:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Saturday, November 19, 2005 ::

Enough Is Enough

Enough is enough!. What the f*ck is going on? Who are those a**holes masquerading as republicans? Haskert, Delay, Hunter, Frist, Kyl, Cornin, and their spawn are f*cking this country up big time. You idiots that voted in these a*ssholes and that moron Bush have blood on your hands. Over 18,000 casualties and counting. For what? A fool's paradise? You all are an embarassment not only to the country, but to humanity. If you all are true christians then there truly is no God.

:: DM1 11/19/2005 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Memo I wrote to that Idiot Pat Roberts in June 2003:

Memo to Pat Roberts:

What a poor excuse for a senator. What are you hiding? Bush told a lie to the American People when he declared in his State of the Union Address that Iraq had received uranium from Niger. If being investigated for lying to the American People is good enough for Bill Clinton, then it's good enough for Bush. Bush didn't lie under oath? That's your defense? Basically what you are saying is that it is perfectly alright to lie to the American People as long as you don't do it under oath. How about this if Bush is such an honest man, put him under oath and have him declare that all of his statements about Iraq and WMD were true. I doubt that he would take the offer. Pat Roberts you should immediately resign as you don't possess loyalty to the people you serve. Your loyalty is with Bush and you more interested in protecting him then the American People. What an utter disgrace!

:: DM1 6/12/2003 07:16:19 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blog from June 2003:


Thursday, June 05, 2003 ::

Memo to the Sheep:

Let me get this straight Bill Clinton lies about oral sex and is impeached. The Dauphin lies about wars, the economy, and who knows what else and he is exalted. What is wrong with the picture? Clinton lied under oath? Well he was roundly condemned and suffered legal and political consequences. And while Clinton has the morals of a cat he was a tireless worker for the country and its citizens. I didn't vote for Clinton in '92 or '96, but a review of his entire record suggests that the continued criticism by mainly the Right is dubious at best. If those on the Right are truly sincere in their beliefs, they will hold the current occupant of the White House to the same high standards of honesty, integrity, and trust. Accountability was the catch word for Clinton; however, nothing it seems is Bush's fault. Now it really doesn't matter in the scheme of things whether the Right ever holds Bush accountable, but by not living up to the standards previously established, they bear partial responsibility for the fate of the nation and its people. History will be the judge and history as we all know can be a cruel and brutal mistress. How many soldiers' deaths in Iraq are acceptable? They will continue to die and for what? Two empty trailers? I sure hope that more is found not only for the credibility of the war, but the credibility of the nation.
:: DM1 6/05/2003 07:58:21 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:18:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote in May 2003:

:: Saturday, May 17, 2003 ::

Memo to "Fox and Friends":

Since you are asking if the Dems are sincere in supporting the Dauphin, why don't you ask if the publicity stunt of flying to the aircraft carrier with real heroes was sincere. In fact why don't you hold the Appointed one to the same high standards as Bill Clinton. When Clinton lied about sex, how many Americans died? When the fraud lied about WMD in Iraq, how many Americans and Iraqis died? Ask about his lack of a domestic policy. Put his entire record up against Clinton. How many jobs were generated while Clinton was president? What about the fraud? If the so-called job stimulus tax cut is so great will generate 1.4 million jobs, what about the other 600,000+ that have been lost under his mismanagment? Monica never gave Clinton what you folks have been giving the fraud. Get up off your knees and do some journalism for a change.

:: DM1 5/17/2003 08:44:35 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:17:00 AM [+] ::
...

I've been reposting blogs I wrote years ago to show that all the damage that Bush has done was anticipated by some of us well before his actions came to light. Here is another one:

: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 ::

Memo to The Washington Times:

I see that the paper is back to normal. After seeing commentaries a few week ago by Paul Craig Roberts and others questioning the coming war in Iraq, I see that the "useful idiots" are now telling us to shutup, support the war, take the economic hit and "kiss" Bush's ring. Your paper gives great license to those calling peace protesters "anti-American". Well, reading the nonsense that the "useful idiots" spout couldn't be more "anti-American". Why didn't Bush include the coming war in his budget. The excuse that we are not at war yet is illogical. Bush has an idea of how much the cost of the war will be, but then informing the public would prove the lie that is his budget. How much longer will Bush be allowed to drag down this nation both domestically and abroad. Well, your Paper has hitched its wagon to this Administration and its thoroughly incompetent crew. Good luck explaining lunacy and perfidy that is this M.O. of this sad lot. Your words will not sway opinion and history will be the judge. I spent much of 2001 explaining to folks why Bill Clinton's legacy was secure, two words: George Bush. If affirmative action is unbecoming of a 17-year old black kid from chicago, it is certainly unbecoming of a gadfly with no business being President.

:: DM1 2/19/2003 08:52:25 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

A Memo I wrote to Dick Gephardt more than three years:

Memo to Dick Gephardt:

Dear Congressman Gephardt,I am very disappointed in your actions the other day in giving the appointed president another photo-op. I am a republican and I am amazed that you still don't get it. The current administration cares nothing about you or your position. It only cares that you have "cut" Senator Daschle off at the knees and will now use you to further republican goals. I do not like the direction that this country is taking. I, too, served my country in the Army for four years and as veterans both you and I have a duty to protect this country from foreign enemies and domestic incompetence. You have failed many in your party and many others who are looking for men of courage to stand up against an administration that is bent on war at any cost. I understand that you have visions of running for president in 2004. Well, to win you need to show true leadership. The only thing I saw the other day was a man who stepped on his principles and betrayed many in his party. I see that it is up to those of us who truly understand what Bush and Cheney to carry the burden to ensure that their misguided politics do not continue past 2004. You have made that effort more difficult with your recent actions. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and I will vote for him in 2004. He is showing courage, vision, and leadership and I only hope that some of his qualities begin to rub off on you.

:: DM1 10/16/2002 07:34:32 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

A blog I wrote before the war:

Friday, September 27, 2002 ::

First let me say that George Bush is not as dumb as folks would believe, but he is also not as smart as he thinks he is. The speech at the U.N. was brilliant because he put together a coherent argument on why Iraq is a problem. He also boxed himself in a corner from which he is now trying to escape. War with Iraq serves many useful purposes for Bush and republicans.
:: DM1 9/27/2002 11:29:01 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 06:04:00 AM [+] ::
...

This is a re-repost from four years ago:

:: Friday, August 23, 2002 ::

Blast From the Past:

October 2001 response to some Knucklehead from the Washington Times on "Clinton-Hating". It is very disgraceful the way you and other "Clinton Haters" can not let it go. My memory is not as short as your integrity. As I remember things, every time Clinton engaged in any retaliation or attack against terrorists or dictators, people like you said that he was trying to divert attention from his scandals. So much for unity and standing behind your president.

Let's go back to Kosovo. Here is an excerpt from an article dated 4/29/99:"

WASHINGTON -- In a sharp challenge to President Clinton, the House voted Wednesday to bar the President from sending ground troops to Yugoslavia without Congressional approval and then on a tie vote refused to support NATO air strikes against Serbia. The votes came during a day of heated and sometimes anguished speeches that showcased deep divisions in Congress over the escalating conflict in the Balkans. The all-day session marked the first formal Congressional debate since NATO began its bombing campaign on March 24 to drive the forces of the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic, out of Kosovo. The Senate had voted on March 23 to approve the air strikes. The House voted 249 to 180 to require the President to seek Congressional approval for ground forces. Forty-five Democrats and an independent joined 203 Republicans to support the measure. Sixteen Republicans and 164 Democrats opposed the bill. But the surprise came when the House finished its deliberations this evening by failing to pass a Democratic resolution intended to give symbolic support to the President's air campaign. The measure failed in a tie vote of 213 to 213 even though Speaker J. Dennis Hastert threw his support behind it. In all, 31 Republicans broke with their party to back the air campaign and 26 Democrats voted against it.

"Wait there's more. How about May 1999:

WASHINGTON (May 2, 1999 5:34 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - President Clinton welcomed Yugoslavia's dramatic release Sunday of three U.S. soldiers, but his administration rebuffed a request for a pause in the airstrikes and for a meeting between Slobodan Milosevic and the president until the Serb leader agrees to all NATO demands. "This gesture ... of goodwill cannot obliterate or overcome the stench of evil and death that has been inflicted in those killing fields in Kosovo," Defense Secretary William Cohen said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Cohen and other U.S. officials sounded a hardline, suggesting Milosevic had simply engaged in a "PR stunt" in releasing the American prisoners. But the administration was coming under pressure from a variety of sources to seek a diplomatic end to the crisis - from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who arranged the soldiers' release, to two top Republican leaders in Congress. "As Jesse Jackson would say, 'Give peace a chance here,"' Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on CNN's "Late Edition." "There seems to be some momentum. There's seems to be an opportunity. We should seize this moment." House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, told "Fox News Sunday" that Clinton should meet Milosevic to negotiate an end to "this failed policy of bombing for diplomacy."

How about this one:

In Washington, some congressmen are calling for an immediate withdrawal of American forces from the Balkans. "The U.S. involvement should end now. We never should have been involved in the first place," a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) told CNS.Paul and 17 other Members of Congress – two Democrats and fifteen Republicans – are suing President Clinton in federal court for allegedly violating the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act by ordering air strikes in Yugoslavia.House Majority Whip Rep. Tom DeLay was also blunt on the bombing, as he addressed the House today. " I don't think we should be bombing in the Balkans. I don't think the present military presence should be maintained," said DeLay. DeLay also reiterated his support for a measure introduced by Rep. Campbell (R-CA) calling for the withdrawal of "any U.S. forces presently engaged in the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia."

Here's another one:

WASHINGTON, May 6 (IPS) - Despite six weeks of non-stop NATO bombing operations against Yugoslavia, the US Congress has been unable to form any consensus either for or against Washington's biggest military engagement since the 1991 Gulf War. For the administration and the Atlantic alliance, the lack of clear Congressional support for the campaign was ominous, given the failure so far to achieve any of their war aims on the ground and the legendary impatience of the US public. Votes taken in both the Senate and the House of Representatives - as well as ad hoc diplomatic efforts over the past week - exposed deep divisions among both Democrats and Republicans over the war and the way it was being fought. ''Not only can we (Congress) not speak with one voice on Kosovo,'' said one aide to a key Democratic Senator. ' 'We can't even speak with three or four or five. People are all over the map on this.'' Those divisions, both ideological and partisan, reflected differences between interventionists and anti-interventionists, isolationists and internationalists, and realists and idealists in both parties. They also reflected frustrations by many Republicans over their failure to dent the popularity of President Bill Clinton. For example, right-wing Republicans who back the military at any cost - particularly when US troops are engaged in combat - have done the most to undermine support for the NATO campaign, or ''Clinton's War,'' as they refer to it. Led by Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the driving force behind last year's unsuccessful impeachment effort against Clinton, these forces believed that the Kosovo intervention would end in disaster and seal the president's disgrace. Their position infuriated both the Democrats and much of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. The lack of support for the war defied the ''rally-'round-the-flag'' impulse which normally sweeps Congress once US troops are committed to action. The fact, however, that until Wednesday, when two Apache helicopter pilots were killed in a training mission in Albania, no US soldiers had died in the conflict appears to have tempered that reflex. Congressional incoherence on Kosovo became clear last week when the House cast three key votes on US strategy. The first - which requires Clinton to seek prior Congressional approval before committing ground forces to Kosovo - passed 249-180, with 45 Democrats joining the vast majority of Republicans on the vote. That result, which affirmed the constitutional role of Congress in war-making, was expected. But then, in a stunning blow to Clinton's policy, the House voted 213-213 to reject a resolution authorising US involvement in the current NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia. In that vote, 26 Democrats joined some 190 Republicans to defeat the measure, which was virtually identical to one passed by the Republican-led Senate five weeks before. While House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the titular leader of the Republicans, voted for the measure, DeLay led the opposition, actively lobbying members on the floor. ''The extreme right wing of the Republican party remains in control of that party,'' commented an angry and amazed Minority Leader Dick Gephardt after the vote. But then, having just voted against the air war, the House rejected a third resolution - to withdraw all US military forces from the war within 30 days - 139-209, with a majority of Republicans, however, voting to pull out. In yet another reversal, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee the following day more than doubled a six- billion-dollar request by Clinton to fund US participation in the air war and humanitarian relief for Kosovar refugees. That bill, which is now worth 12.9 billion dollars, is expected to pass this week. ''Congress Set to Provide Money, But No Guidance, for Kosovo Mission,'' is the way the authoritative 'Congressional Weekly' headlined the votes, although some editorial writers and many Democrats were considerably harsher in assessing the House's performance. The incoherence, especially among Republicans, has not been confined to the House. Earlier this week, the leadership of both parties used procedural manoeuvres to prevent a vote on a resolution that would authorise Clinton to use ''all necessary force'' to achieve US and NATO's war aims in Yugoslavia. The resolution was sponsored by Republican Senator and presidential aspirant John McCain and two prominent foreign-policy Democrats, all of whom had emerged as among the war's foremost defenders since the air campaign began Mar 24. The idea behind the resolution was to empower Clinton to move towards a ground war in Yugoslavia without having to seek further authority from Congress. Fearing the resolution's defeat, the administration worked actively to get it off the agenda. But the debate surrounding the resolution highlighted deep ideological and partisan differences within the Senate. Like his right-wing colleagues in the House, for example, Majority Leader Trent Lott repeatedly referred to the NATO operation as ''Clinton's war.'' And, echoing anti-war Democrats of a previous generation, many Republicans said the proposal amounted to a ''Gulf of Tonkin'' resolution which in 1964 gave President Lyndon Johnson the authority to carry out the disastrous Vietnam War. In an ironic reversal, many Democrats, including some who participated in the anti-Vietnam War movement, argued that Washington's and NATO's credibility was at stake in Kosovo and withholding military options at this point would only undermine that credibility and encourage Serbia to resist. That reversal highlighted a trend within both parties which has become increasingly pronounced since the end of the Cold War. Democrats, the ''doves'' accused of isolationism for their opposition to the Vietnam War, have become interventionist ''hawks'' in the post-Cold War era. Republicans, the hawks of the Cold War, on the other hand, have become increasingly opposed to Washington's overseas entanglements, even as they support big increases in US military spending.


So as you can see Clinton was opposed by the republican congress at almost every turn. The likes of Tom Delay and Trent Lott did as much to further the cause of those who want to destroy America by thwarting Clinton at almost every turn. Don't worry, I will send you more examples concerning Clinton's fight on terrorism. The feckless nature of the republican congress concerning Kosovo is still vivid for me so I used it as my first argument. So don't tell me what Clinton would have done. Instead tell me about the unpatriotic nature of the republican congress in supporting the president when he needed them to rally around him and the country! I understand that this is impossible for people like you. Facts be damned!
:: DM1 8/23/2002 12:25:47 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this letter to the editor of the Washington Times more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:55:38 AM [+] :: ...

Memo to The Washington Times:

I really wonder about the folks that sit on the editorial board. Why don't you rename the paper "The Republican Conservative Times" If there was ever an "American Taliban" it is surely your paper. Lest we forget that Bush lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. Your paper crucified Clinton, not for winning, but for not getting at least 50% of the vote. Not only did Bush not get at least 50% of the vote he came in second with respect to all votes counted. When evidence came out in the many "scandals" surrounding Clinton, your paper printed them all, you even printed rape allegations on your front page about him. Your "jihad" against Clinton is about as pathetic as your lack of critical analysis of the 2000 Election. Remember that prior to 9/11 Bush was hovering at 50% in the polls. To say that the voters put the 2000 election behind them prior to 9/11 shows the disconnect that the "elites" in your paper have with most of America. Now unlike the total lack of support that most republicans gave Cinton, the democrats are supporting Bush almost totally. But beware, his support is based on the attack of 9/11 and the need to exact justice, revenge, or whatever you want to call it. His domestic policies are still wrongheaded and not well thought out. His foreign policy team other than Colin Powell, who he failed to listen to prior to 9/11, is failing him. His unilateralist polcies in the first six months of the 2001 created unnecessary problems when Bush had to go back to the same world community after 9/11 for support. No, our support of Bush is an extension of our support for the ideals and freedoms of our country. Now if folks such as yourself had shown Clinton the same type of support maybe we would not be dealing with the bitterness and hatred that exists against us today. Also, folks in your paper are going out of their way to blame Clinton for 9/11. Well Bush had been president for 8 months when this happened. A report outlining terrorist threats to the US had been presented to him in the Spring of 2001. He did nothing to address the concerns raised until after the 9/11 attack. Your paper preaches personal accountability and responsibility. It would be a good start for you to practice what you preach.

:: DM1 7/18/2002 03:52:37 AM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:41:31 PM [+] :: ...

I see that blood is in the water. King George is feeling the heat. To all concerned; "Beware of your heads my friends!" Enemies of the State! The conservatives are not about to roll over. Let's hope that all of you have the stomach for the coming battle .

:: DM1 7/16/2002 10:38:53 PM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than three years ago:

:: Monday, July 01, 2002 ::

It's time for republicans to stand up an say, "The emperor has no clothes!" Subtract 9/11 from the ledger and the Bush Adminstration's record is dubious at best. Like many companies with the inability to truly be profitable, the Bush team has resorted to leveraging 9/11 to cover it's "losses". Folks are always talking about selecting the "best qualified". Well that maxim sure was buried by the results of the 2000 election. What has resulted is what you get when someone who is appointed to the presidency is wholly unqualified. One last thing with all of the issues facing Bush and the U.S. how did Bush find time to read "BIAS" by Bernie Goldberg? I would have been more reassured if he had been reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Just a few observations from a disgusted REP!

:: DM1 7/01/2002 01:06:11 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:42:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote this more than two years ago:

:: Saturday, June 21, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

These are the words of leading conservative republicans in the matter of presidential lies and misleading statements

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois), “There is a visibility factor in the president's public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) “The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president's defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) “It would be wrong for you to tell America's children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don't really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana) “I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate's precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator) “The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there's reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

Of course, the president that they were speaking of was Bill Clinton. The president that their words apply to is George Bush. Lying about sex: Number of casualties - 0. Lying about war: 190+ killed, hundreds wounded and counting. Who are you going to believe Bush, or your own lying eyes?

:: DM1 6/21/2003 01:41:35 PM [+] :: ...

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:35:00 AM [+] ::
...

I wrote the following blog more than two years ago:

Saturday, June 14, 2003 ::

Memo to Sheep:

This is an except of a news report today From Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder:"A senior CIA official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 -- 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech -- that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.Despite the CIA's misgivings, Bush said in his State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."Three senior administration officials said Vice President Dick Cheney and some officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA's reservations and argued that the president and others should include the allegation in their case against Saddam." end

Alright Sports Fans, can you say "smoking gun!". The lies are getting heavier and heavier still. They are lying to your face and getting your young warriors killed. When is enough, enough? They are spending you into debt that your grand children can't repay. The fate of the country is your responsibility. Some of us are sounding the alarm, and yet, you do not hear. Still the chickens are coming home to roost and roost they shall with or without you!
:: DM1 6/14/2003 10:43:55 AM [+] ::

:: DM1 11/08/2005 05:33:00 AM [+] ::
...