A Tale of Two Payne's

Peculiar Pair of "Paynefully" Progressive, Proficient, Pontificating Professors, ...Prolifically Professing Partisan Politics?

Webster’s:
Profess-v. to admit or declare openly; to make a vow.
Professor-n. a faculty member of the highest rank at a college or university; a highly skilled teacher.

Rodger A Payne is a professor of political science at Louisville University.
Rodger M Payne is a professor of religious studies at Louisiana State University.
Both are highly respected in their field and their work is widely published.

I confused them for the same person (and apologized) in the post below ("scoreboard"), but they do have similarities besides their almost identical names.

Rodger “A” professes that… "US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail". (note: Rodger "A" links to his own blog post as the source for the claim)

Rodger “M” enlightens “southern folk” by professing… “the south is backward and religion is part of that”.

While Rodger "M" does not seem to get off topic and go political in his writings, the above statement does give some clue as to his leanings and conclusions.
They are both a possible source of “pain” in the side of those who support non-partisan academic ethics.

Professor Ward Churchill (CU) (pictured) doesn’t believe there is anything wrong with teaching his anti-American personal views in the classroom and one must wonder about the two pontificating Payne’s as well.

Rodger “A” (University of Louisville) certainly has no problem with publishing his anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-conservative views on the world wide web and also “encourages” his students to read his book(s) as part of the curriculum. At one of his other blogsites (did I mention he is prolific?) "Duck of Minerva", he admits... "I'm not really a "tenured radical," though my politics are probably well to the left of your average blue state voter".

Rodger "M" is more reserved (thankfully) and sticks to Religion as it should be. Aside from the statement that southerners are backward and religion is largely to blame, Rodge M doesn't stir the water much.

Now before you get off on the wrong foot here, I have no problem with any teacher presenting all legitimate sides of issues, in fact that is the way it should be…however what we now know is that professors across the country are presenting radical liberal anti-American views and yet calling conservative views “hate speech”. Such is the new definition of “diversity”.

I could be completely wrong about the two Payne's… (I hope I am) and they might be able to hide their personal views from students and they might be able to be "fair and balanced" in the classroom…(they would be in the extreme minority) …but if so, (good for them) why are they unable or unwilling do the same when NOT in the classroom?

Sure I believe in free speech (1st Amendment) and if any professor wants to get into the “opinion business” or the ideology business or partisan politics then he/she needs to get out of the "teaching facts to kids business" first.
Then he/she can spout whatever he/she wants.
Unless the class he/she is teaching is called “Liberal Indoctrination 101”, then of course he/she would be “free” to do just that.
(and- NO I am not a teacher, although I have held a teaching certificate in the past but I assure you we never discussed my political views on or off the field.)

SO, are students (and concerned citizens/bloggers) supposed to ignore these outrageous statements made outside the classroom and simply have faith in the integrity of these men and women not to bring their personal political agenda into the classroom?

Based on what we see, read and hear...I think not.

The left realized a long time ago that they couldn’t win the open debate on issues unless they redefine the issues, redefine the answers and redefine debate itself. The best way to do that is in the schools by teaching kids their way of thinking at an early age and continuing it through college. What a great idea huh?

This redefinition asserts that progressive views are …well “progressive”, forward thinking and scientific while conservative views are presented as “backward”, hateful and therefore not to be tolerated in the debate. The new definition of diversity on campus means no diversity of opinion.

They are teaching a liberal ideology along with “2+2” and “the history of history”. The number of incidences of this occurring is staggering. These two websites are dedicated to fairness in the schools… I encourage everyone to visit them, you will be amazed.

College- SAF: Students For Academic Freedom

K 2-12 PSAF: Parents and Students For Academic Freedom

Here is David Horowitz’s list of the 101 most dangerous professors in America.
(Sorry Professors' Payne…you didn’t make the cut- better luck next year)

Imagine the outcry if a majority of teachers were teaching students about “prayer”, or about Jesus (the philosopher), or the fact that conservatives are more generous with charitable donations than liberals, or that it was Republicans who freed the slaves, it was a Republican who ended the Vietnam war and a Democrat who started it or that Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq resulting in defeat for America. How do you spell ACLU?

You don’t have to imagine it. Teachers who support prayer have been fired for it, teachers who are conservative don’t get hired in many cases and teachers who are conservative are few and far between to begin with.(it’s the capitalism thing)

Somebody needs to get a grip on these professors. They certainly have plenty of “book sense” but many have absolutely no “common sense” and they are paid with our dollars and cents.

The tale of two “Payne’s” is but one of thousands of such tales.

Until Americans start holding institutions of academia accountable for their “product”, they will continue to try and produce “good little liberals” and thus affect American politics (from the classroom) for generations to come.

Dr. Ward Churchill is merely the tiny, teeny tip of the academic iceberg that is attempting to sink the unsinkable (but titanic) luxury liner called “America”.

What a Payne.
-redstater
UPDATE: 9:25pm- This just keeps getting better and better...(or worse and worser).
This is from a supporter of Professor Payne, Dave at The Glittering Eye who wrote...
"Associate blogger and professor of political science Rodger Payne is showing the John Milius cult film Red Dawn as part of a course on politics in film. The merits of the film aside I had a small problem with his explanation:
"Those who have seen it know that “Red Dawn” is not an especially good movie.
So why did I select it?
Well, I wanted a film that highlights the great difficulty of counterinsurgency warfare — and I wanted a movie that would make students sympathize with the insurgents."

Is this a good example of how Professor Rodger A Payne keeps his personal views out of the classroom?
Check the comments (below) for more...

UPDATE: 12/30- Well, after lots of comments here AND on two of Professor Rodger A. Payne's personal blogs, (links above) where he tried every trick in the book (including bait and switch and false choice) to avoid answering the very question he came here to answer in the first place, ...We finally have narrowed it down to this.
It is safe to say (from his own words- not mine) that...
One of University of Louisville's leftist professors (Rodger A. Payne) does NOT support victory for US troops in Iraq, but instead makes college students sympathize with the insurgents.

-glad that's finally settled...whew!
Who's next?
UPDATE: 12/31- As Gomer Pyle liked to say... "surpriiiize- suuuuurpriiiiiize".
In an attempt to garner the flip-flop satire of the year award, Prolific Pundit Payne, (Rodger "A"- U of Louisville) awakened this morning to now declare VICTORY in Iraq.
"Victory is ours! When can we pop the champagne?"
Rodger | Homepage | 12.31.06 - 9:40 am
Tongue firmly implanted completely through his cheek, Rodger the dodger is struggling to find a position. Realizing that he is in an impossible position to defend seriously , he turns to satire.

Here is the "corner" that the good doctor has painted himself into (with no way out but to try and joke his way out).
If he admits what he believes and supports defeat, he knows there would be consequences (from the newspapers) and he would lose credibility... likewise if he supports a US victory in Iraq (as defined here and by the President dozens of times) he knows there would be consequences (from his liberal pals in the academic world) and he would lose credibility.
Meanwhile he has the issue of teaching his politics in the classroom to somehow justify in order to avoid losing credibility.
What a pickle.

I'd support victory too (if I were him), but I tried to tell him that in the beginning.
BTW- Feigning "victory" by claiming victory to support "cut and run" does not meet the criteria clearly laid out during the course of this topic.
Some people just can't be "schooled".
Final(?) UPDATE 1/1/2007- on Professor Payne's pickle... over at his blog "rodger" writes
"I've plainly written several times that I support victory, given the meaning I attach to the term -- and my interpretation of the situation. Just a few screens up, you defined winning as "victory in the fight." I say that the US can best "win" by bringing the fighting to a hasty end.

Given that the war is bad policy and ending that war would likely bring the best policy result available, it would be foolish to support continued (and presumably escalated) fighting".

Professor Payne finally sums up his position fairly well when he says he supports "victory" as long as it means "defeat"... ie: "cutting and running" and not fighting back.

UPDATE 01/08/07-"Weekend Homework" - On Friday the 13th (October 2006) Professor Payne wondered aloud on his blog if he should ask a certain set of questions to graduate students on their exam.
At the end of the sample test Payne asks readers to ignore that the questions were originally asked at the UN by Iranian "Al Presidente" Mahmoud Amadinejad. (pay no attention to that man behind the curtain)
The "exam" did not ask for debating or for offering a different view, merely to respond to the insane questions about how unfair it is for a superpower to have nuclear weapons and not let small radical totalitarian religious fanatics have them.
However, there is no mention of any thoughts of asking students to recite one of President Bush's speeches on what happens to Panye's students if Ahmadinejad does get nukes.

The End.

(ie: moonbat)

Victory or Defeat? Liberal Scoreboard:

My original post "Unite the Country" has gotten pretty far down the page, so here is an update with the "scoreboard".

Otter at "The Otter Limits" blog was first to "get it" (accepted the offer/challenge) and supports VICTORY in spite of his political differences with President Bush and his belief that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Otter now supports Victory and uniting the country.

Dave at "Oklahoma Lefty" blogs also "gets it" and even got past his distrust and disagreement with me (Red Stater) and joined us in supporting VICTORY in Iraq. Dave now supports victory and uniting the country.

Anthony from "Concerned Citizens of Today" blogs also "gets it", and supports VICTORY in spite of his disagreements with the President, the war and with conservatives in general. Anthony supports victory and uniting the country.

Again, I applaud them all.
It takes a brave blogger to even appear to change his/her opinion on anything...much less such a controversial issue such as Iraq.
It is my sincere hope that other progressive open minded bloggers will agree with Otter, Dave and Anthony and join us in supporting the troops by supporting their victory.
If you are an anti-war blogger (until now), take the challenge/offer for yourself and keep me writing pro-Democrat/liberal stories (uhhhggg) while helping unite the country.

Here is the disclaimer from the original post to make it clearer and easier for you.
“Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.”

Oh, yes the rest of the scoreboard...

Here is aaron/avandeg at "Bombshell" blogs who supports the defeat of his own country and military. He doesn't believe we are in a war, doesn't believe the Islamic throatcutters really exist and if they do they are just a "few thugs with knives" and not a threat to America.
aaron took the challenge but said "no thanks" to the offer of supporting victory for his own country and helping America agree on on simple thing. (Victory)

And the latest is "Rodger" at Rodger A Paynes Blog, who also is in "Jihad Denial" and believes American troops are in Iraq to kill innocent Iraqi's.
Rodger writes... "US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail".
S0, (according to Rodger), the only way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi's and the world is for everyone to realize that our troops are the "bad guys", killing innocent Iraqi's for oil, fun and profit. Then they will like us? I doubt that very much.
Rodger is in DENIAL and for DEFEAT?

12/27/2006 UPDATE on Rodger A Payne: He is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville, where he has "taught" since 1991.
Now THAT'S funny... not ha-ha funny, the other kind.
It makes one wonder just what the good Professor Payne is teaching our college students about politics?
Or religion? It seems Rodger Payne is also quoted as saying that the south is backward and religion is largely to blame.
Corrected-12/28-A Rodger M. Payne teaches at Louisiana State University.
I mistakenly attributed a quote from Rodger M Payne of LSU as a quote from Rodger A Payne of Louisville University.
With apologies to both.
It was Rodger M Payne (LSU)who said ..."the south is backward and religion is part of it".
But I suspect (from his blog posts) that Rodger A (UL) might agree with Rodger M (LSU).
So, instead of "one" Roger Payne teaching kids that Americans are the bad guys in Iraq and Christians are backward... there are two.
Great...

Two moonbats for the price of... 2.

See my post Fake Journalism 101 about other liberal College professors/politcal pundits indoctrinating college students...
Stay tuned...
More to come on The Pontifications of Professor(s) Payne (next)...

So, the "score" so far is... Victory-3, Defeat-2
Who's next?
-red

Hey Liberals... part 4

In keeping with my word, (see image left) here is another pro Democrat post and perhaps the nicest thing I can say to liberals and Democrats.
I'm going to criticize President Bush and compliment Democrats in one post.
Two for the price of one- Tuesday.

THE BORDERS:
Besides the war on terror/Islamic Fascism , the second biggest issue for many Red Staters is "Illegal Immigration".
The President and the Republican majority in Congress have failed America in this regard.
Many of the Democrats who won last month in the mid-term elections, did so (in part) due to their stance on the borders and controlling illegal immigration.

Dan Stein of FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) has this to say.
"FAIR is calling upon the newly elected Democrats and the new congressional leadership to honor the promises that they made to dissatisfied voters all across the country to implement effective policies against illegal immigration. “When candidates promised that they would ‘get tough on illegal immigration,’ voters understood this to mean that they would enforce our borders, crackdown on employers, and create real deterrents to illegal immigration. If there was a single newly elected Democratic legislator who ran on a platform of amnesty for illegal aliens and massive new foreign guest worker programs, we are not aware of it,” said Stein.

In my opinion (Red Stater) Republicans lost a lot of voter confidence in Red States when they failed to do ANYTHING about securing the borders or controlling illegal immigration or enforcing immigration laws.
Big mistake.

Being pro-Victory in Iraq and all, I certainly understand the President's focus on the war. However, his lack of interest in pressing congress to act on border security along with his support for a type of amnesty for illegal aliens currently in America (illegally) causes many Red Staters to shake our heads.

Securing the borders IS an important element of the war on terror and keeping Americans safe from weapons and materials that could easily come across either of our borders. Securing the borders is a part of the war... an important part and Republicans (along with the President) have failed to do anything (until passing the 700 mile fence deal) until recently.

The real bad news for Republicans and conservatives alike is that Democrats can take a perceived edge into the 2008 Presidential elections on one of the top key issues for most Americans.
From the Arizona Republic Newspaper...
"Luis Miranda, a Democratic National Committee spokesman, stopped short of acknowledging there is a concerted strategy by the party and its candidates to seize on immigration as a potential wedge issue. But he said the Bush administration and Republicans who control both chambers of Congress "haven't addressed the need for comprehensive immigration reform . . . leaving states in a bind."

Thats it... there ya' go.
...unless there are more progressive liberals out there who wanna' keep me writing good stuff about Democrats .

So how about it...
Victory in Iraq?
"All aboard"...?
-red

Victory in Iraq?

Below are the words of a great American who put his reputation, career and entire future on the line by supporting VICTORY and sticking to it.
This is what my offer/challenge is all about.
Uniting the country by putting the country ahead of politics and supporting the troops by supporting their victory instead of calling for their retreat/defeat.
I encourage more liberal/progressive and Democrat bloggers out there to consider these words, (they are not my words and they are NOT George W Bush's words)... and join the growing movement of anti-war bloggers who now support VICTORY.

Washington D.C.
December 6, 2005:
"Thank you very much David McCurdy, my friend for your generous introduction and for your continuing public service and let me join you in thanking Dr. Andy Krepanevich and the Center for all that he and it has contributed to American thinking and policy on defense, and in this case particularly on the war in Iraq. I am honored to join both of you in this discussion this morning. Before Andy offers his latest insights on Iraq, which I look forward to, I in some sense want to set the context. I want to say a few things about what I believe is on the line there in Iraq, about how we are conducting ourselves here in Washington, and how what happens here affects what will happen there.

The title of this program is “How to Win in Iraq.” That was the title of Andy’s seminal article in the journal Foreign Affairs earlier this fall, and it seems to me that is ought to be the focus of Congressional discussions about the war from now until its conclusion. The most important debate going on currently here about the war in Iraq is between some people who are focused on withdrawal of our forces regardless of conditions on the ground and the rest of us who believe that our goal in Iraq is not to withdraw but to win, so we can leave with the mission accomplished.

This is a serious and significant debate and in the vitality and health of our democracy will continue to go on. I hope it goes on with a recognition that there are Republicans and Democrats on both sides and that it should be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and national interest.

For my part, I agree with Dr. Krepinevich's observation that, “The war (in Iraq), which arguably began as a “war of choice” has become a “war of necessity” we cannot afford to lose. The costs of victory in Iraq will be large for the U.S. But the costs of defeat would be disastrous for the U.S., Iraq, the Middle East, and most of the world.

The costs of victory will be high in American lives lost and American money spent. But the costs of defeat would be disastrous – they include the collapse of the new Iraqi regime, civil war, regional war, a victory for Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, which will embolden them to attack both other Arab countries and our American homeland, the rollback of democracy in the region, and the painful realization that the lives of American soldiers who have died in Iraq were given in vain.

Defeat in Iraq would also carry a heavy cost of lost opportunities. We are there not just to defeat the terrorists – not even mostly to defeat the terrorists – we are there to provide the security for a self-government by the Iraqis where the creation of a modern, open, thriving state in this historic center of the Arab and Islamic worlds. If we accept defeat in Iraq we will have lost the opportunity to create within this great nation a larger victory in the so-called war “for the hearts and minds” of people in the Islamic world and that lost opportunity would be a large cost and a disaster.

It is probably these enormous costs of failure in Iraq that explain why so few in Congress have joined the calls for a preset, timed withdrawal. Last Wednesday, the President laid out his strategy for victory in Iraq in a speech at the Naval Academy and accompanying 35-page white paper. It described a plan that has developed over the last two and half years since Saddam Hussein was overthrown. It is a plan that has resulted from trial and yes, many errors. It describes the strategy, the tactics, that I saw in Iraq two weeks ago and that I believe are creating progress there.

The response of leading Democrats to the president's proposal last week I thought was important and instructive. Most leading Democrats – and I include here the statements made by my colleagues Senators John Kerry and Jack Reed – did not call for an arbitrary time to withdrawal, but instead questioned some of the Administration's tactics and asked the Administration to go to the next level of detail on its proposals and plans.

The President’s description of our “clear, hold, and build” strategy for victory in Iraq and the tactical response of most Democrats suggests that there may be more agreement here than meets the eye and ear in the dueling partisan press conferences that characterize public discourse in Washington today. What I am suggesting here, as I listen and read the statements made, is that there is broad bipartisan agreement on the goals, on the strategic interest we have in the successful completion of our mission in Iraq; there are disagreements about tactics. Accepting this reality and the urgency of the moment in Iraq calls us, I believe, to remember the famous counsel of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan that “Politics must stop at the water’s edge.”

Vandenburg of course, played an instrument role in the post WWII period in building bipartisan support for Presidents Truman’s post WWII, early Cold War foreign policy. The full, actual statement of the imperative that Vandenburg stated, that politics must stop at the water’s edge, is altogether relevant to our current circumstances:

“To me, bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water’s edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world.”

Those last words of Vandenberg’s exactly describe the goals and methods of the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01 and fight us in Iraq today. They aim to “divide and conquer us and the free world.” Vandenburg’s preceding words defining a bipartisan foreign policy should remind us of how much stronger we would be in this critical fight if we “seek national security ahead of partisan advantage.”

That is why I feel so strongly that it is time for us to set aside for now the arguments about why we got into Iraq so that we can work together on how we can get out best in victory and honor with the job done.

With the consequences of victory or defeat in Iraq so large for our future safety, and liberty; and with the lives of 160,000 Americans in uniform on the line there everyday, it is urgent that all of us who want to complete our mission successfully and do not favor an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal put the national goals we hold in common ahead of the party labels that too often divide us.

I recall here the wisdom of Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who served our country during World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. Stimson said that sometimes the best way to make a person trustworthy is to trust him. There is wisdom there. It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration. This group would meet regularly, I would hope at least weekly, to discuss conditions and progress on the ground in Iraq and ways to alter or improve our strategy for victory. It would carry forward the cooperative spirit of the Warner-Levin amendment which recently passed the Senate. In our form of government, it would be one of the closet structures we could create to replicate a unity government or a war cabinet that exists in other democratic systems.

I know that some will say that proposing a forum for bipartisan cooperation on the war is, in the current intensely partisan environment in Washington, naïve and impractical. Perhaps they are right. But what is not naïve or impractical is my conclusion that the return of such bipartisanship in the conduct of this war would raise popular support at home, encourage our brave troops in the field, discourage our vicious enemies, and strengthen the resolve of the Iraqi people and the hundreds of millions of others in the Islamic world who want a better way forward than the hatred and death Al Qaeda offers.

In 1941, Winston Churchill came to Rochester, New York and said:

“When great causes are on the move in the world… we learn that we are spirits, not animals, and that something is going on in space and time which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

My friends, great causes are clearly on the move in the world today. We were attacked by Islamist terrorists – attacked here at home. The centers of American power, our great cities, were attacked. The main battleground in this war is now Iraq. So I would say, in Churchill’s phrase, that duty calls us now to take ourselves above the ordinary partisan debates of this capital city, to unite for victory, to walk the course together until our mission is completed, our security is protected, and the forces of freedom have once more emerged triumphant from the battlefields of power and of principle."

Senator Joe Liberman (D) Connecticut
12/06/2005

I don't agree with Senator Liberman on most of the issues facing us today, but that doesn't stop me from considering him a great American and having the utmost respect for him. I stand with him united on this issue... the single most important issue of our time.
JOIN the Red Stater VICTORY parade today and keep me writing positive stories about Democrats and progressives... (this isn't easy, trust me!)
-red

News From The Oklahoma Lefty

Another progressive blogger to support my offer for UNITY is Dave at The Oklahoma Lefty blog.

Dave and I have traded barbs and disagreed so much that another blogger has posed the question "Will Red Stater and Oklahoma Lefty EVER agree on anything?" in an opinion poll.
Well, here's the answer....
Oklahoma Lefty and Red Stater stand together as Americans (not lefty's or rightwingers) today and I give the credit (and all the praise) to Oklahoma Lefty.
As I said below about Otter, it's not easy to speak out against all those who normally agree with you. It takes guts (courage). Dave has courage (guts).
I don't know much about Dave, but he has two children and is a very proud dad that is for sure.
He is passionate about politics and studies religion from a variety of perspectives and someday hopes to be a published author. Dave writes about all things progressive and contributes to several blogs besides Oklahoma Lefty on a regular basis.
I hope his dream to publish his work comes true even though I probably won't agree with much of it. (as if that matters)
-red
Here is Daves post in full from Oklahoma Lefty...

Victory
Red Stater posed a couple of challenges to “liberal bloggers” to help unite the country over the war in Iraq. It’s hard to image uniting the country over this issue and admittedly I was skeptical of this “offer.”

After reading both of the posts in question, I was still skeptical until I got to this part:

“Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.”

This is actually reasonable. Often what you hear and read from supports of the Bush administration is that if you disagree with the President then you are obviously against the troops (I spelled it right this time) and hate America. In the quote above, Red has shown an understanding of the flawed nature of to this way of thinking. We will never all agree on everything, but there are some things that we can all I agree on and I think we can all agree that we need to succeed in Iraq. Where many disagree is how that success will be achieved.

I’m in favor of drastically increasing our troop levels in Iraq to properly stabilize the country and give them time to get their infrastructures up and running. We owe them that. Life under Saddam was horrible, but most of them knew how to play the game. It was a terrible existence but they knew the rules. We shattered that and now there are no rules. It is possible that if we left, then the Iraqi’s could find their own feet, but that doesn’t seem right to me. We have a moral obligation to help them achieve stability and a working government.

Much of the criticism of the war has been based on its execution (and why we went to war, but that is beating a dead horse at this point). The war has been run poorly to say the least and that needs to change. I think if the strategy drastically changed in Iraq and we saw those changes having positive results, then more people would support the war. Anti-war folks often quote the polls that show 70% of America being against the war. The fact is that the masses at not always right. There were millions of people who were against desegregation. They were wrong. There were millions of people against giving black and women the right to vote. They were wrong. There were millions of people of purchased Brittney Spears and Jessica Simpson CD’s. Those people were definitely wrong (or at the very least have no taste).

A while back I wrote a post about the possible ways to end the war. I wrote about possibly leaving and possibly increasing out troops and how we need to either crap or get off the pot. We cannot continue with this war the way its been run and hope to succeed. We need change. We need a new direction in Iraq that helps us help the Iraqi’s win back their country. Now that we are there, we need to succeed in Iraq.
-Dave

News From The Otter Limits

As promised in my offer "Unite for Victory", here is the first of hopefully many positive stories on progressives who considered the offer and support VICTORY.
This (below) is new from "The Otter Limits".
First, I must give "otter" a lot of credit for having the marbles to do what he thinks is right in spite of the consequences.
Going against those that normally agree with you isn't easy. (kevlar underwear required)
About Otter...
In doing some light research, I learned that he recently moved across the country to Oklahoma from Seattle but was originally born in Denver CO. in 1972.
(Red Stater moved to Denver Colorado from Oklahoma in 1974-2004, before returning to Oklahoma)
Otter is passionate about his music, plays in a band called "Otisburg" and is working on releasing an album(cd) "Born Yesterday" hopefully very soon. I wish him much success.
He frequently writes for other blogs including Otters War Journal and Concerned Citizens of Today among others.

Otter and I don't agree on very much, but today we stand together as Americans for Victory.
Please join me in "saluting" Otter for his courage and honesty.
-red
Here is his piece on Victory in Iraq.
A lot of this is going to be a reprint of my previous blog on the subject (view at War In Iraq Part 1) and some of it will be an update on my two cents worth.

"Personally, I don't agree with us being in Iraq. In some ways, I am a bit of an isolationist when it comes to foreign affairs. I think we have enough problems here at home that need to be dealt with before we try exerting our authority elsewhere. I really think that the health care situation over here, for instance, is much more important than sending our troops to fight someone else's war. However, I know there are times when our national security comes into play and we have to do our part to defend our interests. Personally, I don't really think that Iraq was a threat to our national security but that’s just me.In any case, I don't think we should have gone over there. Now don't get me wrong, I support our troops. They are risking their lives over there and I fully support their efforts so I'm not unpatriotic in that sense.So bottom line, we should have never gone over there, in my opinion.That being said, we are over there and now it is time to shift our attention elsewhere. Yes, we should not have been over there in the first place. But there is no better time than now to quit all the squabbling about it. We're over there, deal with it."

Now, all that being said, we are over there and I have begun to feel like we need to stay over there until our job is finished. That's right! I said we need to stay there. Call it the patriot in me but we need to kick some butt over there and show those people who they are messing with. They aren't messing with some third-rate country or some militant insurgent group trying to take over their country. We are the freaking United States of America! And we need to show them that we mean business!
Do we need to escalate and send more troops? Maybe. Do we need to re-think our strategy and come up with some different tactics? Absolutely! Do we need to further escalate and re-institute the draft? Well, I don't think I would take it that far.
And here is my reasoning for that. I think a person, be it a man or woman, should WANT to serve their country, NOT be forced to. If they don't agree with the war and don't want to be a part of it. By all means, don't force them to do it. Those are the type of rights we are fighting for over there in the first place. Besides, if we get some war-hating anti-troop draftee over there, who know what'll happen. Someone could get needlessly killed for lack of interest or out of just plain spite).
So, to make this plain and simple. My confusion over the issue is no more. We need to stay over there and fight until we have achieved our desired results.

That is all.

ATTENTION LIBERALS: Let's Unite The Country

Red Stater's INVITATION TO UNITE THE COUNTRY:

In the post below (Bush To Terrorists: "America is not Leaving") I offer an invitation for liberal/Democrat bloggers to Convert to Victory and unite the country.
Please read the entire post and consider this sincere offer to unite the country and reduce the polarization America is currently "suffering" from.

I will back-up my offer with this.
For every liberal anti-war blogger who "Converts to Victory" and posts his/her Victory Conversion story on his/her weblog, I will write and post a nice pro-liberal or pro-democrat story here on Red Stater.

If ya really wanna unite the country and stop the polarization (like you claim) here's your big chance.

If ya' wanna convert Red Stater to a Democrat, here's the way to possibly do it.
(Convert enough liberal bloggers to Victory, and I will write a new pro-democrat story every day and eventually it might just rub off on me)

If ya' claim to support the troops (or "troupes" as one blogger accidently wrote) here is your chance to support them without calling for their defeat.

RULES:
Your Conversion to VICTORY must be sincere and there are no "but's" allowed.
(as in... I support victory, ...BUT...)
Your Conversion to VICTORY must appear on your blog in your own words.
(No tricks and no games).
Then post your "victory support" in the comments section here at Red Stater and watch me struggle to say nothing but nice things about liberals and democrats.
Aside from saving your life and perhaps the entire planet, the above might be the best reason yet to "support victory"!

Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.
(I can't make it any easier than that.)

Victory as defined (by President George W Bush) for the purpose of this offer is "A free and democratic Iraq that is a friend to America and a partner in the war on terror".

Hey, it beats converting to Islam ...or death!
-red

UPDATE: 12/21/2006- aaron (avandeg) at BOMBSHELL (odd title for a anti-war liberal) responded in the comments section below with about 2 pages of bush-hating rants which began with two words- "no thanks".
aaron/avandeg then went on to post over 20 sequential, one-word, sophmoric comments and attack me in the "Harry Reid on Life Support" post (below).
Thus, we have gone to comments by approval only.
So that's ONE hateful liberal who admits he supports America's DEFEAT, but ZERO for VICTORY or uniting the country. (so far...)

UPDATE: 12/22-2006
Please welcome OTTER from The Otter Limits (and several other progressive blogs) who supports the troops by supporting their Victory in Iraq.
You can read otter's comment below (see comments) and join me in having the utmost respect for his courage and honesty in standing up for VICTORY.
God Bless You Otter... a nice piece highlighting you and other democrats/liberals is coming in the next few days before I post anything else. (as promised) In the meatime, watch for the band OTISBURG everyone!

UPDATE: 12/23/2006- Please welcome DAVE at The Oklahoma Lefty blogs who says "Now that we are there, we need to succeed in Iraq".
I applaud you Dave and (as promised) I will write a nice piece on you and your blog as well as Democrats in general...coming soon.
I do want to warn you to be sure and put on your kevlar underwear... siding with "the enemy" can get you into trouble.
God Bless you.

UPDATE: 12/25/2006-Another progressive who joins us in uniting the country is Anthony from "Concerned Citizens of Today" who writes... "I do support the war. I do feel like we have done more good than harm. So, yes I am with you on this. I definitely support our troops and are very proud of them for what they do. Thanks again to any of our brave troops that read this."
I'm sure it's safe for me to say (on behalf of those brave troops) - Thank you Anthony...for supporting VICTORY.

UPDATE: 12/27/2006- And then we hear from Rodger... ( didn't bother to actually read my complete offer), who doesn't think we are fighting against anyone except innocent Iraqi's, that victory is not possible, and he believes Americans shouldn't support victory in the first place...

See his comments in the comment section here or go to his recent post on this subject where he says...
"US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail".

So, if we admit we are the bad guys... we can win.
Not so say's Rodger... not even then.
We can officially mark "Rodger" down in the "supports the defeat of his own country" category.
I wonder if Rodger knows aaron?
Maybe we should introduce them...
-red

BUSH To Terrorists- "America is not leaving"

Today, President Bush served notice to terrorists and those promoting America's defeat.

There will be no "cut and run" and America is not leaving Iraq or the middle-east until victory is achieved.
...There's your sign.

The Democrats promises of bringing home the troops have now officially faded into election hoax history as most Democrat politicians now admit they actually favor putting MORE troops in Iraq...not less.

So after all the study groups and meetings, focus groups and recommendations, we have heard the plan for more troops rejected by generals on the ground, the plan to cut and run rejected by everyone and plans to do everything in between rejected by other "experts".

The only thing all of the experts agree on is that VICTORY is essential to America's security. (bells ringing and horns blowing!!!)

It seems that most agree that the correct plan of action is to use American troops to support Iraqi military to secure the country until Iraq can defend itself from the enemy within and train Iraqi forces as fast as possible. (more bells, whistle's and horns!!!!)

So today President Bush confirmed again the exact same thing he has been saying since the "Jihad Bowl" began.

Victory is the ONLY option, a successful democratic Iraq is the goal.
His message to the US troops is that your cause is just and you will not fail.
His message to the Islamic throatcutters and suiciders is that America will NOT be dictated to by a bunch of religious fanatics from the dark ages who think they can intimidate the United States Armed forces and/or the American people into retreat with threats and acts of violence.

PEACE can only come when those who seek religious domination by the sword are put to "rest in peace" themselves.

This is not a quick- fix war we are in however.
The next few American Presidents are going to have to deal with this same issue as this battle will continue for a while. There are hundreds of thousands of children who are poisioned with hate for America in religious schools across the middle east.
Some of them will grow-up and realize they were lied to...while others will seek to continue the jihad on America for decades.

Millions of Children in Iraq are counting on America to not let them down.
They won't forget. This little boy (photo from Iraq) has got it right... perhaps he is a future elected President of his country, business owner or a future proud grandfather of a future Iraqi President.
He will tell them about the brave American soldiers, how they freed Iraq and the middle-east from tyranny, fascism and theocratic rule and he will be right.

President Bush has it right too.
He has had it right all along and history will prove it so.
Iraq is one of the final keys to "unlocking" the middle-east.

Let Iraq turn into the capital of terrorism and future generations will know President Bush was right. (the hard way)
or
Make sure Iraq becomes a key partner in the war against islamic radical rule, becomes a thriving peaceful democratic nation and the central reason for the spread of democracy in the middle east and future generations will know President Bush was right.

But one thing is undeniably CLEAR, ...the President is correct about Iraq.

Victory and a free Iraq is the ONLY solution for future peace.

Which bring us to...
Red Stater's "Call for UNITY" in these "United" States:
(Red state, Blue state, Purple or whatever)-
In this troubling time when liberals and Democrats are calling for the country to come together, be less divided and less polarized... I would like to take the first step and invite liberals and democrats alike to unite and come together with conservatives and Republicans on the one thing on which everyone can agree.

Victory.

I call on all the LIBERAL BLOGGERS out there (you know who you are) to show the country and the world that YOU are willing to put partisan politics aside, that you truly do seek to unite the country and join the rest of us in promoting victory for America, Iraq and ultimately PEACE in the middle east.
WARNING:
Try it slowly... don't injure yourselves, ...maybe one small post promoting a "tie" in Iraq... then slowly work your way up to actually promoting victory for your own country.
Baby steps before you run.

Red Stater officially invites ALL LIBERALS, hippies, leftover Vietnam protesters and anti-war activists (you know who you are) to come on over and unite with us conservative, rightwing, bible thumpin' rednecks (we know who we are) on this ONE ISSUE (first) and then we'll work on the other stuff.
That one issue is literally the future of the world and your own personal safety, so you do have a vested interest in the outcome of this.
Since they attacked us and will continue the Jihad Bowl with or without your approval, ("no-war" is not an option) how about all the rent-a-protesters go get some new construction paper, crayons and make a new protest sign that says three little words....
"VICTORY IN IRAQ".

C'mon... give it a try....you can do it!
If you need some help, read what Joe Liberman (former Democrat, 2000 Democrat VP candidate) says and work your way up from there.

Show us you are not ALL just a bunch of partisan democrat political hacks without a clue.
(like aaron at BOMBSHELL)
We want to believe that not is the case....and give you the benefit of the doubt...
but it's up to you. (don't blow it like aaron)

Invitation extended.
-red

Home Team Announcers Needed

HOME TEAM PERSPECTIVE:

Every sports fan has a favorite local college or pro sports team announcer that covers their team. I’m talking about the television or radio announcers and not the stadium/arena announcer.

Most of them are merely so-called “homers” (like Harry Doyle in Major League I & II) who paint a rosy picture for “home-team” fans every game and make the other team look like escape convicts with deadly communicable diseases, and then there are the respectful but truthful announcers who give you the whole story (good, bad and ugly) but still from your teams perspective none the less.
(Who in their right mind would want to listen to a home-team announcer that hates the home team?)

My personal favorite is Mike Haynes with the Colorado Avalanche NHL Hockey team. Having lived in Colorado for well over 20 years, I remember the great Bob Martin of the Denver Broncos NFL Football team and later Dave Logan did a great job without being a shill for the team. Here in Oklahoma us older fans remember the great Bob Barry and now have Bob Barry Jr.
(Note: Bob Ueker photo above, unlike the character "Harry Doyle", is considered to be a great objective announcer) There is a big difference between objective and adversarial however.

Objective announcers like Haynes still give fans all the happenings (including bad news) from a home-team prospective without being a homer. He loves his team, but loves the integrity of the game more. He knows the opposing team players better than their own home-team announcers know them in many cases.

Speaking of which, (opposing team announcers) have you ever listened to a partisan opposing team announcer (like Harry Doyle) when YOUR team is playing against them?
It will drive you mad.

They twist every play to illustrate how YOUR TEAM is losing (no matter the scoreboard). They mispronounce the names and overlook big plays by your team while focusing only on what is going wrong for your team.
It’s frustrating to listen to (or watch).

So I wonder,… since (for me) listening to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC news is just like listening to away-team announcers, ...then…(for liberals), is listening or watching Fox News like watching the away-team announcers to them?

They claim to support the troops but not the mission, which is impossible... it's like saying you support the players but not the coach, the team or the game.

Every time Fox points out something positive about Bush, the economy or our military, do liberals feel like the away team just scored and the announcer is rubbing it in?
They must, judging by their reactions.

And every time CNN shows videos provided by terrorists depicting US troops getting shot and killed do liberals feel like their team just scored a victory? (It seems that way)

Or what about stories of alleged prisoner abuse by our military, or terrorist successes like bombings, or claims of a “civil war”, … are those also points scored for the liberal’s team?
It must be.
Judging by the running totals kept on dead US soldiers by many liberal bloggers and their frenzy over anything that might prove to be anti-Bush or anti-war, …they indeed do cheer for the “other side” vs America.
Judging by the mainstream news media’s eagerness to run anti-American stories without checking sources (or if necessary using FAKE SOURCES), they cheer for the “other side” vs America.

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and the AP along with the print media are all simply “away team” announcers hoping for the home team (America) to do something-anything that the media can capitalize on to feed their faithful following and defeat Bush.
They do this under the guise of “objectivity”.
“Objective” is not the proper word for them. The correct word is “adversary”, as they are not objective… but instead are "subjectively adversarial".
The news media views BUSH and conservatives as the adversary (not democrats and not terrorists) and it shows up every day in their broadcasts.

I would like to see more “journalists” do the news according to the home-team perspective and not according to the terrorist’s perspective for a change. (no- not as government shills, but not as an adversary either)

I think it's about time for another home team announcer (news network) to come onto the scene.
Limbaugh, Hannity and conservative radio talk-show hosts are great and provide a muchly needed debunking service, but we need more mainstream news organizations that gives us the news from an American perspective… and less that give us every other perspective- except America's.

What about Fox News?
Fox is under pressure to continue be “fair and balanced” and they are.
Fox News is on the right track, but we need more home-team reporting besides one cable news outlet. (Note: Fox News is STILL the MOST watched cable news on television by a large margin) If success is any gauge, the numbers say that Americans are craving more news from an American perspective... not less.

Fox tells BOTH SIDES of a story and (for that) still gets labeled as right-wing by the rest of the news media since ALL of the other news programs are completely-100% one-sided (for the other side). We need more home-team channels and fewer away team channels.

As it is now, they are almost all Harry Doyle type “homers”, announcing for the “away team”.

OR WORSE...

We need more home-team announcers reporting the news- “fair and balanced”.

And yet the left has the nerve to claim the entire news media is controlled by Bush…lol now that’s funny.

Yeah, that’s why Bush's poll numbers are so low… because he controls the media...right.

And now, back to “the game” sports fans…

Harry Reid on Life Support

We all hope for a fast and complete recovery for South Dakota's Senator Tim Johnson and for the very best for him and his family.

However, one can't help notice all the intense scrambling by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Hary Reid to make sure everyone knows that he's (still) in charge and intends to remain that way- no matter what.

Sen. Reid and other Democrats are quick to point out that previous members of the House and Senate have continued to remain in office for years while totally unable to perform their duties (medically speaking) indicating Democrats have no intention of giving up control of the Senate if Senator Johnson is unable to work.

One must conclude then, if Terri Schiavo had been a sitting Democrat Senator with the balance of power at stake, she would be alive today and receiving the best therapy known to mankind.
Democrats would be praising her daily improvements ("she looks good") and calling for emergency embryonic stem cell research to heal her in time to resume her duties.

Instead, we heard a completely different story from Harry Reid and Democrats about Terri's "rights", which they claimed included being starved to death by her ex-husband.

But, since Terri wasn't vital to Democrat control and balance of power, they instead used her as a media weapon to proclaim it was Republicans who were overstepping their bounds by trying to save her life... a life not worth living or saving according to Democrats.

Apparently, only Democrat politicians deserve that kind of committed life-support.
-red

The Perfect Democrat

Just to satisfy all you liberal nay-sayers who claim Red Stater is just a partisan Bush fan, I think there are some very intelligent Democrats out there that, if we could evolve them all into ONE upright walking candidate, might get my vote.

So give me a candidate(s) that represents these combined views and we have a deal.

Iraq/War on Terror: Senator Joe Liberman (D), Former NY City Mayor Ed Koch (D) and Zell Miller (D) have it right for the most part. (John Kerry was right before he was wrong)

Taxes: Zell Miller (D) and John F. Kennedy(D) had it right. (Neither would be allowed in todays Democrat party however)

Abortion: The Pro-Life Democrats have it about right. (yes there are pro-life Dems)

Gay Marriage: John F Kerry had it right (unless he flip-flopped again while I wasn't looking)

Illegal Immigration: Arizona's Gabrielle Giffords (D)and her county Democrat Party Chairman Victor Walker have it right. (They live near the Mexican border, not in Washington)

2nd Ammendment Rights/Gun Control: Oklahoma's Democrat Governor Brad Henry has it right.

Accountability in Schools: Teddy Kennedy had it right (before he turned it into a political football)

Corruption and Ethics: hmmmm still looking,... how about Joe Liberman again, he seems like a stand -up ethical guy.
But then again he isn't really a Democrat any more is he?
He's still the closest thing the Democrats have to "ethical" even if he is a Independant now.

So there ya' go. Nothing but glorious reviews for Democrats (and former Democrats) from Red Stater.

Now don't even TRY to tell me that Barack Hussein Obama is the real deal. (lol)
He's not even close.

So, put up a pro-war, pro-life, small government, low taxes, traditional marriage, gun-totin', border securing, pro-english, ETHICAL Democrat and he/she has my vote in 2008.

Otherwise, I'm going with the "other" candidates that happens to agree with the above Democrats on all (or most) of those specific issues.

See, I didn't bash Democrats and even 0ffered to vote for one if he/she only existed.
Guess I'll have to wait for one to ..."evolve".
-red

THE JIHAD BOWL

There is no-help for Democrat congressman Sylvestre Reyes, (he already flunked) but for all you OTHER incompetent, corrupt, bumbling, stumbling cronies about to be anointed by your fellow cronies to important leadership positions that MIGHT have something to do with "Intelligence" and the war on "terror"…this is for you.

This might be helpful for anti-war liberals also, so, here ya’ go "Sports Fans", in terms that hopefully you will understand. (no charge)
Note: If you are a "Save The Planet" person, go here instead.

THE JIHAD-BOWL- IRAQ:
(...brought to you by- “The Religion of Peace”)

Don't miss the “Battle of the Millennium”
... maybe the “Last Battle” -period.

The Jihad Bowl- Iraq: Where defeat or retreat means death and where Victory means living in freedom, it’s the ultimate no-holds-barred struggle (jihad) between the civilized world and anti-civilization, between religious cults and freedom-of-religion, between infidels and imbeciles, between the modern free-world and dark-age, mid-evil theocracies.
Winner-take-all.

And now, a few words from the official Jihad Bowl sponsor-
"Convert or die, infidels".
(brought to you by The Religion of Peace).

Now, A brief buildup of "The Rivalry"
The intense dispute and hatred between the Islamic/Muslim Sunni radicals and the even more radical Islamic/Muslim Shia "Twelvers" goes back centuries. It is safe to say they disagree on who should rule Islam (and the world), but they do agree on one thing, which is the defeat of America at any cost.

The Introduction of the Teams and Key Players:
The Jihad Bowl features a lot of teams but here are the primary combatants...

On one side we have- The Sunni "Throatcutters":

Formerly the home-team in Saddam’s Iraq, The Sunni Throatcutters now feature none other than Al Qaeda on offense joined by former Saddam Sunni loyalists along with the infamous Hamas Sunni’s on offense/defense. Special teams provided by The Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish Development Party and radical Sunni loyalists from Syria. Big name Sunni stars include Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi (pictured) and Saddam Hussein (penalty box).
(Allah is great, Sunni’s are number one, death to America- "Go Throatcutters Go")
I’ll spare you the rest of the team cheers.

On the other side we have- The Shia Suiciders:

The “visiting team” is the Iranian backed Shia Suiciders coached by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad featuring his Twelvers and the 12^th Imam offense along with local Iraqi Shiite extremists oppressed by Saddam and the infamous Hezbollah Shiites. Special teams are provided by the Hojjatieh Shiites, who are instigators in the battle in the trenches of Iraq between Shia Suiciders and Sunni Throatcutters. The Hojjatieh and the Twelvers won’t be satisfied with just rubbing out the Sunni, destroying America or with world domination, it’s Armageddon or bust for these fanatics.
(praise allah, Shi’ites are number one, death to America- "GoooOOO Suiciders")
Again, I’ll spare you the official team cheers.

Important Safety Tip: Throatcutters can also blow themselves up to kill you and Suiciders can also slit your throat. Either team could have been called either name... or "bombers".
Both will happily drag your dead body around town behind their 1985 Toyota Pickups.

In the center of Jihad Bowl and new home team is The new free Iraq, supported by America led by President George W Bush and the United States Armed Forces, on behalf of the rest of the free world. After the US removed the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein from power and captured him, the opportunistic cultists slithered out of their caves and across neighboring borders to fight against America and take over Iraq.

America cannot afford to lose and let that happen.

Iraqis have held free elections and demonstrated CLEARLY that they prefer to be a democratic partner in the global war on terror not a contributor to terrorism.

America MUST stand behind this fragile democracy and these brave people in their hour of need.

Time Out for an important message from Jihad Bowl sponsor "the religion of peace".
"Death to America".
... now back to -Jihad Bowl- Iraq:

Key Fact-ors in Jihad Bowl- Iraq:
1- The Sunni AND the Shi’tes want to destroy each other less than they both want to destroy America (and Israel).

2- The Sunni (Al Qaeda & Co.) want sole control of Iraq from which to expand their Islamic rule and launch attacks on the Shi’ites and Israel and ultimately America. (The Sunni have access to Saddam’s leftover and hidden goodies)

3- The Shi’ites (Iran & Co.) want sole control of Iraq from which to expand their Islamic rule (and destruction) of the world by way of launching attacks on Israel and America and bringing about the Armageddon. (The Shiites in Iran are getting nukes)

Summary: Both Throatcutters and Suiciders want sole control of Iraq from which to (“spread the religion of peace”) ie; launch attacks on the rest of the world.

Neither the Sunni extremists OR the Shia extremists can afford a US victory and/or Democratic Iraq. A US victory means no Islamic rule over the entire middle-east and makes recruiting new players for a losing cause much tougher.

Likewise, the US (and the free world) cannot afford for any of these Islamic extremists to defeat a democratic Iraq and America.

NOTE: There are millions of Muslims (including sunni and shia) who do notsubscribe to either of these extremist cult views, but unfortunately all of the extremist cults consider those Muslims as "infidels" who must also be punished...by death. Muslim tolerance of the intolerable is unacceptable. The so-called Peace Loving Muslims MUST turn against this cancer growing within their own religion to save their own lives (as well as ours).

POP QUIZ Alert-
So, if it comes up on a test (again) remember;
Al Qaeda including Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi are (Salafy) Sunni.
Hamas is Sunni and Saddam Hussein is (Ba’athist) Sunni.

Ahmadinejad and the Hojjatieh along with Hezbollah are Shia/Shi’ites.

Sure these extremist Sunni's and Shi'ites hate each other, but they ALL hate America more.

BONUS ROUND:
If you are against the war and want America out of Iraq NOW, then pick one from below.
A: Cut and Run and let the Sunni's win Iraq where they launch more 9/11 type attacks.
B: Cut and Run and let the Shi'ites win Iraq where they launch nuclear attacks.
C: Cut and Run and let them try and work together to launch a multitude of attacks.
D: Cut and run, lose the war and face Armageddon.
Or,
Z: (here's an idea) choose Victory.

VICTORY IS THE ONLY CHOICE IN IRAQ.

Be "pro-choice" and choose Victory in the Jihad Bowl.

The Jihad Bowl is brought to you by... The Religion of Peace, who reminds us all to...
"Praise Allah or die".

Now do you get it?
It's not a game, it's not politics, it's your life.

Disclaimer for Liberals:
The terms "Throatcutters" and "Suiciders" are used as unofficial Jihad Bowl “team mascot” examples only and are not meant to be hurtful remarks. Like the Raiders or the Gunslingers or the Junkyard Dogs, these are terms of endearment by their fans, just kicked up a notch and these terms are not meant to imply that anyone would actually cut someone’s throat or that anyone would actually blow themselves up in order to kill innocent people. Any resemblance to any persons real or otherwise is purely coincidental. Shia and Sunni relationships are simplified for this illustration realizing there are factions among each that are rivals within each group.

But if you are a “throatcutter”, or a “suicider” and you were offended by my remarks, - GOOD.

According to Red Stater

-red