Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Times' Treason Likely in Cahoot with Dems

By their own admission, The New York Times knew about the perfectly legal intercepting of communications between international terror forces and those acting on their behalf in America for nearly a year. So why did the Times withhold this information from the public for so long only to decide all of a sudden to print the story now?

The answer couldn't be more clear: it's because those at the Times and in the Democrat party who are rooting for the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and around the world, recognized that they needed something "big" to counteract the great victory for peace, freedom and democracy that was last week's overwhelmingly successful elections in Iraq.

This collusion between the leftist media and the Democrat party is not new. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes not only timed the story in which they were finally caught using forged documents to the desperate situation of the then-plummeting John Kerry polls, but were only able to obtain the forged documents in the first place by offering a quid pro quo of access to the highest levels of the Kerry campaign to the partisan who provided them with the forged documents.

Make no mistake about it, many in the Democrat party -- the vast majority of its leadership and powerbrokers -- and their ideological brethren in the Old Media are on the side of America's enemies.

It is not a coincidence that the Democrats' last "standard bearer" was a man who viciously slandered one million of his "band of brothers" in an effort to aid and abet the communist takeover of South Vietnam.

Nor is it a coincidence that the party's previous standard bearer joined in anti-American marches in the Soviet Union. Nor that an earlier one (Jimmy Carter) allowed the Communists to expand into Afghanistan and Central America, held illegal secret meetings with the Arab/Islamic terrorists in the West Bank and stood by doing nothing as America's ally, the Shah of Iran, was replaced by the first Islamic terror state in Iran.

This hatred for America is why Democrats by the hundreds of thousands -- in the wake of the 9/11 attacks no less -- marched arm in arm with communists, anarchists and Islamic fascists in anti-America rallies euphemistically dubbed "anti-war rallies" by the same folks who forge documents on their nightly news programs, invent bogus stories of Korans being flushed down toilets for their newsweeklies and now endanger American citizens by timing the release of top secret US wartime strategies to the needs and demands of the Democrat party.

It is why they chant "war is not the answer" only when that war protects Americans. Recall that there were no such cries or parades nor did the press invent a "peace mom" like the lunatic Cindy Sheehan when Bill Clinton was killing Christians on behalf of the Islamists in Bosnia and targeting "infidels" to the benefit of the Moslems in Kosovo.

Recall the vigor with which the leftist media sought to destroy the 254 American heroes from across the political spectrum who offered their first-hand, eyewitness testimony about John Kerry's being unfit for duty and compare it to the loving coverage given a quite literally insane "peace mom" whose rants and ramblings put her on par only with another leftist darling, Howard "Yeeee-ha" Dean, but whose rants and ramblings are viciously anti-American (she recently called Louisiana "occupied territories.")

Those of you old enough to remember the desperate fight put up by these same forces in the eighties, when they marched in the streets, viciously slandering America and calling Ronald Reagan"Hitler", "Cowboy", "stupid" and, worst of all, "Christian" in an effort to protect the most murderous regime in human history (the Soviet Union) must recognize the Old Media's game and the Democrat party's hand in it all.

Why so many in the Democrat party -- and their flunkies in the Old Media -- so hate America is explained in another of my pieces ("Dems Hate America...") available in the archives of my blog. Suffice it to say here that they do hate America -- so much so that they are on the side of every one of America's enemies -- from the Soviet Union to the Ayatollahs to the North Vietnamese Communists and now to the Islamic fascist mass murderers in Iraq.

A free and vibrant press is essential to a strong America. But a corrupt and treasonous one is exactly as devastating. The New York Times must be investigated as to how they illegally obtained classified war-time information and if the unlikely timing of its publication after months in their possession was coordinated with members of the Democrat party.

16 comments:

Auto Insurance Center said...

Hi, Thanks for your interesting blog. Keep up the great work! I also have a site & blog about auto insurance quote, please feel free to visit.

EPorvaznik said...

Dammit, Evan, you're so...so...so...angry!!! Hold it, a liberal inhabited my body for a second. Thanks for opening my eyes to the, um, coincidence on the leak's delayed appearance with the Iraqi elections.

MiamiMiami said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MiamiMiami said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MiamiMiami said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MiamiMiami said...

Evan,
Hi there. I am a regular reader of your blog. It is actually very coincidental that I just started my own blog called The Evil Right Winger. I actually just posted an essay regarding the very topic of treason and it is completely coincidental believe it or not.

I thought you might get a kick out of this however. I have been a regular on Alva Woodbridge's NitWit Planet and I guess I have been dolling out to much truth lately because he banned me. I then sent him an email meant for him only but I guess he couldn't handle having his persnoal belief in censhorship challenged publically any more and posted my email to him. Here it is:

Subject: Man you are a big pussy
Date: 12/22/2005 12:14:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: GSFU@aol.com
From: jginzo@bellsouth.net
I see that you have prevented me from posting. It’s ok. But remember this if you will. You speak so much about freedom of speech that you can’t handle it when someone consistently hands you your own ass. If it weren’t for folks like me giving you counter point I don’t think anyone would have even read your silly rants. But I guess by “banishing” from posting on your blog I guess your fear of the truth is finally confirmed.

I will tell you what though. I am a generous person. Whenever I do post my own blog I will give you free reign to post at will and even encourage your debate because I do understand the freedoms of speech. I helped protect them. So as far as I am concerned enjoy the silence.

His response on the blog (of which I am no longer able to respond to)
Miami,
By all means, feel free to comment however you like. However, your comments must follow the guidelines I laid out. Thank you for your comments to my post Welcome Back COINTELPRO!, however since you could not be 1. Polite and courteous, and 2. Copy and paste entire paragraphs of what was previously said, I was forced to delete them. Feel free to try again, this time following the commentary guidelines.

So you see Evan with all of the talk by the liberal left in this country, and Alva himself, about the eroding away of civil liberties and censorship he is very quick to employ the power of censorship himself.

I just thought you might enjoy the living, walking example of the duplicity of liberalism.

Miamimiami

Alva Goldbook said...

miami,
Good luck on your new endeavor.

Evan,
Article IV of the Bill of Rights state:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

seems pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Evan Sayet said...

Alva,

Obviously it's NOT "straight forward" because President Clinton and President Carter claimed the same rights.

You see, Alva, in order to be a thinker instead of a mindless drone you can't always ignore what you don't want to know about.

There are other parts of the constitution that say other things in contradiction. Every single court has upheld the THREE presidents (and their attornies general) so maybe there's more to it than you're simplistic arguments.

So now, at a time of war when the enemy wants to massacre you for being an "infidel" (the way they are murdering Jews in Israel for being infidels and Christians in the Sudan for being infidels and Budhists in India for being infidels and children in Russia for being infidels etc), are you finally going to grow up and be an honest broker or just a "useful idiot" to the enemy?

Alva Goldbook said...

Evan, really? other parts of the Constitution say differently? Let's look!

Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

See any spy provisions there?

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Is any here?

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Maybe when they were talking about Electors the founding fathers meant NSA intelligence operatives, huh?

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

There it is! No…wait.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Hmm. Still not seeing any provision to allow the President to spy on Americans…

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Does this mean that Bush can spy on Cheney?

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

THAT IT! The President can receive COMPENSATION for his services….in the form of SPYING ON AMERICANS!

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So, the President is supposed to DEFEND the Constitution…as opposed to wiping his ass with it. Who wouldda thunk it?

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Still not seeing any provision that would allow the President to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Now, I understand. We have a “treaty” with the NSA to spy on Americans. That must be it.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Think there’s any vacancies at the NSA?

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

I suppose this means that Bush is allowed to spy on Congress, but only when giving his State of the Union address, right? Wait! I know! I know! This MUST have been the clause that Bush was talking about that grants him the ability to SPY ON AMERICANS!

Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

MiamiMiami said...

Alva,
Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten one small detail. The very act that allows Bush to "spy" was not enacted by anyone but, hold your breath, a Democrat. FISA was put into service in 1978 and lo and behold it was Carter tha was the first to use it!

As far as violating the fourth amendment goes it was ok when Carter and Clinton did it. In fact it was Gorelick that told Congress that the president had an inherit responsability to do it when he really using it on Americans. Classic liberal hippocracy! Bush was using FISA to spy on international calls to and from Al Qaeda members. In fact the people who had planned to blow of the Brooklyn bridge said that they were caught because the government had been spying on their phone calls.

The president is the commander in chief. It is an inherit authority that he has in the effort to gather intelligence to fight this war that he be able to monitor communications between foreign enemies and people here in the US.

But like a good little liberal Alva is afraid of hurting anyone's feelings including a potnetial terrorist. He is much more concerned with the rights of a guy who would kill him as soon as look at him. Alva thinks that he is somehow scoring some points with the buad guys when they come to liberate him from these oppressive United States. He seems to have forgotten how Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.

Alva probably thinks that we fight wars for civil liberties too.

It's no wonder that when the House of Representatives voted on a resolution to their commitment to victory in Iraq that 108 Democrats went on record to vote "no". 108 Democrats! Wow! No that's unity!!!

MiamiMiami said...

Oh here's an interesting article for Alva to read. But beware Alva it contains that additive called truth.

Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
Apparently, you have not read the Fourth Amendment.

“The right of the PEOPLE to be SECURE in their PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, SHALL NOT be violated, and NO WARRANTS shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by OATH or AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.”

Since you hate America so much, I can understand why you hate the Bill of Rights too, but FISA enacted a COURT that is secure so intelligence-sensitive warrants COULD be issued. FISA is not the issue. The issue is that BUSH VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, by ordering (against the will of Congress) wide-spread WARRANT-LESS spying.

You seriously need to read something other than Matt Drudge. Drudge’s lie has already been exposed. Clinton permitted spying on people OUTSIDE the United States, who are not citizens…in other words, the 4th amendment does not apply outside US borders. The problem is that Bush ordered spying on American citizens WITHIN our borders. I realize that you conservatives are not that bright, and have never read the Constitution, but please try to keep these rather simple principals straight.

Evan Sayet said...

Congress no more has the right to enact a law that limits the powers of the President than the President can put forth an executive order limiting the powers of Congress.

The fact that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both clearly argued for the inherent power of the Presidency (and neither one during a time of war, mind you) would convince honest people that this is not a "Bush issue."

But the leftists don't care. They'll attack Karl Rove over nothing while Sandy Berger is caught stealing top secret documents. They'll scream about Fox News while Dan Rather forges documents. They'll scream "fascists" as their thugs break into forty different Republican headquarters and beat people.

Truth holds no place in the "mind" of the Democrat. It's why they vote FOR and AGAINST money for our troops, scream how Jack Murtha is right and then vote 406-3 against his bill (even Murtha voted against his own bill!!!), it's why they don't care that Cindy Sheehan is a lunatic and Ted Kennedy murdered a woman and Al Sharpton helped fake the rape of a child and Air America stole nearly a million dollars from children to pay Al Franken, etc. They are simply incapable of rational thought and the thugs they champion keep taking away their rights.

Alva Goldbook said...

Aren’t you confusing the issue again Evan? Congress isn’t limiting the “rights” of the President. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT limits the right of government, particularly the President from violating OUR right as a PEOPLE to be SECURE in our PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.

The REICH WING lie that Clinton and Carter spied on Americans citizens has been so thoroughly debunked that its hilarious that you right wing sheep still site it. Clinton is not the issue here. Karl Rove is not the issue here. Sandy Berger, Tom DeLay, Jack Abrimoff, or Monica Lewinsky is not the issue here. The issue is that GEORGE W. BUSH admitted to the American People that he was violating their FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, which is a FELONY, therefore, AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Like I said, NO ONE but George Bush is at issue here. Are you Reich Wingers really going to tell me, if you are completely honest with yourselves, that if the President, George W. Bush BROKE THE LAW, and VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, that it should be IGNORED, so he can VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS AGAIN?

Bush has been given ONE MANDATE. That is NOT to protect and defend US, but to PROTECT AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION. If, as President, you cannot defend that great document, and instead WALKS ALL OVER IT, then how can be a legitimate President? And HOW IN THE HELL can ANYONE say they “love their country” when they defend a man who is SPITTING UPON THE PRINCIPALS THIS GREAT NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt May 7, 1918

MiamiMiami said...

Miami,
Apparently, you have not read the Fourth Amendment.
======>Not only have I read it but I understand it quite well.

“The right of the PEOPLE to be SECURE in their PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, SHALL NOT be violated, and NO WARRANTS shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE, supported by OATH or AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, and the PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.”

=========>Ok let's break this down for the slow liberals amongst us. The fourth amendment describes unreasonable searches. The electronic surveillance that was done was on suspected Al-Qaeada members calling into and out of the US. That's not unreasonable. It's nothing better than the probable cause needed for a state trooper to search your car when he pulls you over. Everything that was tapped was done in open to several Congressional members on both sides and with FISA. There were no secret taps. The fact that they didn't consult YOU personally to get YOUR personall approval is a shame I guess.

Since you hate America so much, I can understand why you hate the Bill of Rights too, but FISA enacted a COURT that is secure so intelligence-sensitive warrants COULD be issued. FISA is not the issue. The issue is that BUSH VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, by ordering (against the will of Congress) wide-spread WARRANT-LESS spying.

=====>I hate America? Really? This is where I embarass you to pieces ready? It's gonna hurt sweetheart. BEOFRE I graduated from high school I was an enlisted member of the US Army, Combat Engineer in fact. I spent 6 years in the Army defending your right to open your genetic fluid catcher to spout such idiocy. Since the day I left high school I have been in public service even delaying my own college education to do so. After KAtrina destroyed most of South Florida and having been out of power for approximately 2 weeks myself I was one of the first to volunteer to go to Mississippi to help leaving my wife and children behind for 30 days. The only reason I have not re-enlisted in the US Army after 9/11 is that I have a higher priority to provide for my family here at home. But then again what have YOU done for your country besides piss and moan? When have you enlisted to protect these freedoms sir? What have you done to help the cause on the homefront? Have you even written one letter to a single soldier or Marine to tell them that are doing a good job? Presently I am organizing a collection of hard candy and bubble gum through my daughter's school to send to our troops and the kids over there. So tell us all Alva how much do you love your country. Willing to lay your life down for her? Take up arms to protect her? Go wash up boy that didn't have any vaseline....


You seriously need to read something other than Matt Drudge. Drudge’s lie has already been exposed.
====>By whom? You?

Clinton permitted spying on people OUTSIDE the United States, who are not citizens…in other words, the 4th amendment does not apply outside US borders.
=======>Oh the duplicity lingers like rotten cheese! First the liberals want everyone to have the same protections that we enjoy as Americans and then when Clinton decides to "violate" them it is excused because they are not American citizens. Liberalism truly equals duplicity. From the Washington Post July 15, 1994 "......Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.


The problem is that Bush ordered spying on American citizens WITHIN our borders.
======>Yes. It what's called fighting a war. Get used to it sweet heart.


I realize that you conservatives are not that bright,
======>No one claimed that we were but then again it was the "stupid" guy that beat the "smart" guy in 2000 and 2004 wasn't it? So what does that make those two baffoons?

and have never read the Constitution, but please try to keep these rather simple principals straight.
=====>Yes this coming from a man who hates Jews and believes we are the terrorists.

MiamiMiami said...

Aren’t you confusing the issue again Evan? Congress isn’t limiting the “rights” of the President. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT limits the right of government, particularly the President from violating OUR right as a PEOPLE to be SECURE in our PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, and EFFECTS, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.

The REICH WING
====>Alva do you realize how stupid you look every time you try to make the connection between conservatism and the Reich? You Do realize that the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party of Germany? But considering your outright hatred of Jews I figured you more of a Nazi than anyone else here. And you do talk much about socialism being the way to solve alot of problems too.

lie that Clinton and Carter spied on Americans citizens has been so thoroughly debunked that its hilarious that you right wing sheep still site it. Clinton is not the issue here. Karl Rove is not the issue here. Sandy Berger, Tom DeLay, Jack Abrimoff, or Monica Lewinsky is not the issue here. The issue is that GEORGE W. BUSH admitted to the American People that he was violating their FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, which is a FELONY, therefore, AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
==========>Actually they weren't the issue until the liberal media opened the pandoras's box of history. History is a son of a bitch isn't it? Bush came out front with it and let it out to the American public but ONLY after a liberal with a book coming out leaked it out. The real issue here is the duplicitous nature of the liberal. Do as I say not as I do. Clinton was able to do it so it was ok, Carter did it and it was fine, Bush does it then it becomes bad. Just like pretty much everything else in the Democratic play book.

Like I said, NO ONE but George Bush is at issue here.
=====>And you know what? He came out with it and made no apologies and I say good for him!

Are you Reich Wingers really going to tell me, if you are completely honest with yourselves, that if the President, George W. Bush BROKE THE LAW,
=====>I am sorry what law was that? Oh you think he broke the law! Oh well. We will just have to put that up on the shelf with the OTHER insane accusations you and liberal friedns have alledged against Bush.


and VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, that it should be IGNORED, so he can VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS AGAIN?
======>He didn't violate my or your rights. I know it is part of the whole victimization routine you are trying to get going here but it simply isn't true.

Bush has been given ONE MANDATE. That is NOT to protect and defend US, but to PROTECT AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION.
=====>Umm try this equation. No US=No Constitution.

If, as President, you cannot defend that great document, and instead WALKS ALL OVER IT, then how can be a legitimate President?
====>Oh you mean if he hadn't committed this so-called crime you would have considered him a legitimate president? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

And HOW IN THE HELL can ANYONE say they “love their country” when they defend a man who is SPITTING UPON THE PRINCIPALS THIS GREAT NATION WAS FOUNDED UPON?

=======>Some of us can smell the coffe. Others choose to complain that it's not from Starbuck's.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt May 7, 1918
=====>I like this quote:
"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

Sir Winston Churchill

or this one:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

or maybe even this one:

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving."

Ulysses S. Grant (1822 - 1885)

or how about this one:

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country."

General George Patton

Alla Akbar Alva and say hi to Zarqawi for me!