Huckabee “Enslaved” in a Failing Campaign

Just months after Bush told the American people that he believed America was too dependant on oil from the Middle East, Mike Huckabee has decided to re-phrase it to say we are “enslaved” to Saudi Arabia.

Huckabee; who is barely pro-American when it comes to illegals here in the states wants to break all ties with Saudi Arabia because of a recent court case where a Saudi woman/rape victim was ordered a lashing because she herself violated strict Islamic law by socializing with a group of men that were not her relatives.

She was raped by seven men, all men were sentenced to years in prison, but in Saudi Arabia apparently they stick to the laws that everyone is aware of that resides in the country, even if they are broken by someone who was victimized by others who were punished as well.

We can philosophically argue if it is right or wrong.  Of course in the United States, women are free.  Saudi Arabia and other countries don’t operate that way.  I can accept that because finally all the Democratic and flawed-Republican flapping about America’s unwelcomed intervention rings true in this case.  Who are we to tell Saudi Arabia how to run their country?  Are they threatening American women as well?

As it stands, Saudi Arabia maintains a peaceful relationship with the United States.  In the case of Iraq and Iran, we take stands for two reasons:

1.) To establish a civilized foothold to counter the incivilized foothold owned by Islamic fanatics in the Middle East which was handed to them by Jimmy Carter.

2.) To protect ourselves and our allies from bomb-making extremists.

That’s it!

Now, Huckabee comes and proclaims he would have us totally independent from Saudi’s oil in 10 years? 

As if his opinion is any different from any mentioned already on this matter.  Yes, we rely on the Middle East for oil, so what?  We need oil, he needs oil, Al Gore needs oil, Hollywood celebrities need oil!  Who doesn’t?  Will Mike Huckabee stop fueling the jet that moves him from city-to-city during his campaign?

I’d be more interested in how Huckabee plans to reverse his insane views on immigration and domestic policies to make sure things like this don’t happen to American women.  Suddenly, because a Supreme Court in Saudi Arabia orders a lashing for someone who knowingly broke laws on the books of her country, Huckabee wants to denounce an ally and regurgitate an overall concept already acknowleged by Republicans and portray it as if it’s a product of originality.

The End is Near (For Ron Paul)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYa9EFcvsrE]

And thank God.  Paul and his supporters are just downright frightening.

His supporters on YouTube are so desperate that they are posting videos of him attempting to challenge Condoleezza Rice and proclaiming him the winner after it is so clear in this video that Paul got his clocked officially cleaned out with facts by Rice.

Paul’s conclusion at the end of the day?  Of course — America should stick its neck in the sand as Carter did in 1979 that gave Islamic crazies their first strong foothold.

Thank God, this is a modern ideology that hasn’t moved past the popularity of the 9/11 Truthers Movement.

Not In Our Backyard!

iran-venezuelax-large.jpg

Does this photo sicken anyone else?  I’m waiting for the person that confronts me over my Iran fetish.  I think too few realize the danger of the regime in Tehran.  The fact that they are reaching out to dictators in our own hemisphere is frightening.  Score this one for the need to put a Republican in the White House in 2008.  I’m not too certain that W won’t do something before he leaves office.  If he does – more power.

Ahmadinejad has pledged $1 billion to the leftist nutjob, Evo Morales, in Bolivia.  Morales is a Hugo Chavez wanna-be.  He is praying to become one of the unholy Iran ass-kissers in South America as is the Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa.  Apparently, Congress believes that we can combat this by pouring more money into the suspect nations in Latin America.

 The closer ties are viewed with alarm by the opposition in Venezuela and Bolivia, and by Washington. U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, said they remind him “of the relationship that Fidel Castro had with Russia.” He urged Washington to reach out more to a region analysts say it has largely ignored since 9-11.

Toward that aim, a bipartisan bill is being introduced in the U.S. Congress on Friday that would establish a 10-year, $2.5 billion program aimed at reducing poverty and expanding the middle class in Latin America. It would require recipient countries to contribute and encourage matching funds from businesses and non-governmental organizations.

The program would bring more stability in the long run and help the United States “re-establish leadership in the hemisphere” by increasing development assistance by more than a third, said bill co-sponsor Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat.

I’m all about helping the people in Latin America.  Strong democratic nations in our own hemisphere are a plus for Americans.  But I have a better idea that will nip this bullshit in the bud.  Get rid of the mullahs.  Without Iran, we have little to worry about.  Chavez is a pathetic little man.  With some CIA intervention, he will soon be a sad afterthought.  Then the silly little thugs like Morales and Correa will fade away.

Ever hear of the Monroe Doctrine folks?  We don’t need this crap in our part of the world.  When the Soviets started to arm Cuba with nukes, JFK threatened to push the nuclear button.  Similarly, we need to take swift action against Iran soon.  Iran has already gone too far.  It isn’t enough that they are attempting to assert their dominance in the Middle East.  They want Iranian hegemony in our Hemisphere.  It’s time to take out the garbage.

I promise you this – hell is about to break loose.  W. will not leave office without dealing with these nutjobs, and I will support him.  And I pray that the next President of the United States will place Hugo in their sites as soon as we finish dealing with the Persian joke.

 

Ron Paul Clearly the Night’s Loser…Hunter Breaks New Ground

hunter.jpg(Duncan Hunter

After the debate tonight, hopefully Ron Paul will get the message and switch the party name after his own.  He is clearly not in line with Republicans or the Republican base. 

He aligns himself with us by opposing Roe vs. Wade and calling it a massive mistake.

He aligns himself with us by supporting strong border patrol.

But he trashes us and utterly embarrasses us on National Security.  He is clearly appealing to the anti-war nuts and using the same talking points we hear from people like Rosie O’Donnell.  Here are a few snippets from what he had to say:

The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.” 

“We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration.”

“We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”

“I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this.”

“The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy.”

“We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it.”

I’m not quite sure who said it was going to be a “cakewalk.”  (Lie #1) Since all the liberal and Ron Paul-like types were carping about casualties during a war, Republicans have appropriately responded by politely reminding them what happens in a war.  The enemies are afraid and they shoot back.   We have also pointed out how incredibly difficult this war is compared to others because we indeed are not fighting ONE MAN or ONE COUNTRY, we are fighting an entire ideology and trying to get a strong foothold in the center of it all in Iraq to continue to minimize it.  Nobody has called it a “cakewalk.”

(Lie #2) Next he lies again (pointed out by Duncan Hunter and quoted below) when he says that the “war has not gone well one bit.”  Aside from Hunter’s list of accomplishments, Paul fails to mention ridding the world of Saddam, his lunatic sons, watching Iraq participate in three major acts of Democracy, and killing/capturing hundreds of thousands of terrorists and insurgents.

(Lie#3) He claims we did not go to war without declaration.  Paul also denounces the idea of war in Afghanistan (the one even liberals pretend to support).  Wasn’t 9/11 a hint?  Wasn’t Saddam making a purposed bluff to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11 a hint?  Pretending that 9/11 was not a declaration of war or a hint that this very sick part of the world was out of control with hateful fanaticism leads me to believe that indeed Ron Paul MUST be purposely trying to appeal to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.  After all, if 9/11 was not a declaration of war by our enemies, it must have been something orchestrated by the Government, right?

(Lie#4) He then declares that he is less safe and that every American is less safe.  The fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 or that no major American interest has been attacked overseas (the longest span between attacks since they all began in 1979) directly disagrees with him.  I’m a American, could we please leave the lying to what the American people really feel to the Democrats, Dr. Paul?

(Lie#5) He then says that neo-conservatives hijacked foreign policy.  I wonder if he would characterize FDR as a neo-conservative?

The brilliant Duncan Hunter stated in response:

” first, let’s remember that we’ve got troops — those 157,000 folks in Iraq, lots of them in Afghanistan are watching us tonight, and let me just tell you what they’ve done.

In Anbar province, we were having 1,350 attacks a month last October. By the blood, sweat and tears of the U.S. Marines out there, we’ve pulled it down 80 percent. They’ve pulled down civilian casualties 74 percent. (Applause.) And I — I shouldn’t let this one go, because the Democrats made an entire debate in never complementing what the troops have done. This is how we do it.

We’ve got 129 battalions in the Iraqi army that we’re training up. We’re training them up, we are getting them into the fight. When those Iraqi battalions are battle-hardened and they start to rotate into the positions on the battlefield, displacing American forces, the American forces can then rotate out, come back to the U.S. or go to other places in Central Command.

That’s the right way to win; it’s called victory. That’s how we leave Iraq. (Cheers, applause.)”

“let me tell you, right now we’ve seen an 80 percent depression in the attacks in Anbar province, those tough towns of Fallujah and Ramadi — which were incidentally the toughest, most difficult towns, where gun battles were being waged daily. We’ve now knocked that down 80 percent. And my answer is, if you think we’re going to be there for a long time, you don’t understand the determination of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. (Cheers, applause.) We’re going to turn it over.”

I am sad we haven’t paid more attention to Duncan Hunter.  I am also sorry Fred Thompson did not make this debate.  Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and in fact did win a GOP straw poll in Texas (Ron Paul’s state).  Hunter received 534 votes and Thompson came in second with 266 votes.  Ron Paul came in third.  But we can see early on in majority how much of an embarrassment Ron Paul is in his own state. 

I’m sorry to all my Fred supporters (like my brilliant site partner) but until Fred comes out on these issues with more zeal, my support is now focused on Duncan Hunter.

Aside from reading Paul’s quotes above, Hunter was the guy tonight who finally articulated the fraud that lies within Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters.  Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party.  He is dangerous to our security and continues to holler out the same talking points we could have heard a year ago on the The View when Rosie was on.

Bombing Iran?

I appreciated this incredibly interesting piece from The Telegraph (London).  It considered all sides of the Iran argument and was actually a strong, objective article – amazing for a Euorpean paper.  As many of you probably have noticed by now, I am obsessed with Iran.  It’s the neocon in me.  But regardless of what you think about Iran’s potential threat or America’s overstretched military, one thing is for sure – Iran is a problem that won’t go away.  We can either deal with Iran before it tests a nuke or deal with it afterwards – knowing that an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel or other US allies is possible.  Which option seems more sane?

The article points to a recent simulation of a strategic air attack against Iran.  The attack would involve about 400 military and nuclear targets.  The main obstacle would be Iran’s predictable move to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz in order to disrupt the global economy.  Participants in the simulation, however, believe that such a move can be countered.

In the meantime, administration officials are studying the lessons of the recent war game, which was set up to devise a way of weathering an economic storm created by war with Iran. Computer modelling found that if Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, it would nearly double the world price of oil, knock $161 billion off American GDP in a single quarter, cost one million jobs and slash disposable income by $260 billion a quarter.

The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves – good for 60 days – using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America’s 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict.

The Heritage report concludes: “The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade.”

Nothing is ever certain when you are dealing with the Middle East, but it’s good to know that officials are weighing their options.  The bottom line is – the Iranians are pursuing nukes to the detriment of Israel and Middle East stability.  The question is – what is the US prepared to do about it?  True, there is a potential that Iran will screw with the oil markets and cause turmoil in the event of a US attack, but we should also consider the turmoil that will be caused for decades to come if Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons.  What to do?

Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doesn’t take us seriously obviously –

In Teheran, Mr Ahmadinejad was also quick to make the Iraq connection, but as an impediment, not impetus, to American adventurism. “We have an expression in Farsi which says, ‘Bring up the one that you have given birth to first, then go for another one’,” he said. “Let them do what they started in Afghanistan and Iraq then think of other countries.” He dismissed threats of military action as “more of a propaganda measure than factual”.

This only makes the case for US action stronger.  Iran does not take us or the international community seriously.  Who can blame him?  The Chinese and Russians have done their best to protect Iran, and Europe has been woeful in its statements and actions against the Iranian nuclear program.  The UN is just a joke.  Why should Ahmadinejad worry at all?

I’m proud to be a hawk.  When I see the potential of a nuclear Iran, I have no problem at all advocating military action.  There isn’t much to rationalize.  Either we get them first, or they eventually act against us and our allies.  To me, this is a no-brainer.

I realize that much of this may well be rhetoric meant to push Iran into diplomacy.  I would like to see diplomacy work, but I don’t hold out much hope.  One Iranian sums up the American way –

But in Teheran they are waiting. Abbas Abdi, one of the US embassy hostage takers in 1979, now a reformist political activist, said: “The style of the Americans is that they go forward with the political dialogues, get a couple of resolutions and then they wait to see what the circumstances are. They have no problems in attacking Iran, for sure.”

Yup.  That’s how it works.  I would wear that assesment as a badge of honor.  American resolve is unrivaled in the world.  We are often accused of acting unilaterally.  And that’s often the case.  The reason we do so is because the international community does not possess the spine or resolve that makes America a mighty nation.

Update:  This is a good read from Ollie North on FoxNews.com

Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut…

ahmadinejadiq9.jpg

And sometimes you are.  The President of the Islamic Theocracy of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is certifiable…..to the core!  Everytime this dude opens his piehole, it’s 1000 blogs.  I don’t get this guy at all.  Consider his remarks as reported in an AP article (posted to MSNBC.com).

“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”

Ok.  Take a minute.  Stop laughing.  This doof thinks Iran can fill “a huge power vacuum?”  These terrorists have done everything in their power to destabilize Iraq.  Their version of filling a vacuum would be marching the Republican Guard into Baghdad and proclaiming an Islamic state.  Or how about calling Saudi Arabia a “friend?”  Mahmoud, buddy, the Saudis are NOT your friends.  The Saudis are prepared to go ballistic on your ass in the event that the US leaves Iraq anytime soon.  Ever heard of the Shi’ite/Sunni thing?  Do you know the meaning of the word “hegemony?”  You guys are pushing the envelope, and folks in Saudia Arabia, Jordan and Egypt have taken notice.

Or how about this for delusional?

Ahmadinejad dismissed the possibility of any U.S. military action against Iran.

“I tell you resolutely that there is no possibility, whatsoever, of such a decision in the U.S.,” Ahmadinejad told reporters. “Even, if they were to decide to do so, they would be unable to carry it out.”

France, historically one of Iran’s biggest apologists, has even talked about bombing the Iranians.  Hey Ahmadinjerk – think we won’t bomb you?  Better hope that Dennis Kucinich is elected president in 2008.  This guy just doesn’t get it.  Then, in a pot-calling-the kettle-black moment:

Ahmadinejad said Bush was a “wicked, selfish and arrogant” leader who has abused the Security Council in a push to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

“You saw that your coercion … was futile,” Ahmadinejad said, addressing Bush. “You sold out your prestige and stood against a cultured nation. … I recommend that you don’t repeat this ugly behavior.”

Who is the wicked one?  And what cultured nation are we talking about here?  That might fly at the Democrat National Convention, but reality has its limits, and Ahmadinejad is on the outer limits of reality.

I’ve always proclaimed that Iran is a major threat.  Not because of this nutbag, but because of the mullahs behind the scenes.  I need to qualify that however.  If the mullahs are allowing this guy to run his mouth on behalf of Iran, then they have only one more brain cell than him.  In that case, maybe my worries about Iran are truly unfounded.

France Coming Around

So who are these people?  Every conservative loves poking fun at the cowardly, dismal French, but new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to have turned around French foreign policy.  France no longer seems dedicated to a foreign policy built around antagonizing the US – they are actually starting to appear constructive.  Two items stuck out today.

First, Mssr. Sarkozy gave a major foreign policy speech in which he labeled a nuclear Iran as unacceptable.  He even held out the possibility that Western nations must be prepared to act militarily against Iran if the mullahs don’t abandon their pursuit of nukes. 

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday a diplomatic push by the world’s powers to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program was the only alternative to “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”

But Sarkozy didn’t stop there.  He went further by slamming Russia’s resurgent imperialism.

Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. “Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality,” he said.

“When one is a great power, one should not be brutal.”

Energy disputes between Russia and neighbors such as Belarus and Ukraine have raised doubts in Europe about Moscow’s reliability as a gas exporter. It supplies Europe, via its neighbors, with around a quarter of its gas demands.

That’s certainly a far cry from the cynical, fruitless pronouncements that we were accustomed to hearing from his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.  And while Sarkozy reserved the right to disagree with America on the international stage, he has certainly had warm words for us folks across the Atlantic.  He chose the US as his first major vacation destination of his presidency – even taking time for lunch with President Bush in Maine during his stay.

Second, consider the visit to Iraq by Sarkozy’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner.  While his recent statements included a few backhanded slaps at what France regards as US mistakes, even Kouchner made remarks that were also a far cry from the days of Chirac.

France can help by working with the United Nations and the European Union in the cause of peace. France supports the international initiatives taken in recent months to set in motion a political and international process to address the crisis. The United Nations took a step in the right direction on Aug. 10 when it approved Resolution 1770 calling for the organization to take a broader role in Iraq. We must now work to make that move effective.

Whereas Chirac was willing to turn his back on the Iraqis out of disdain for President Bush, the new French administration has decided to take an active role in the nation despite its disagreement with the US over their invasion of Iraq.  Kouchner says –

 In my conversations there, I perceived a deep need among many Iraqis for recognition and for new ties with France and Europe. The Iraqis have been isolated for too long and feel abandoned by the international community. After years of debating the American presence in Iraq, the time has come for us to turn our attention to the Iraqis themselves.

Exactly.  And even though the rhetoric out of Paris is not exactly the type of cheerleading that we received from Tony Blair and other coalition members, it represent a step in the right direction by the French.  After years of bitter isolationism and attempts to undermine US efforts on the world stage by Chirac, France is starting to make some sense.  These guys are almost starting to seem cute and cuddly again.

You’re Gonna “Punch” Us?

Oooooo.  Please don’t hurt me, Mr. Iranian Military Terrorist Man!!!!

Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington’s ire toward the group because of their “leverage” against the U.S.

“America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future,” he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan. “We will never remain silent in the face of U.S. pressure and we will use our leverage against them.”

There was no elaboration on what Safavi meant by the punch or the organization’s “leverage.”

Probably because the barbaric, 4th world dufus had no idea what he meant himself.  So is the the word from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in response to the Bush administration’s threat to list either the entire Guard or its special forces as an official terrorist entity.  This action would allow the government to cut the Guard off economically and take action against companies who deal with them.

Naturally, Iran is pissed.  No foreign military force has ever been designated as a terrorist group.  This action would be unprecedented but well-deserved.  Consider the role of the Guard in the violence rocking Iraq, training and arming Hezbollah against Israel and generally lending tactical and military support to any thugs who wish to undermine the US and/or Israel.  If that doesn’t meet the definition of a terrorist, I’m not sure what the word means.  The Iranian Revolutionary Guard seems to meet the criteria.

I read over the US State Department’s guide for the designation of an FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization).  I didn’t have to read very far to see that the Guard clearly meets the criteria.

As used in this chapter [chapter 8 of the INA], the term ‘engage in terrorist activity’ means in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization–

  1.  
    1. to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
    2. to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
    3. to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
    4. to solicit funds or other things of value for–
  2. (aa) a terrorist activity;

    (bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or

    (cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the solicitation would further the organization’s terrorist activity;

Or maybe you can try this –

  1. to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training–
  1. (aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;

(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;(cc) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or(dd) to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the actor can demonstrate that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the act would further the organization’s terrorist activity.

I think those are pretty solid standards when it comes to defining a terrorist organization.  And I don’t give a crap if it is “unprecedented” to name a foreign military force as a terrorist organization.  Since when have the Iranians had any respect for precedent or convention?  The mullahs have dedicated an entire branch of their armed forces to promoting terrorism.  THAT is unprecedented.

So the Iranians can cry and whine all day, and Europe can come running to them with a box of Kleenex.  But regardless of what you think of the Bush administration, I can say this – they have some balls and they aren’t afraid to  call a spade a spade.

Ron Paul Clutches Reagan’s Coattails

paul.jpg

Ron Paul supporters are living in an absolute fantasy world.  On top of their insane proposal that we rip our troops out of Iraq and leave it to Al-Qaeda; and believing that just ignoring the terrorists will miraculously make it go away, they use Ronald Reagan’s good name to promote this fella who blames us for 9/11. 

The one quote out there that they keep using is the following:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” — Ronald Reagan

Let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy and the ways in which he handled it.

In 1982, our Embassy in Beirut was bombed.  At the request of Lebanon, Reagan sent troops to create a peace-keeping force between Muslims and Christians.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters have approved of this judging by their standards put forth today?  Of course not. 

After the peace-keeping force was established, Muslims showed us just how peaceful they were and blew up the Marine barracks a year later killing hundreds of other American troops.  Reagan (after the Democrats in Congress harped and demanded so) withdrew our troops out of Lebanon.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters approve of this judging by the standards put forth by them today?  Of course they would!  We backed away and decided to not “intervene” anymore.

Three years later after we left, Muslims must have still been sore at Americans when they decided to hijack an Italian cruise-ship in 1985 where they decided to shoot a 69 year old passenger (American) and throw him overboard with his wheelchair.  It looks like choosing to “pull out and not intervene” didn’t work out so well.

Reagan responded by having the animals captured and handed them to Italy, who then made sure they returned safely to Iraq (the place where terrorists never lived but for the constant “intervening” of the United States).

After indirectly turning those terrorists over to safe harbor in Iraq (something that Reagan had no “direct” hand in), Muslim extremists struck again by bombing a West Berlin dance club in 1986 killing more Americans.

I wonder by looking at this crucial time period what Ron Paul and his supporters (better known as “dreamers” and “9/11 conspiracy crazies”) thinks the appropriate time table would be to sit and wait for Muslim fanatics to STOP attempting to hurt us and our interests.

I guarantee when Ronald Reagan said what he said about Ron Paul above, he had no idea that one day he would propagandize an insane position to rally support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in order to get nominated for President.

It is clear that Muslims don’t want peace ever with the United States.  Paul and his supporters at this point are just as dangerous to our security as liberals are.

Iranian Delusions

I nearly fell out of my seat when I read this one.  The Iranians are predictably upset by a US proposal to sell $20 billion worth of weaponry to Saudi Arabia.  I have my own qualms and concerns about that as well.  But the official reaction coming out of Tehran concerning the matter is what nearly made me choke on my Big Mac.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman on Monday criticized a U.S. plan to sell state-of-the-art weapons to Saudi Arabia, saying it would undermine security in the Middle East, the state broadcasting company reported.

Mohammad Ali Hosseini’s comments followed reports last week that the U.S. planned to sell Saudi Arabia an estimated $20 billion of sophisticated weaponry, including advanced air systems that would greatly enhance the striking ability of Saudi warplanes.

“What the Persian Gulf region needs is stability and security,” Hosseini was quoted as saying on the Web site of the state broadcasting company. “Americans have been trying to disturb it by selling weapons to the region.”

What the bloody HELL???  Iran is complaining that we threaten to undermine regional stability???  They are upset about us selling weapons to other nations???  This the pinnacle of all gall and absurdity.

The Iranians give the s*** away.  They pour tens of millions of dollars into supporting avowed terrorist organizations (at the expense of their people) and coordinate attacks with their twisted minions on Americans in the Middle East, Israel and other pro-western Arab nations.  If I need to explain this hypocrisy anymore, then just close the window and read another blog.

The truth is – they are worried about the US selling weapons to a nation (Saudi Arabia) that has taken a stand (albeit quiet) against the regime in Tehran.  Saudi Arabia is a nation that has openly expressed concerns about Iranian plans in the region.  And Saudis have leaked it to the media that they would be prepared to  protect Sunni interests in Iraq if the US were to suddenly withdraw it forces – much the in the same manner as Shi’ite militias are merely a proxy for Iran.

I find it utterly hypocritical for Iran to make such ridiculous statements.  Perhaps the US is trying to force the mullahs’ hand by announcing the weapons sale.  Maybe they are intent on following through.  Nevertheless, I cannot imagine a more absurd reaction coming out of the mouths of Iranian officials.

If you have any doubt about the sanity of the people we are dealing with out of Tehran, let this serve as clue #1.  Here’s your sign, folks!