| September 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
We've heard it so many times - the statement by someone who wants U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, that they "support the troops."
Many feel that there's some logical flaw there - something that renders it sickeningly absurd.
And there is.
There are those in Iraq who are trying - and, in some cases, succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops in that country. We win when enough of those enemies (the ones still standing) give up.
Every time someone in the U.S. calls for our troops to leave before we win, it encourages those enemies not to give up. It encourages them to keep trying - and in some cases succeeding in their efforts - to kill our troops.
That is not supporting our troops. It encourages the enemy to keep fighting, and contributes directly to more of our troops getting attacked.
The "we support the troops" crowd used to claim that the war is unwinnable, so the sooner we get the troops out, the better. And what an encouragement to our enemies that was, to hear U.S. elected officials claiming that the war was unwinnable! How many more American troops were killed because of the encouragement provided to the enemy by such officials? But General Petraeus' testimony before Congress last week cut the legs out from under the proposition, that the war in Iraq is unwinnable.
So let's have an end to this lunacy, that you can help to keep the enemy attacking our troops, and still claim to "support our troops."
Anybody who clamors for our troops to get out of Iraq before we win, is contributing to getting more of our troops killed.
The Democrats don't want you to think about how well the Bush economy is doing, even though Bill Clinton's campaign slogan was "It's the economy, stupid." Whoever wrote the headline for this AP story doesn't want you to think about it - he gave it the yawner headline, "Federal Deficit Running Lower This Year." But the facts are, the GWB economy has boosted income and tax revenue so much, that the budget deficit is expected to drop by over a third compared to last year. That's an anticipated drop of over 90 billion dollars:
From AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal deficit is running sharply lower than last year even though spending in August set an all-time high, the government reported Thursday.
The Treasury Department said that the deficit through the first 11 months of this budget year totaled $274.4 billion, down 9.8 percent from the same period a year ago.
Analysts believe the deficit for all of 2007 will actually be even lower because they are forecasting a sizable surplus in the final month, reflecting in part timing issues that caused about $44 billion in Social Security and Medicare payments that normally would have been made in September to be shifted into August.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that when this budget year wraps up on Sept. 30, the deficit will total $158 billion, down by 36.2 percent from last year's $248.2 billion deficit.
The government's books have been helped this year by record flows of tax receipts, which have continued even though economic growth has been reduced by a serious slump in housing.
No major, successful terrorist attacks since 9-11 - and a booming economy. These are the kinds of achievements that any president could be proud of. It's only the constant brainwashing of the public by the biased MSM that hides this from the people.
See also these previous posts:
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked - Dow Winning Streak Among Longest Ever - Yet Dems Want to Raise Taxes
"Federal Deficit Declines Sharply, Down 25 Percent"
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Strong Growth in Jobs and Wages
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Receipts Show Biggest Gain in 25 Years
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power Growth in Consumer Wealth *and* Cut Deficit
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: More Great News on the Economy
The Tax Cuts Worked-Economic Expansion: Year Five
The GWB Tax Cuts Worked: Tax Cuts Power the Economy
The Bush Tax Cuts Have Resulted in Higher Tax Revenue
Lower Taxes Make the Economy Stronger
Lower Tax Rates Are Resulting In Higher Tax Revenue
A Myth Debunked: Bush Tax Cuts Did Not Favor the Rich
Tax Cuts Work: Government Forecasting Incorrectly Thought Tax Costs Would Reduce Tax Revenue
The fact that MSM doesn't report this with the prominence its significance deserves, shows that it is extremely biased against the Republican party.
From Ramirez:
Photographed last month in New York - near the Ellis Island ferry:
Widely reported today is the new Zogby Poll, the report for which states that 26% of Americans believe that "certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives."
Here's the question asked in the poll:
402. There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks. The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and the third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with?
As a professional Market Researcher, I was immediately struck by the characterization of the majority view as "the official story." It seemed to me that this phrase had strong connotations of something which is not true. To characterize one of the views being surveyed in a manner that implies that it is not true, it appeared to me, could introduce bias into the survey.
I wondered whether it might be that the poll's sponsor, 911truth.org, might have written the question.
To find out, I called Zogby this morning, and spoke to Fritz Wenzel, Director of Communications. I introduced myself as a blogger and as a Market Researcher. Fritz really made an effort to provide useful feedback, and I appreciated the opportunity to speak to him.
I first asked, whether 911truth.org had written the questions included in this section of the survey. Mr. Wenzel was kind enough to give me time to take written notes during our conversation. He responded:
They came to us with the concepts, and we had final approval of the questions.
I pressed a bit for detail, since I couldn't quite tell from this how much input 911truth.org had had, in the writing of the questions. Mr. Wenzel responded further:
We're the experts on how questions should be worded properly. We signed off on, and approved the questions.
I then noted my concerns that the phrase "official story," had strong connotations of something that is not true. Mr. Wenzel responded:
That's your implication, perhaps - that's certainly not mine. I don't have the survey in front of me, but it certainly wasn't the assumption of the majority of respondents - a majority said, that's what they believe.
I said that the percentage of those saying "let it happen" seemed quite high, and might not have been so high, had it not been that some respondents viewed the phrase "official story" the way I did. Mr. Wenzel responded:
That's an appropriate question for you to ask; it's not an appropriate question for me to speculate on.
We concluded the conversation in a friendly manner.
I found Mr. Wenzel's point of view compelling. To investigate further, I Googled the phrase "official story" to see in what sort of context it is usually found.
The results appeared to confirm my point of view. While a number were innocuous (e.g. an article on the "retirement" of fictitious character Jeeves, from AskJeeves.com), quite a few used the phrase in a context that implied skepticism. From the first 30 entries found by the search, in the order reported by Google:
So of the first 30 links found by Google on a search for the text, "official story," over 12 of them - i.e. over 40% - use the phrase in a manner that implies that the view being expressed is not true.
Additionally, 7 of the 12 links are to sites belonging to, or expressing views similar to those expressed by, the study's sponsor, 911truth.org. This shows that the phrase "official story" is strongly associated with those views and with that organization. It appears likely that the question was drafted by 911truth.org, and approved by Zogby, which is consistent with what I learned from Mr. Wenzel, and with what I speculated might be the case, upon first reading the question.
Given the dictionary definition of the word "story," it would be difficult to imagine that the phrase "official story" does not imply that the view expressed is not true. From dictionary.com:
sto·ry [stawr-ee, stohr-ee] Pronunciation Key - noun, plural -ries, verb, -ried, -ry·ing. -noun
1. a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale.
2. a fictitious tale, shorter and less elaborate than a novel.
3. such narratives or tales as a branch of literature: song and story.
4. the plot or succession of incidents of a novel, poem, drama, etc.: The characterizations were good, but the story was weak.
5. a narration of an incident or a series of events or an example of these that is or may be narrated, as an anecdote, joke, etc.
6. a narration of the events in the life of a person or the existence of a thing, or such events as a subject for narration: the story of medicine; the story of his life.
7. a report or account of a matter; statement or allegation: The story goes that he rejected the offer.
8. news story.
9. a lie or fabrication: What he said about himself turned out to be a story.
5 of the 9 definitions (1,2,3,4 & 9) are for cases in which the narrative referred to is, or may be, fictional, or is a lie or fabrication.
It appears that the phrase "official story" is not suitable for use in a poll of this nature.
Weekly, sometimes daily, new plots - and often, new successful attempts - by radical Islamists, to kill people, are reported. Just to take the ones from the past 5 days:
Germany: "BERLIN (AP) - Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an al-Qaida-influenced group nursing "profound hatred of U.S. citizens" were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday."
Norway: "Three Muslims have been indicted in Norway in connection with attacks on a synagogue and a plot to attack the US and Israeli embassies."
Pakistan: "Twenty-five dead and at least 70 wounded in mass murder attacks in Pakistan: Suicide bombers kill 25, wound 70, in Pakistan."
Denmark: "Danish authorities have arrested eight Al Qaeda-connected Muslims planning a bomb attack..."
Thailand: "Three more dead in the south Thailand jihad."
America: "Those two Egyptian students at the University of South Florida who were caught with pipe bombs near a South Carolina Navy base have been indicted, and one of them turns out to have a history of involvement in terrorism."
We're all mad as hell about it. All over the world, people feel paralyzed about how to deal with this, saying that it's impractical to expel all the members of a religion. But Daniel Pipes has identified a workable strategy so that we can start to say, as one of writer Paddy Chayefsky's characters did in the movie Network, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more."
Before we get to Pipes' strategy, let's recall that radical Islam doesn't work, as the mafia did, by direct instruction to specific Islamists to commit specific attacks. The radical imams don't address their audiences and single out someone and say, "You, go out and blow up a bus next Tuesday." Instead, Islamist religious, government, and media leaders routinely address their audiences in a manner so as to fill them with rage and hatred toward everything in the non-Islamic world. The result is that their mosques constantly produce Islamists who independently come up with specific plans to go out and kill - thus providing their mosques with legal cover. For example:
Fox News: "American-Born Imam Spews Message of Hate in England"
From a NY Police Dept. Report:
The jihadist ideology combines the extreme and minority interpretation [jihadi- Salafi] of Islam with an activist-like commitment or responsibility to solve global political grievances through violence. Ultimately, the jihadist envisions a world in which jihadi-Salafi Islam is dominant and is the basis of government.
...Two key indicators within this self-identification stage that suggests progression along the radicalization continuum are:
• Progression or Gravitation Towards Salafi Islam
• Regular Attendance at a Salafi mosque [emphasis in original]
British TV exposed the hate-filled preachings of the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England.
The Society of Americans for National Existence exposed similar events at mosques in the U.S.
Egyptian Cleric Hazem Sallah Abu Isma'il on the Rewards of the Martyr
Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi Justifies the Killing of Israeli Women and Children in Suicide Operations
This is the precise mechanism that produces the Islamist killers that we must eradicate. To eradicate the killers, we must destroy the mechanism that produces them.
Now, let's review Pipes' strategy for doing just that. He writes:
I understand the security-based urge to exclude the Koran, Islam, and Muslims, but these efforts are too broad, sweeping up inspirational passages with objectionable ones, reformers with extremists, friends with foes. Also, they ignore the possibility of positive change.
More practical and focused would be to reduce the threats of jihad and Shariah by banning Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as well as Islamism and Islamists. Precedents exist. A Saudi-sponsored Koran was pulled from school libraries. Preachers have gone to jail for their interpretation of the Koran. Extreme versions of Islam are criminally prosecuted. Organizations are outlawed. Politicians have called for Islamists to leave their countries.
Islam is not the enemy, but Islamism is. Tolerate moderate Islam, but eradicate its radical variants.
Prosecute, expel, ban, arrest, and jail Islamist leaders who preach that the Koran says Muslims must kill non-Muslims, and who preach that the Koran says that our freedoms must be overthrown and that Shariah must replace the American Constitution.
As shown by Pipes' links, this strategy is already beginning to be implemented.
And it may be the answer to the question of how to eradicate the cancer of radical Islamism, from Western nations.
View of NY from a Ferry - Merged from Two Smaller Photos
On a trip to New York last week, my girlfriend and I often got into conversations with New Yorkers about how much the city had improved. Everyone agreed that the city was much safer than it once had been. Times Square, previously a porno district, was now, in the words of one resident, "Disneyland." The mob was gone from the fish market. More than one resident mentioned the "squeegee guys" - people who had run up to cars stopped at lights and started cleaning the windows, unasked, and who then demanded payment, sometimes with threats. The "squeegee guys" are now a thing of the past.
We asked every resident with whom we got into this conversation, who was responsible for these changes.
Every single resident we spoke to - both friends and strangers - immediately volunteered that Giuliani had done it.
The ability to lead a giant bureaucracy like New York City - to lead it effectively, and to such significant accomplishments - is extremely rare, and is a quality greatly to be desired for the nation's next President.
Page 1 of 1 pages
