Amen.

Point Five is, as far as I can tell, the originator of the pic. I'll do the same on my site shortly.

http://pointfiveblog.com/index.php/2006/05/840

Nice poster--W looks like a trussed WEBELO who wandered into a WW II bond ad. Churchill would cough a lung in laughter.

No, Danno, I think of those photos of Winston with the tommy-gun and believe he'd probably approve heartily of this sort of thing. Besides that, Churchill loved to sit in the co-pilot's seat when he was being flown to Washington, Moscow and the like, and even took a hand piloting the plane himself, so I think the whole aviation thing would appeal to him as well.

Given that W's a veteran fighter pilot, I'm willing to bet he knows a hell of a lot more about how a flight suit should be work than you.

"Work" should be "worn"

Whammer--Man of the Century was my reading primer--lets just say that I disagree. We can leave out the frissons. W can barely get out a sentence--Churchill "marshalled the language and sent it into war". The quote at the bottom is at best a tautology--and doesn't exactly scream Save the Republic. The imagery critique stands. Just admit it--this poster is a metaphor for why the GWOT is not progressing (and it must)--diaphanous folds are not evocative of victory exultant--it suggests Lear not Achilles. As for Boy Named Sous--the idea that W is a "veteran fighter pilot"--that's just sad. The personal invective--hell I'll throw down on you Boy--as sad as the idea that W is a Top Gun its almost topped by the affected whimsy of your pen name--what's that supposed to mean--Julia Childs meets Shel Silverstein?. Head back to your hutch--I'll send over some lettuce.

Granted, when's Danno's done with the bunnies, they'll be walking a bit funny, but the delivery shouldn't be an issue...

Moving away from my tawdry history and back to the real world:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1033390368216486622&q=marine+precision&hl=en

not sure this was ever posted to this site--if this doesn't make your inner eagle salute--time to move to Canada.

Danno - I think you're going about looking at this the wrong way. First, that's not a Dubya quote - it was coined by the blogger who put together the image. Second, this isn't a war poster, it's an election campaign poster. It's purpose isn't to explain the Administration's GWOT combat philosophy but to rally the GOP base for the upcoming elections with some rah-rah blended with a little tongue-in-cheek humor. At least, that's why I like it.

I'll throw the floor open to debate whether Dubya should be called a "veteran fighter pilot" or not. My own take - without ever having served myself - is that flying a fighter jet is insanely dangerous in and of itself, whether one gets shot at or no, and that anybody who has done so ought to be honored for it.

Oh, and message to everybody: Don't be mean. There's no need to be mean.

That is silly. No one thinks Bush is an effective leader anymore. How can you expect to prosecute a war without the support of the people ?

"John" Ryan---Man, that was so awesome when you were able to figure out that Latvian dude with the Scottish accent was gonna steal that submarine and defect to America. You are so right---I need to listen to you!

"I know this book. Your conclusions were all wrong, Ryan. Halsey acted stupidly."

Ha, ha! Know what I love? The fact that this is perfectly correct: Halsey fell for the Japanese carrier bait hook, line and sinker and it's only through a combination of miracles that the rest of the Japanese fleet didn't wipe the American beachhead at Leyte right off the map.

The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. The Democrats may not quite be "evil", but by doing nothing instead of voting we are in effect electing the Democrats who WILL do nothing, giving Jihadists the chance to attack us again.

http://southpark-conservative.blogspot.com

Well I'm glad I "may not quite be evil" for not signing on to this war.

A Donk takeover in the House or Senate this year would be disastrous to the GWOT in all its theatres and manifestations because the Donks are more interested in getting Dubya's scalp than they are in actually, you know, fighting the bad guys who've vowed to kill us all.

I am so sorry to hear you believe this of nearly half your fellow Americans. That must be very upsetting for you.

The reason so many Democrats are unhappy (to put it mildly) with George W. Bush isn’t because they’re hoping a team of jihadists sweeps in and destroys our great nation. It’s because we believe GWB has done nothing to make us safer and much to make us less safe, that the only thing his handling of the war on terror has done is to make things considerably worse. It’s because we take the threat seriously.

Of course, that doesn’t mean ripping up the Bill of Rights either.

"The reason so many Democrats are unhappy (to put it mildly) with George W. Bush isn’t because they’re hoping a team of jihadists sweeps in and destroys our great nation."

I'm not suggesting that anybody is hoping for any such thing. In fact, I believe just the opposite is true. At least from what I've seen, the Donks believe this is unlikely enough a) that it can be dealt with through heightened law enforcement efforts and "port security" means, and b) that it can be relegated to secondary status behind "getting" Dubya. It's not that they hope we lose the war, it's that they don't appear to grasp we're actually in one.

"It’s because we believe GWB has done nothing to make us safer and much to make us less safe, that the only thing his handling of the war on terror has done is to make things considerably worse."

By that logic, Churchill should not have interfered in Hitler's Central European policies because he wound up getting London blitzed as a result. It depends on whether you're talking short or long term. Sure, stirring up the hornet's nest is dangerous (although, touch wood, we haven't been hit again yet), but it's far more dangerous to let that nest sit and grow until the swarn becomes too big and powerful to fight off.

a) that it can be dealt with through heightened law enforcement efforts and "port security" means

Those would certainly be enormous improvements, yes.

and b) that it can be relegated to secondary status behind "getting" Dubya.

Again, not mutually exclusive. The steps GW’s taken so far have either been the wrong ones…or he hasn’t taken any. So, yes, admittedly faith in his leadership is in short supply.

It's not that they hope we lose the war, it's that they don't appear to grasp we're actually in one.

I’d go for Door Number Three, I think: we may be in a war, but if so, it’s not the one GW likes to talk about so much (yet do so little about).

If we were truly in a war equal to WWII, as is sometimes claimed, then there’d a national draft. Until there is, this doesn’t come close to equaling WWII. To state what seems to me the obvious.

"It’s because we believe GWB has done nothing to make us safer and much to make us less safe, that the only thing his handling of the war on terror has done is to make things considerably worse."

By that logic, Churchill should not have interfered in Hitler's Central European policies because he wound up getting London blitzed as a result. It depends on whether you're talking short or long term. Sure, stirring up the hornet's nest is dangerous (although, touch wood, we haven't been hit again yet), but it's far more dangerous to let that nest sit and grow until the swarn becomes too big and powerful to fight off.

Well, no. I’m sure you’ve heard this analogy before, but it’d be like Churchill attacking Japan in 1939 rather than interfering in Hitler’s Central European policies.

Or something really lame like FDR invading Morocco before the 42 midterms to avenge Pearl Harbor.

Oh wait.....

Well, of course it was a physical impossibility for Churchill attacking Japan in 1939. But hypothetically, had he been able to launch a preemptive strike that kept Japan out of the war and allowed the United States to focus its full efforts on aiding Britain in the Atlantic and European theatres? I'd be willing to bet the old boy'd have jumped at the opportunity.

As it was, I don't recall reading in the history books about how Britain's abstention from aggressive behavior in the South Pacific prevented the Japanese from attacking Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma and the east coast of India.

Of course, Chamberlain was still PM until May of 1940 . . . Churchill tried to get Britain to intervene in Central Europe, but as a backbencher, there wasn't much he could have done.

As PM, he did everything he could to avoid war with Japan because he knew the Pacific had been stripped in order to support the war in Africa.

But you've read Churchill, Robbo, so I know you already know this. Preaching to the choir.

anal balls anal thumbs

"the bad guys who've vowed to kill us all".

You mean the "freedom fighters"? Nah, they're just mad because we invaded Iraq for oil.

What? What? What do you mean we weren't in Iraq on 9/11???? You mean the Islamo-facists killed almost 3000 Americans just because they f-ing hate us??? No way!!!!

What? What? What do you mean we weren't in Iraq on 9/11???? You mean the Islamo-facists killed almost 3000 Americans just because they f-ing hate us??? No way!!!!

No we were not in Iraq at the time. We were however, bombing the crap out of the north and south from our military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. You know, Saudi Arabia, the one where 15 of the 17 hijackers came from. You know, Saudi Arabia, where talking point #1 of Osama Bin Laden was for removal of US troops from the country. You know, Saudi Arabia whose crown prince and ruthless opressor of the poor is BFF of George Bush. You know, Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producing country in the world.
But they hate us for our freedom.

Yes, we were bombing Iraq -- basically to prevent him from ethnically cleansing the Kurdish north and the Shiites in the south. Look what he did to the marsh Arabs.
And we were in SA basically to keep Saddam from trying to take over an entire country (Kuwait) again. For Saddam, it was all about the oil.

We were however, bombing the crap out of the north and south from our military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Just, y'know, for the hell of it. And only during the Bush reig.... er... Presidency.

You know, Saudi Arabia, where talking point #1 of Osama Bin Laden was for removal of US troops from the country.

That should have been enough to convince us to leave. Because, you see, whenever murderous psychopathic terrorists make demands, we should acquiesce immediately, because that will make them be nice to us.

My point was not that those actions were unjustified (reasonable arguments can be made for both sides), but that the idea that extremists are attacking America because they hate the fact that we can listen to Madonna and our women don't wear burkas is complete BS. The overall negative opinion of the US in the Middle East and the rallying cry for extremeists is the direct result of our continued presence in the region and the broad belief that we are only there to exploit the region's natural resources. An argument that has a strong ring of truth to it.

but that the idea that extremists are attacking America because they hate the fact that we can listen to Madonna and our women don't wear burkas is complete BS.

Come down out of the ivory tower every once in a while and notice what's going on outside it. If Muslim extremists were attacking only America, you might have a point. But if you're going to argue that foreign policy is the only motivation behind such violence, I'd invite you to tell that to Theo Van Gogh. Oh, wait. And that's just one exmple.

Excellent use of the Hanson brothers, I must say.

I'm in the fight -- I've just put up my "Democratic Victory Parade" post at my place.

Unlike some conservative bloggers I could name, I haven't given up hope yet. If we go down, it better be fighting.

I'll tell you what you better hope for--that the Sherman/MacArthur/Goldwater/Nixon wing of the GOP stays home tomorrow, because if the best the GOP can do is fight a half-assed, nation-building, don't hurt any poor "innocent" civilians war, then why not let the Democrats run it, since they invented that peculiar brand of sitzkrieg way back in Vietnam.

Maybe, by 2008, someone in the GOP will manage to grow some plutonium balls, and fight this war with the Shermanesque savagery necessary to win it. Until then, I will be quite satisfied to go to the polls tomorrow, and send the current crop of Republicans to the Lazy George McClellan Retirement Home for Lily-Livered Losers.

Since I can't put up a trackback for some reason, I'll post it here:

VOTE

I just finished listening to "Tax Man" over at the Llamas, from their floating sticky GET OUT THE VOTE post. Since I'm one of the many moderately frustrated conservatives, I felt it was important to speak to the issue directly, now.

I heart that Victory graphic!!!

Ah.. that's George Harrison there...

Great video. I am dragging half the neighborhood to the poles. The other half, out to the country and kicking em out of my car! LOL