 |
Ever been called a Neocon? Sure you have! If you've ever taken an exotic safari into the jungle that is Media Matters for America or, if you are really daring, Democrats.org, you have been called a neo-conservative. The very term sends fear down a liberals' spine: Neeeooooccooooooonnn! Don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of being ashamed to be a neocon. I'm a neocon and I'm proud of it.
This website will hopefully serve as an HQ for all the ammunition any neocon could ever ask for. Proudly wear the tag of neocon!
Discuss anything political here!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Nov 22, 2005
Liberal Idiots Promote Idea that "White Phosphorus" is a WMD
It certainly has been a huge story. Liberals are so happy to find that the U.S. was using "WMD"'s, proving once and for all that the U.S. is more evil that any other country, no matter what we do.
From a Daily Kos-er, commenting on one of the countless Kos posts about WP:
...when you think about the fact the administration took our country to war over WMD, and the only WMD turns out to be our own
Only one problem: white phosphorus isn't a WMD. Wikipedia says:
Use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that the use of white phosphorus was not prohibited under the convention if it was used for " (m)ilitary purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare"(Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Chemical Weapons Convention specifically defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals".(CWC, II). Following that definition, the convention defines chemical weapons as "(t)oxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes". Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead. [4]
Doesn't sound much like a WMD to me...
Posted at 12:35 pm by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Daily Mirror: Bush Targeted Al-Jazeera
Bush wanted to blow up Al-Jazeera, the British press is reporting.
The unfortunate part is that administration officials are denying the charge.
From DiscoverTheNetwork:
Arabic television station and satellite network launched in 1996, funded by Emir of Qatar
Known as the "CNN of the Arab world" and "Jihad TV," it claims to have 50 million viewers
9-11 terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden's outlet for video messages
Its Spanish reporter was arrested for terrorist ties to bin Laden's Al Qaeda
At least two of its Iraqi reporters and one executive had secret connections with, and apparently worked for, Saddam Hussein's intelligence service
Praised Democratic candidate John Kerry and did positive reporting from 2004 Democratic National Convention
Gave airtime to racist David Duke to claim that Jews knew in advance of 9-11 attack on World Trade Center and stayed away
Described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs"
What would be wrong with attacking an anti-American propaganda-mouthpeice that feeds Arab hatred of the United States?
Posted at 11:35 am by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Nov 21, 2005
This is Why We Need Another Sedition Act
Looks like Chris Matthews is yet another lurking traitor to America, reminding us that the terrorists would be there if it wasn't for the evil, evil United States...
From Matthews: "If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective."
This type of logic is a clear and present threat to our national security. News media stars who promote the idea that our enemy simply has "a different perspective" should be censored from society. It should simply be illegal to spread pro-enemy propaganda during a time of war. You have the right to be against the war. You should not have the right to encourage Americans to support the enemy.
Posted at 06:17 pm by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Nov 20, 2005
Did/Does Rep. Jack Murtha Use Drugs/Have Drug Users Working for Him?
Yeah you probably laughed out loud at that. And that's cool, it was meant to be a little funny. But I'm actually being serious here:
I think Jack Murtha may either be using drugs or is hiring people who take drugs.
I have formed this hypothesis after reviewing not one, not two, but three pro-drug votes he has made during his Congressional tenure. I could be wrong, but I think it deserves some investigation. Here are the three pro-druggie votes:
1. Murtha voted NO on an "[a]mendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders."
2. Murtha voted NO on a bill that "prohibits the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs" and "prohibits implementing an approved ballot initiative to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana."
3. Murtha voted NO on "an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing."
You can read all of this at OnTheIssues.
So what is the deal with all of the pro-drug votes? I know there are Republicans that voted against these things as well but.... all three of them?
..........
Haha, I'm just joking everyone. Don't get all uptight.
Posted at 11:52 am by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Is Murtha A Pork-Barreler?
Newsbusters has got the goods on Jack Murtha and his not-so-respectable spending. Check it out here.
Posted at 09:22 am by NeoConCentral
Permalink
The Lying Liars of the Left
One particular lie/distortion that has been spreading like a wildfire since Friday's big debate has been to say that Jean Schmidt called Jack Murtha a coward. Examples...
Democratic Party blog
" Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (OH-02) basically just called Congressman Murtha, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Marine Corps drill instructor, a coward."
DCCC Blog
"In an unusual floor action, Representative Jean Schmidt today was forced to withdraw remarks she made referring to Congressman John Murtha, a highly decorated Vietnam War Veteran, as a 'coward.' "
Bareknucklepolitics
" Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) called Rep. Murtha (D) a coward..."
Ed Henry of CNN
"And, at one point, a Republican, Jean Schmidt of Ohio, basically suggested John Murtha, a wounded veteran of the Vietnam War, somebody who got two Purple Hearts, was a coward. "
Washington Post
"Differences over policy on the Iraq war ignited an explosion of angry words and personal insults on the House floor Friday, when the chamber's newest member [Schmidt] suggested that a decorated war veteran, Rep. John Murtha, D Pa., was a coward for calling for an immediate withdrawal."
On and on and on....
Actually, Jean Schmidt herself did not call him a coward. She quoted someone else:
At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.
"He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Though for the record: I agree completely with the statement. However valiant and brave Murtha was in Vietnam, his Iraq assessment and his current beliefs are beyond cowardly: they are traitorous.
Correction: A comment from a fellow blogger this morning pointed out that, according to a report from this morning's Cincinnati Enquirer, the Marine who Schmidt claimed to be quoting denies having told Jean to give her now-infamous "cowards" comment. This does not, however, take away from the point that,when the reports that I quoted attributed the quote to Schmidt that, at that time, it was believed that Schmidt was quoting a Marine. Now it is fair to attribute them to her. I still support the comments, even though she doesn't even support them. We should be allowed to call someone who supports the immediate withdrawal from a nation simply for political gain a "coward." I have no problem with it. In fact, just for you, Spanner, check this out: Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward! Jack Murtha is a coward!
But again, Spanner, thanks for pointing that out. You provide an invaluable service.
Posted at 08:57 am by NeoConCentral
Permalink
U.S. Terrorist Organization Endorses the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!
From U.S. Newswire, via Don't Go Into the Light:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today welcomed a ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that rejected claims that students at a California school were being "indoctrinated" during lessons about Islam.
The court rejected a lawsuit by two Christian families that accused the Byron Union School District of unconstitutionally endorsing religious practices. "The Islam program activities were not overt religious exercises that raise Establishment Clause concerns," said the three-judge panel.
In 2003, a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of the school district. Thursday's appeals court decision upheld that ruling.
Hmmmm.... funny how the 9th Circuit does not believe that teaching young children about the wonderful concepts of the most evil religion in the history of the world (Islam) constitutes an "overt religious exercise," yet believed that the term "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated "Seperation of Church and State." Later in that report:
"We welcome the court's recognition that the learning process can include information about different faiths and cultures without being considered an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs or practices," said Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed. Any decision endorsed by CAIR has to be bad. CAIR has deep ties to Islamic terrorism and anti-Israeli terror groups. From Wikipedia:
A number of other CAIR officials have been charged with, and some convicted of, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism.
On February 2, 1995, CAIR advisory board member Imam Siraj Wahaj was named by the Office of the U.S. Attorney as one of several "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993. He has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, warned that America will crumble unless it submits to Islam, and was a character witness during Abdel-Rahman's World Trade Center bombing trial.
On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism.
In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.
In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, was arrested on charges of possessing "in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition" in September 2001, and conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and to the Taliban. He pleaded guilty and is serving 20 years in federal prison.
CAIR has been a traitorous organization since its founding. It was created in 1994 by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, two co-founders of the Islamic organization Islamic Association of Palestine. This organization, more commonly known as the IAP, had its assets frozen by the United States years ago for giving money to Hamas, the terrorist group that frequently murders Israelis with suicide bombers. Even more officially, in December 2004, a federal U.S. courtroom found the organization guilty of aiding and abetting Hamas in the death of a 17-year-old U.S. citizen in Israel in a civil lawsuit. It was now official: the IAP is directly connected to Hamas. And there is no doubt that CAIR is a brainchild of the IAP.
Another connection was proposed by the sworn testimony of terror expert Matthew Epstein before the Senate, he said:
The first manifestation of Hamas’ presence in the United States was the creation
of the Islamic Association for Palestine for North America (IAP) in 1981.16
Founded by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, IAP has served as a Hamas
support organization in the United States by publishing Hamas communiqués,
distributing Hamas recruitment videos and hosting conferences raising monetary
and popular support for Hamas. Marzook has been listed by the Treasury
Department as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
CAIR's connections to terrorism are undeniable. Anything this evil organization endorses is probably trouble.
Posted at 08:20 am by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Nov 19, 2005
In yet another setback for Democrats and their ridiculous "Culture of Corruption" strategy, Rep. Jack Murtha, the new Democratic talking head against the war in Iraq, is in ethical trouble, according to Roll Call (requires registration)::
Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother’s lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.
The calls come as Murtha, a former Marine and pro-military Democrat, has made headlines this week by coming out in support of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
According to a June 13 article in The Los Angeles Times, the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill included more than $20 million in funding for at least 10 companies for whom KSA lobbied. Carmen Scialabba, a longtime Murtha aide, works at KSA as well.
KSA directly lobbied Murtha’s office on behalf of seven companies, and a Murtha aide told a defense contractor that it should retain KSA to represent it, according to the LA Times.
In early 2004, Murtha reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A company called Lennar Inc. had right to the land, and Laurence Pelosi, nephew to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was an executive with the firm at that time.
Murtha also inserted earmarks in defense bills that steered millions of dollars in federal research funds toward companies owned by children of fellow Pennsylvania Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D).
[...]
Jennifer Crider, a Pelosi aide, dismissed the allegation that the Minority Leader was involved in anything improper as “absolutely ludicrous, and an attempt to divert from the real issue that Mr. Murtha is attempting to engage in debate on a critically important topic — U.S. policy in Iraq. The real story here is the Republican strategy to try to discredit at Congressman Murtha” while he is pushing for a U.S. pullout from Iraq.
Wow, the new King of Democrat Moonbats is accused of unethical financing. This will certainly help Democrats appear to be the honest, ethical party, and the Republicans look like the power-abusing crooks and cronies.
When will the Left get a hint? This isn't going to go anywhere. As long as my fellow bloggers keep on these people's case, surely we will win the '06 election.
Posted at 10:10 pm by NeoConCentral
Permalink
Back during my days of trolling the Democratic Party's blog, I simply loved clobbering them over their "Culture of Corruption" strategy by pointing out Democrats doing the same thing.
I also loved picking on them over their reporting on "Republican lobbyist" Jack Abramoff's scandal and his relation with the whole Indian tribe deal, and its relation to Republicans. Well, back then, I did some investigating and found a few Democrats involved as well. I pointed that out, and, from what I remember, I never got any responses...
None of my research found anything as in-depth as LB over at Don't Go Into the Light found today. His post is a must-read. My position is basically his: "If any of the parties involved did something wrong, Republican or Democrat, I want action taken. But to slime the Republicans over this while ignoring the exact same thing in their own party is simply another indication of the systemic hypocrisy of today's Democratic party."
Read it all here.
Posted at 07:45 pm by NeoConCentral
Permalink
WHOOPS-- AP Gets It Wrong on Murtha Resolution Debate
As I pointed out earlier, there is next-to-no difference between the Murtha Resolution and the Republican version that was offered last night. But the Associated Press, in reporting this debate, cherry-picked from the Murtha resolution and intent to draw an innacurate picture of the two resolutions.
Resolution: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., on Thursday offered a resolution that would force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date."
Alternative resolution: Friday, House Republicans planned to put to a vote -- and reject -- a symbolic alternative: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Here's the points that the AP missed in reporting the Murtha proposal:
1. Murtha's language concerning the "deployment" of troops and their "termination" did not differ from the Republican resolution. Murtha resolution reads:
"The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date."
2. As for the "at the earliest practicable date" addition, we must get a fuller understanding of what Murtha means by a "practicable date." As Murtha said in his now-infamous press release yesterday:
I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy.
As I pointed out earlier in a post, if Murtha wants the troops to immediately redeploy before the mid-December elections in Iraq, he's going to have to do it pretty soon. That's only a few weeks ago. Getting thousands of troops out of a broad land doesn't happen over night. The real reason Democrats didn't go for this is because it meant exactly what the Murtha resolution meant: Immediate withdrawal. Dems wanted a long and protracted debate so they could convince the American people to side with them. Then, when we did not meet their unachievable goal, they would cry some more and shout "Abuse of power!"
It certainly is a shame that Democrats want Iraq to become the next Vietnam.
Then, hilariously, Democrats had the nerve to complain about Republicans questioning their patriotism. What's wrong with that? Is their actions patriotic or not? Think about it: Is it patriotic to want America to lose a war, or to want America to win a war? I don't think these are invalid questions. And, by the way: I applaud Jean Schmidt's comments. They were certainly reasonable and necessary.
Correction: Earlier, I proposed that Murtha wanted us out of Iraq by the mid-December elections because he said that, at that time, Iraqis should be put on notice that we will immediately withdraw. Well, it turns out that Murtha at another time said that he thought getting all troops out by six months was reasonable. OK. This doesn't take away from my larger point, however, concerning the language of the resolutions. BOTH of them say that the DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. TROOPS would be TERMINATED as soon as the resolution passed. My bad for not reporting that and clarifying that earlier.
Posted at 05:06 pm by NeoConCentral
Permalink
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|