The Dark and Ugly Side of Republican Promises....

So today let's start out the new year by remembering fondly one of moonbat's success stories of the last: Moonbat takes on Idiot Private Security Force. As readers of the comments section know, moonbat forced the idiots to "alter" their "rules" to allow women to remove their high heels and thus avoid being screened by slobering 30 year old men. Why are we revisiting this happy episode? Our idiot private security force is back in the news: Video tape of sleeping security guards shakes nuclear industry. Armed guards sleeping on the job. What I love the most is that they are armed, even at the Museum where they screen people entering and exiting, they are armed. But TSA airport screeners are not armed. Even though it's considered appropriate for worse-trained and poorer performing guards of a museum in D.C. to be armed, let's not have armed guards in airports where terrorists might actually attack. In fact, as anyone who works there knows, even the presence of armed police officers is on the decline. But I digress from drooling over this latest outbreak of idiocy.

So Wackenhut's excuse is that they are being pressured to cut costs to the point where they can afford salaries for guards that only attract people who sleep on the job... after being forced to work regularly beyond the 60 work hour limit for nuclear facilities. Somehow though, I doubt any of this has included pay reductions for upper management. This interesting and obviously a private security firm plant blog post finds that in response to growing dissatisfaction with private security, in order to keep their contracts they were going to move away from a cost-plus business model. No for those of you who have been following moonbat's blogs on private security in Iraq, and Blackwater in particular, know that cost-plus is just a fancy word for "fleecing the taxpayer for tropical beach houses." Meanwhile, let's dig a little into the muck and find out more about Wackenhut's "security guards."

Wackenhut exists to kill you if you stop at a truck stop to have sex with your girlfriend. They are also trained to harrass veterans buying diet coke at another truck stop, but if you are a prostitute you are perfectly acceptible. And they area also suing SEIU claiming that union organizing is racketeering. And this is where you taxpayer dollars are going!!

Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?

So today the wardrums for attacking Iran have stepped themselves up a notch in the wake of Al-Zawahiri releasing an audio message with pictures to color in and a Guardian story detailing the advancement of plans in the Bush administration to attack Iran in the spring. Con-blogs are latching onto an American Enterprise Insitute initiative to use bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Other reasons for war with Iran embrace the geopolitical ignorance of kindergartners who are another group of American citizens who are blind to certain realities. If Russian missiles are being purchased and used to down U.S. helicopters, why is there no drumbeat to nuke Russia? More self-embraced confusion by the cons comes with the idea that nuking Iran will lower recruitment for Islamic fundamentalism and that Iran can be equated as a wellspring of Al-Qaeda. The rise of Iran as a Middle East power also excites the "End-Times" segments of the cons... but then they also think Boston's mooninites herald the judgement day. Only con-blogs could accuse Iran of arming anti-Iraqi Irai to attack Iraq and American soldiers.

How is the surge going anyways and how could it have ever gone? Crystal balls of course, only really work on the past: How it took six weeks for American troops to pacify one Sunni street... and then loose it again to the same insurgents in 2006, the instant they left. Neighborhoods will be controlled by the dominant armed group who lives in them, although this is a difficult reality about Iraq to face. Talk of "pacifying" isn't talk about creating peace, it's about putting your boot on someone's throat in the hopes that their spirits will break before you need to go take a piss. Get real- these people survived under Saddam, they will survive a couple of 20ish kids from Iowa. Plodding through the partisan muck masquerading as patriotism, your moonbat finds Iran billed as a new front in the war on terror, and Iran's getting a coat of 9-11-backer lipstick, no one's claiming the U.S. will find Osama bin Laden there in a spiderhole.

The wardrums pound out an accusatory beat that must make our nominal Middle Eastern allies rather nervous, given that Iran stands as the least of the offenders in who has been pumping aid into the civil war in Iraq. Of course, if we do attack Iran to stop the supplying of weapons to the Shiites, Russia will still be able to sell to the Sunni through Saudi Arabia, so it won't be a complete loss to them. What makes the pounding of the drums such savagry, is the unflinching support on the Right for the idea of using nukes to intimidate terrorists. States have a vested interest in not getting nuked; terrorists will just relocate. And anyways, the Iranian population strongly dislikes Osama bin Laden right now... but drop a few nuclear missles and the copies of his lectures will become bestsellers. You can even ask them:

"Both Iranians and Americans have strongly negative views of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Three in four Iranians (74%) and more than nine in ten Americans (94%) view bin Laden unfavorably, including large majorities (68% and 89%, respectively) who view him very unfavorably. Only 10 percent of Iranians look at the al Qaeda leader favorably (2% Americans). Nine in ten Americans have a very unfavorable opinion of bin Laden and ninety-two percent of Americans say al Qaeda poses an important threat to the United States, including 59 percent who say it poses a critical one.




Iranians, like Americans, perceive al Qaeda and Islamist militant groups as threats, though less strongly. More than half of Iranians (53%) call al Qaeda an important threat, including a third (33%) who say it is critical. Twenty percent say al Qaeda is not a threat (27 percent no answer). Similarly, 57 percent of Iranians view the threat from “Islamist sectarian militant groups” as important, including 36 percent who say is critical. Fifteen percent say it is not important at all....

Iranians were also asked specifically about attacks on American and Iraqi civilians, with “sometimes” or “never” justified the only options given. Nine in ten Iranians (88%) say that “attacks against Iraqi civilians in Iraq” are never justified. Nearly as many (76 percent) say “attacks against American civilians living in the United States” are never justified (15% sometimes justified).

Respondents were then asked to think “in the context of war and other forms of military conflict” and to consider whether certain types of civilians could be a legitimate target. Overwhelming majorities of Iranians reject as “never justified:” attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and “wives and children of the military” (86%).

Americans largely agree, though larger percentages in each case said such attacks are rarely justified. This is true for attacks on women and children (72% never, 15% rarely), the elderly (71% never, 16% rarely), and wives and children of the military (74% never, 12% rarely)."

So, we are declaring war on yet another country and it's not actually about finding terrorists are rooting out bomb cells, we're just calling it the "war on terror" for consistency's sake. What we are really going to bill nuking Iran as is revenge for 1983. Which just goes to show that only the moonbats are reading Dinesh D'Souza. Don't believe me, just check out the Congressional speech when Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was called upon to speak of Iraq, but stumped for attacking Iran. Boehner reimagines the "war on terror" as having been started by Iran all along, and not Osama:

"It began with the Iran hostage taking in 1979.
Then, on October 23, 1983, the suicide attack on the Marine Barracks in Beirut killed 241 American servicemen and injured 60 others."

Con-blogs love to insinutate or outright claim that 9-11 occurred because President Clinton didn't bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the USS Cole bombing... so they are trying to sweep under the rug that President Reagan didn't bomb Iran for the Iranian funded bombing in Beirut that claimed the lives of 241 American service personnel and 1 Lebanese janitor. Which is more than the total fatality count for deaths reportedly linked to Iranian manufactured weapons components over the last three years. So what did happen to Iran in 1983. Oh... the French bombed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for their part in the next day bombing of a French barracks that killed 58 paratroopers and 5 Lebanese civilians. Got to love those French. What did Reagan do? A few months later, the U.S. military pulled out of Lebanon.

Wait.. what was the question?? Osama who?? I have no clue.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, Iran, Osama bin Laden, war on terror, Beirut, liberal, conservative, moonbat