Log in

No account? Create an account

Lethal Lunacy

War of Words

September 5th, 2006

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.


Joshua B. Bolten
Chief of Staff

August 29th, 2006

Democrates fail once again


In there biggest chance since Delay ,democrates and the media have failed in there lastest attempts at criminalizing the idea of conservatisim.  Plame-gate as it was so adoringly called by the media and the left , is the lastest to fall by the wayside as it turns out the it was a liberal in the Bush administration who ousted Joe Wilsons wife.  In a article written my Michael Isikoff of the Newsweek maganize, the left is finally force to come with the terms that its was not some crack pot consperacy therory that Bush, and Chenny set out to discreidt Joe Wilson.  Rather it was another leftist Richard Armitage, who counldn't keep his mouth shut ,who outed Valeri Plame.  My question now is where are all of the apologies from the media?

August 23rd, 2006

Now You Know

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark in his right hand or in his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." -Revelation 13:16

The Mark is here!

August 11th, 2006

Letter to Bill O'reilly

Mr. O'reilly
Having heard you suggest putting limitations on internet blogging due to dishonesty, How about giving credit to littlegreenfootballs.com for showing America that dishonesty also lies in the main stream media. How about pointing out the there is just as much dishonesty in the MSM as there is on the internet instead of spinning it to seem like it only occurs on the internet? If your going to suggest limitations on internet blogging then maybe we the public should suggest limitations for you in the MSM. Lets put a Govt. yoke on you and see how you like it.


With the recent events involving Reuters News agency maybe Oreilly will shut his yap about bloggers on the Internet. I think with the advent of blogging and the effect that it is having on the media is a good thing. All of the Oreilly's are shaken in their boots because they can't blatantly lie to the public and get away with it. The public now has a forum with which it can shed light on all of the medias propaganda, and like Oreilly, some are calling for limitations to be put on bloggers on the Internet. They claim that Internet bloggers are dishonest, funny how in recent weeks its more like the main stream media who is dishonest.

August 9th, 2006


Oh what exciting times these are. If you are a believer in the Word of God then you know that what is happening in the world is Awesome. For me I have looked forward to this time my whole life. Events are taking place rather quickly and it joys my heart to know that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation are being fulfilled. Finally, an end to the insanity is near.

July 27th, 2006


Well, I have been using myspace for about hmmm a month and let me just say I am not impressed.   First of all its down half the time and I havn't been able to access it when I wanted.  If you want to personilized your blog your need to have a B.S. in HTML graphic design, oh and if you try to look up how to design your blog in the help menu all it tells you is to ask people in Myspace, yeah, that's a big help.  Thanks for nothing fuckoff.  I literally had to teach myself HTML code to customize my blog and in the end I hired someone to make one for me.

July 26th, 2006

Follow Up

So Just a follow up about the Feminist News Commentator. I sent Scott Parks, the News director of KMBZ an email with a link to my blog. I have no idea if he read it or not but he did reply;


Please stop e-mailing me, too. You are obsessed.

I find it amusing that he keeps referring to me being obsessed as if somehow that is going to start me quaking in my shoes and make me fell that my opinion is not important. Fortunately for me I am a little more stubborn than to let anyone tell me that my opinion is not important.

Mr. Parks
Like the news media is the only organization, or people that can be
obsessed about an issue, its laughable. Your attempts of intimidation
have failed. So far the only thing that I have done is express my
opinion, you know the whole freedom of speech issue that you news media
personnel hide behind all the time? Well it doesn't just apply to you.

Me try to intimidate you? How so? This from the same person who wrote
to Ellen: "I have exhausted all civility that I am capable of which
means that the only thing left is not going to be nice, in fact its going
to be downright nasty". Was that not intended to intimidate.

Micah, you have made a mountain out of a mole hill. Let it go. You are
the only person who has even complained about this.

I will no longer be responding to your e-mails after this *- in fact, I
will no longer even open them anymore. So you can send all you like *--
but you will be wasting your time.


Your right Mr. Parks it was meant to intimidate, just like Ellen's Opinion was meant to denigrate the male sex. The real problem here is that Mr. Parks still buys into the accepted Social Standard that Men are not allowed to disagree with a woman when she decides to let hate speech spill out of her mouth. Men aren't allowed to stand up to a woman and to call her a hate monger, even if its true. What ends up happening is just what happened to me. You get emails and stating half truths and and attempts at dismissing you as "troubled" or "obsessed". Which explains why I am the only one who made an issue out of it, evidently men everywhere have accepted being brow beat into a corner by the feminist movement so much so the we don't speak out against women.

While Mr. Parks would like to believe that he can stop me from emailing him it is unlikely that he will stop opening my emails as I have several email addresses. Though I must admit that for now I have made my point and have been listened to. There is always the promise of the future as this woman will, without fail, run her mouth again and I will be her to call her on her bullshit.

July 24th, 2006

Here locally in Kansas City there is a Radio News Commentator who thinks that only she is entitled to express her opinion.  Last week while delivering the news she made the comment that "all men are cheaters".  She made this comment in a room full of men who didn't have the guts to put her in her place.  Now when it comes to me, I have no problem expressing my view and I made damn sure she knew what it was.

 I didn't find your blanket sexist  comments about men being cheaters funny
at all. I shouldn't have to remind you that all women are equipped and have
the potential to be sluts and whores but no one runs around making those
kind of comments on KMBZ.  I am curious to know if your comments reflect the
beliefs and attitudes of the rest of KMBZ?
    You owe me, and several other men like me, an apology for labeling us
cheaters.  I have no greater propensity to cheat on my spouse as you do
yours, so keep you femanazi comments off the air because I for one will not
put up with them

To which she replied

Of course it only reflects my opinion.  And I didn't mean it to be funny.  It's just what I happen to believe.


In other words it only reflects her opinion and she meant to insult men, its what she believes in.  Well, I don't believe in this feminist bullshit and I don't have a problem stating it.

I don't listen to you to hear your opinions; I listen to you to get the news.  If you want to state opinion then you need to open up your 4 hour program for those of us capable of dismissing your bigoted stereotype for what it is, a hateful comment.  If KMBZ is going to perpetuate the stereotype that there is nothing positive to say about men i.e." all men are cheaters" or "all men are stupid" then please let me know so that I can make it my personal mission to inform you in person everyday of how much I hate women who think they are better than any one else.  I will not let some feminist man hater ruin my enjoyment of listening to KMBZ. 

And of course her reply

I'm hardly a feminist man hater, but I'm not going to convince you of that. Let's just leave it there.

You are right you are not going to convince me of anything except that your husband needs to give you an attitude adjustment, and NO we can't just leave it there.  I want my apology.
Now, I wrote another email (I will post later) basically stating that I still expect an apology and that civility of my request will change if further ignored.

I got a response from the station Manager Scott Parks

<i>ave been provided with copies of a string of recent e-mails you have
to KMBZ's morning news anchor Ellen Schenk. I must confess that your
are *- to say the least *- troubling.

Ms. Schenk has no intention *- now or ever *- of issuing an apology for
she said. And for the record she said (following the reading of a story
about cheating) that she believed if given the chance, and with
that they would not be caught, that a majority of men would be likely
cheat. On the air I told her that I disagreed with her assessment *-
but I
did not ask her to take it back. That was her opinion. Our station airs
opinions all day every day *- and I am sure that on a daily basis we
someone in our listening audience. But that doesn't mean that our
personalities issue apologies every time someone's feelings are hurt.

Your e-mails border on the obsessive *- and I must ask at this time
that you
stop e-mailing Ellen. She has given you the courtesy of a response. If
it is
not to your liking *- then there's not much I can do for you.

Good Day

Scott Parks
News Director
News Radio 980 KMBZ</i>

He did quote her here, but he failed to quote the whole conversation it was a nice try Mr. Parks but defending feminist hate speach serves you no purpose.  Had this comment been made about the opposite sex he would have his head on the chopping block.   I do not except your premise that there is something  “troubling” about the fact that I can express myself.  As if you can just dismiss me with a gesture of the hand.  Do you really think that you are the only one’s entitled to an opinion?  I’ve got news for you, you are wrong.  Next time she feels the need to pass on hateful opinions regarding the male sex.  I will have something to say and I will say it, got it Mr. Parks?  How do you like them apples?  If this response is not to your liking, tough shit.

June 29th, 2006


The greatest threat to the war on terrorism isn't the Islamic insurgency -- our military can handle the savages. It's traitorous liberals trying to lose the war at home. And the greatest threat at home isn't traitorous liberals -- it's patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously. - Ann Coulter
Powered by LiveJournal.com