystery and the bitter political fight over the "illegitimate" election of President Bush than with terrorism. We never even gave it a thought.
Then September 11, 2001, happened. Suddenly, America had a new focus. We had been attacked. We had been dealt a terrible death blow. We had lost thousands of innocent civilians in an act of war. We were hurting. We were searching for answers and leadership. We were angry and we were determined to find and destroy whoever had done this to us. We were focused, determined and fairly united...for a little while.
We all agreed that we had to act, that we had to take the battle to the enemy. We all waved our flags and supported our troops and voted for the war....before it started taking too long. Then about half of us started to get impatient and in doing so, lost their focus.
Half of us continued in our support of the war and the troops and for victory. The other half grew weary of fighting and impatient, in part because they never really understood who and why we were fighting in the first place.
Over time, the discontent of the other half grew and deepened, causing a further lack of focus and political rancor became the battle of the day, instead of fighting a war for our lives.
As a result, the resolute half had to work twice as hard to pick up the slack, all the while fending off attacks from the other half who had given up on the real battle.
And so, this summer and even now, we find ourselves, our America, torn in two, with no real focus on what is truly important. Instead, our summer was filled with a preoccupation over the man who claimed he killed Jon Benet Ramsey and Tom and Katie's baby hysteria. We've spent the summer seeing which party can run the meanest campaign ads and we've argued on whether we are winning the war....all instead of trying to figure out how to win.
It's discouraging. We apparently have learned nothing.
Well, some of us learned our lesson. Some of us are still doggedly supporting our troops and our President and our country. Some of us still remember who attacked us and why we take the fight to them and why we must win and win decisively.
But the other half still hasn't figured it out. They will continue to call for our pullout in Iraq, which will be disastrous and will make all the human sacrifices of our men and women in uniform be in vain. They will continue to push for amnesty for illegal aliens, which will put our national security at risk. They will continue to bow to the muslim leadership and be too afraid to stand up to them, affording the terrorists civil rights they do not deserve and would seek to destroy for the rest of us. They will continue to push for homosexual "marriage" and abortion "rights" and free speech-so-long-as-you're-not-a-Christian rights and in doing so, further erode what makes America special. They will stand firm for all the wrong things and continue to distract the resolute half from focusing on winning the war for our future.
So, in short, we are not yet serious about winning the war. Apparently, losing over 3,000 of our innocent citizens was not enough. So what will it take? I don't think I want to know. But what I do know is this: Until we get serious about winning, until we identify and totally anihilate the enemy, we will be living in danger because the enemy is focused and determined and undistracted and they know how to use our distractions against us. I wonder when we will become that serious about this struggle for our freedom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)