TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Friday, January 28, 2005

    News Not News

    There was an episode of Twilight Zone called "Printer's Devil" (Episode 111, February 28, 1963, 51 min.) where Burgess Meredith played Mr. Smith - a typesetter that could print a paper with news before the event actually happened. I, Maddie Dog, will do that very same with this post. I will predict the news and all those that read this blog can see that I will be right. In the Twilight Zone episode Mr. Smith was also the mythical Devil - I need not assume such a dual identity to make my news prediction - just common sense and a basic knowledge of the agenda of some embedded insurgents within our own government.

    The election in Iraq will take place in a matter of days. I predict that the embedded insurgents mentioned above will release their initial reactions to these elections - the problem being their statements have already been drafted. It will not matter how many Iraqis will vote, what percent of the total available voters will vote, how many might be intimidated from voting, or whatever statistics are presented - their statements and claims will remain the same. Since their objective is solely to discredit at any cost the current administration their responses will be as negative as you can imagine. Because these embedded insurgents are in the upper levels of our government you can be sure their comments of failure will permeate the news in Europe and Arabic worlds. We might even find the U.N. attempting to invalidate the election. Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer et. al will be at the forefront of this move, followed by their support group of select media outlets - basically saying to the world that all the efforts of our troops were for naught to provide free elections to Iraq. In the selfish interest of their own personal hate they will turn their backs on our troops, our country, and the newly liberated people of Iraq to proclaim that the United States is a failure and our efforts to spread freedom are failures too.

    Before you slam me and this post - just wait a few days and see if I'm right. I will be.

    9 comments:

    Nathan said...

    Great Blog! :-D

    Where'd you get that counter at the bottom (the social handouts one...)

    And when when is tally from? The beginning of welfare? The beginning of your blog?

    http://www.neoconservativeamerica.blogspot.com

    : JustaDog said...

    Thanks Nathan. The counter was one of those seen on anti-freedom sites - you know, showing the supposed cost of the war in Iraq. I just modified it to display something more realistic. As far as what period that money represents - probably yearly, if you take into account all the handout programs by the federal and state governments. If anything, the amount is probably too low.

    nonpcpundit said...

    I think the prediction is mostly correct, and is pretty much an obvious and foregone conclusion (your cheating!!) The problem is that whether the U.S. should be there or not, both parties should band together to get this thing finished. The Democrats taking the downside just to spite the fact they can't win an honest election is no excuse to abuse the Iraqis in this own fashion. However, a larger problem is that the U.S. expected--and almost everybody has forgotten this in the euphoria of elections--is that we expected a great groundswell of revolution and we expected to be out of there by July 2003, or thereabouts. Today, as the elections have approached, local voter workers have been pulled from their cars at insurgent checkpoints and publicly executed in broad dayling in downtown Baghdad (how did this escape our attention since we are "providing security"?). Also, candidates cannot even run for office publicly for fear of being executed, and we need to divert our overstretched resouces to provide polling place security--where polling places are behind concertina wire and cement barricades. Everybody seems to forget that Iraq, for all the talk about how good things are going, is a country under seige. There are over 150,000 active duty combat troops with full complements of armored infantry and tracked fighting vehicles in a land the size of California. Think about that. If it takes that much effort, and 100 billion dollars a year to keep the peace, there must be a large resistance. Large enough that maybe it was not a good idea to try this in the first place, despite all the rhetoric about making people free. Freedom and Democracy are largely irrellevant words, because they encompass so much they are hard to define and are overused. Not everybody gets the concept, and you can't force somebody to understand something. WE haven't all gotten on the same card here in the U.S. and the process has been going on for 300 years, and we are attempting to reroute another culture?

    : JustaDog said...

    Wasn't the cost of life in just the Civil war in our country over 300,000? And how about all the other wars and fighting just within our own borders? You're right - it's not an easy process, contrary to what some think it should be.

    To those anti-freedom insurgents in Washington, D.C. that complain about the money factor I'd like to hear what value they place on freedom. For example, "Senator Kennedy, what dollar figure should be our tops so when reached, we just pull out and leave?"

    What is the cost for freedom? Is it justified? In the long term will it make the world safer?

    Anonymous said...

    Maddie Dog- What's in a name? 'Mad' kind of sums it up. Your hokey 'predictions'- padded by your inane ramblings-on about "Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer et. al" are useless drivel. Buffered by 'nonpcpundit's' garbage comments of "Democrats taking the downside just to spite the fact they can't win an honest election"-what rock have you been under? In all-your blog is nothing more than a steamer in the cesspool of cyberspace.

    Noah Bawdy said...

    Actually Anonymous, she's dead on target. The left in this country and the MSM have been and will continue to be harping on everything bad and never acknowledge anything good that this country or this Administration does. I also noticed you couldn't abide by her request to see if she was right. Moonbats never wait for the facts. I think we all know who dwells in the cesspool.

    Chris Woods said...

    "To those anti-freedom insurgents in Washington, D.C. that complain. . ."

    So, let me get this straigh: Anyone who voices opposition to the status quo in government (or in power, however you wanna look at it) is automatically an "Anti-freedom insurgent." That seems like a logical fallacy to me.

    Look--I'm a liberal, and I damn proud to be one. Dissent and the freedom of speech are protected in the Constitution we both love and respect. It also respects our freedoms and liberties. If you think that by voicing an opposing opinion that we are being "anti-freedom" then I suggest you start a petition to amend the Constitution to get rid of the right to free speech.

    Oh, and the whole insurgent part--that would require me to overthrow the government or controlling power. I haven't done that. Unless you count voting for Kerry the act of an insurgent.

    nonpcpundit said...

    I love these people that post annonymous comments and then ask "What rock are you under?" When has that bloated sot from Massachusetts or that mouthy senator from California ever done anything for anybody? If George Bush stood up in Congress and said Ted Kennedy could have the presidency just by walking over and taking it, that east-coast preppy would complain about having to walk over.

    Anonymous said...

    Well, you're a pretty good prophet!

    I'd say you are dead on about the reaction in some circles. On the other hand, it's obvious to most people that the Kennedy/Kerry version of events is a dog that won't hunt.