Back to Dimocrats, some WMD information.

Once again, most Democrats believe in their positions and ways to get things done. The difference, as Charles Krauthammer observed, is that while Republicans think Democrats are wrong, Democrats think Republicans are evil. There's a difference.

It's pretty damned probable that the so-called WMDs in Iraq got trucked out to Syria while we were making threats. We KNOW that Saddam had gas (Generally agreed to be a WMD) because he gassed the hell out of the Kurds. Only an incredibly partisan Dimocrat could pretend he/she never saw the photos of Kurdish women and children lying dead on the ground. Iraq had gas. Gas is a WMD. Class dismissed.

Jbrookins makes the point that apparently the Dimocrats (Not people with honest convictions, rather the cynical boneheads elected to Congress) keep upping the bar. Every time we find something nasty they say “Well, that's just another weapon, you need to find a 'real' WMD”. Well, hell—if it'll wipe out a city, isn't it a WMD?

Now we find out that the insurgents are using chlorine gas.

“Insurgents” is an important term. By and large, these aren't Iraqi patriots. Iraq is a whole 'nother issue. What we are dealing with is hateful Islamists who are flocking to Iraq (and Afghanistan) to kill westerners. It's truly a matter of radical Islam against the west. And if we don't follow through, 9/11 is just the beginning.

Anyway, they are now attacking western forces in Iraq with chlorine gas. Um, gas. WMD, last I recall.

I'm trying--really. It's just that damned black dog of depression curled up at my feet. I think of posts all the time, I just can't bring myself to sit down and write them out.

It's the damndest thing--I got so wrapped up in my son's competetive band season that when it ended I felt like the bottom dropped out from under me. I'll get better, though.

Anyway, some thoughts...

The new Congress... What the hell is wrong with Democrats? I know that a majority of Democrats are people who simply feel that their way is the best way. It's a shame that they won't admit the same of Republicans, but that's another subject.But it takes a special breed of jerk to be a Democratic politician.We won't even get into people like Murtha and Kerry who are flat out traitors. But what's up with the non-binding resolution opposing the “surge” in troops?

Some years ago General Eric Shinseki, who is reviled by all airborne troopers and anyone who has to ride in the deathtrap they call “Stryker”, became the darling of the left when he publicly stated that we were not committing enough troops to Iraq. Shinseki retired shortly after his statement and it was claimed by many on the left that he was forced out of the military. In fact, he retired on the date that he had put in for before he ever made his statement. The only thing unusual about his retirement was that the administration announced his successor earlier than is traditional. It didn't have any effect on his reitrement—big hairy deal. Nonetheless, the left had an axe to grind, and they claimed long and loud that Skinky was forced out because he said the administration hadn't committed enough troops.

Well, now Bush has announced that we need more troops. In government speak they call it a “surge” (That goes for more troops, putting in overtime, etc. It's all a “surge”). And sumbitch if the Dimocrats in Congress haven't voted a non-binding resolution opposing the surge. Twelve months ago they were raising their glasses of expensive California wine to toast Skinky for saying we didn't commit enough troops, and now that Bush says we need to commit more troops they're against it. Is it me???

I think Bush should make a speech saying that global warming is an incredible danger and we need to act right freaking now. I guarantee you that within hours Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy would make televised statements claiming that there is no such thing as global warming.

I know that people align themselves to political groups (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) for various reasons, and most of those people are pretty sincere. They believe in the way a particular group seeks to address issues.

While I can't imagine ever becoming a politician of any stripe, the last week stands out as perfect example of why I could not, will not, can't ever align myself with the Democratic party.

The incursion into Iraq has been controversial, to say the least. I myself wasn't sure that it was really necessary but became 100% behind it when our troops found the childrens' prison (Didn't see that one on the news? I'm not surprised. The newspeople hate Bush more than they care about children.)

As far as the WMDs, Iraq has/had them. Lots of people have said “Well, if they ever find WMDs in Iraq, then I'll support the incursion”. Guess what—Iraq had/has WMDs. Remember all of the photos of Kurds who had been killed by nerve agents? That, ladies and gentlemen, is prima fascia evidence. But Democrat politicians ratched up the definition of WMD. It's a matter of history that the late Saddam Hussein gassed the hell out of the Kurds (not to mention the Iranis who are suddenly on Iraq's side), but now that's not enough. All of this history is somehow moot. We only found one store of poison gas, and that somehow got swept under the rug. Truth is, Iraq had plenty of poison gas and most of it is probably in Syria now, but the weird thing is that Democratic politicians, after posturing about WMDs, seemed to have decided that poison gas isn't actually a WMD.

Yep, you got it. The Democrats said they would support the incursion if we found WMDs, and then when we did they decided the artillery shells were old and not terribly toxic. None of them volunteered to sniff the shells, by the way. We KNOW Hussein gassed the Kurds. We KNOW he had gas, a WMD. But the Democrats hate Bush more than they care about justice.