|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 20:16:14 GMT -5
The most tragic fact of American political life is that we have Democrats. America is involved in a world war and yet Democrats still haven’t figured out who the enemy is. A recent count of critical words used by major Democratic leaders shows that for every 100 words used to be critical of the American Commander in Chief, 0 words were used to be critical of the enemy, who is, by the way, Al Qaida. And, Al Qaida is very thankful for the Democratic support as they prepare nuclear, chemical, biological, suicide bomber, sniper, and IED attacks against all of us.
Here is the relevant part of a recently intercepted 6,000-word letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy in the Al Qaida organization, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaida’s top man in Iraq: “However, despite all of this I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of the battle is taking place in the battle field if the media.”
The thrilling fact for Al Qaida is that American Democrats and their main stream media allies are printing 100% coverage against Bush and nothing against them. The Democrats have succeeded politically to the point where Bush now has only a 36% approval rating, while intellectually, Democrats look as goofy and deadly as ever. Their political attack has succeeded by accusing Bush of being dishonest about WMDs as the reason for going to war. But here are the facts:
1) There was a natural tendency to believe that Saddam had WMDs or could have them again quickly because he had them and used them in the recent past.
2) When Bill Clinton left office, having had 8 years to listen to the CIA and perhaps 30 other domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, he talked openly about whether Iraq would use WMDs in the run up to the war. He said, “I’ll guarantee that he’ll use the arsenal.”
3) Hans Blick, the main UN weapons inspector, never found WMDs but assumed Iraq had them based on the incredible lengths to which Iraq went to impede the investigation.
4) The whole United Nations Oil For Food program that impoverished Saddam was put in place to pressure Iraq into disclosing its weapons, but still Saddam would not disclose that he had no weapons? It’s hard dealing with a mad man, and harder still to predict his next move.
5) Recorded conversations just before the war began show that Iraqi Generals thought they would be called on the use WMDs. If Iraqi generals didn’t know the truth, it is unlikely that Bush would have.
6) The American Military, which protects its own, has its own intelligence capability, and they went into battle fully equipped and prepared for WMD counter attacks.
7) Immediately before the war, the CIA director was asked how certain he was about WMDs in Iraq. He said it was a “slam dunk.”
8) Joe Wilson was persuaded from his trip to Iraq that Iraq was not buying or trying to buy “yellow cake” from Niger but the CIA, for whom he worked at the time, was not convinced by Wilson, and neither was the bipartisan Senate Select Committee which also analyzed his findings.
9) Other investigations by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Robb-Silverman group concluded there was no cherry picking of intelligence or pressure to manufacture it as needed by the Administration.
10) The Democrats, by law, saw all or most of the intelligence prior to the war. They always had the option to reject it, ask for more of it, or to refuse to fund the war. Now, like little children they want a “do over,” and they want to pretend they were not integrally involved in the run up to war.
The facts are surely ironic here in light of how well the Democrats have avoided them in their successful political attack against Bush, but what is more ironic is that WMDs were never the main reason for going to war, just the most public one. WMDs were used to capture the attention of a public that mostly doesn’t pay attention, and when it does, gets confused enough to vote for Democrats and Republicans in the same election, and then proudly proclaims it is an act of electoral independence.
The real reason for the war was that after 9/11 Bush didn’t want it to happen again, and thankfully it didn’t. On 9/11 we were already at war with Iraq over the “no fly zones” and through the UN Oil for Food program, which was slowly strangling that country. Since Iraq was seemingly 1000 times more capable of, and inclined to attack us than Afghanistan, it made perfect sense to strike preemptively. Those who are against extremely rational preemptive strikes had their way prior to 9/11, and now should just shut up regarding Iraq.
An even greater irony in the scummy, but politically successful Democratic attack is that in truth it no longer matters much why we went into this war or the Vietnam War or any other of our wars that necessarily started under a cloud of partisan democratic confusion. What matters 2000 times more is that if we lose, Al Qaida gets the oil, and civilization collapses.
The Democrats have tons to say about history because doing so happens to be working for them at the moment, no matter how irrelevant, but when asked what they would do if actually elected to office to make history, they do what their current standard bearer, Hillary Clinton does: they hide under their desks in absolute fear that being forthright and honest would cost them politically.
Yesterday (11/13/05) , the Chairman of the Democratic Party was on “Meet the Press” where he was gently and politely asked, by the liberal host, about how it is that the Democrats have no positions at a critical and pivotal time in human history? The Chairman acknowledged that it was quite true about not having any positions yet, but added that they were working on it and when they came up with something it would be based on honesty. When gently pressed about whether they would let us know their honest positions this year, the Chairman replied, “in 2006.” The liberal host quietly and quickly moved on.
It almost makes you cry doesn’t it? The Democrats are half of the political culture in America; yet they launched a scummy, intellectually meaningless, but successful political attack about Bush’s honesty while not being honest enough themselves to present their positions on the future of their own country or Western Civilization. If they are successful it would, by default, send a huge valentine to Al Qaida which has written that the Democrats will soon do for them what they did for the communists in Vietnam and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
The greatest irony of all is that our CIA was incompetent and mistaken mostly because Democrats had always hated it, and stripped it bare of any real capabilities. Why? The CIA had been a very effective Republican anti-Communist organization while the Democrats always had pronounced sympathy for Communists. In fact, Oleg Klugin, the head of the KGB in Washington during the cold war period has written that of course he looked among the liberals when the wanted to recruit spies in Washington. After Republicans defeated Communism, Democrats insanely continued to resist American freedom and the promotion of it around the world, and do so to this day. A neutered CIA has always been the Democratic policy, but that doesn’t stop them from audaciously exploiting the deadly results of their own failed policy.
So why can’t there be a Constitutional Amendment against the existence of the Democratic Party whereupon the Republican Party would split into two thinking Parties with legitimate disagreements?
And, all this is to say nothing of the traitorous affect all this has on our troops in the field who heroically fight and die out of a believe in their mission that Democrats seek to undermine.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 17, 2005 20:26:13 GMT -5
that deserves an "OH SNAP!!!"
i'm sorry, but Democrats are fooling themselves...ffs get a grip....the democratic party is begining to look v stupid with some of its outrageous claims--hence they lost the 2004 election and will prob lose the 2008 election too...you may call me a "fucking idiot" but guess what, i have that feeling about you too....so stfu, way to call names....mature arnt you (you know who you are)....theres a reason why Bush is president and not you, Moore, Sheehan...it's bc, despite what you all think, Bush knows more then you....now go and do you're democratic thing and continue to corrupt the country...but its begining to back fire now innit
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Nov 18, 2005 6:32:18 GMT -5
In my humble opinion, the fact that you have Democrats - and I would say this whether I agreed with their viewpoint or not (I actually think they have been completely cack-handed in the way they have handled themselves over the last few years) - is a good thing. The most tragic thing in American political life is that you only have 2 parties. You need MORE of them! Outlaw the Republican party? Are you nuts? What happened to Freedom of Speech? You know, one of those great democratic rights that the war you so lovingly support is supposed to be fighting to protect?
As it is, every political debate in America - and I think we can see this happen on this very forum - becomes an "Us vs. Them" situation. You get Republicans who, even if they do not support a particular Republican idea, would NEVER bring themselves to vote for a Democratic candidate because to even entertain another possibility is like defecting to the enemy (the same, of course, is equally true of some Dems). There is no real open political debate and discussion where such people are concerned, merely a succession of slanging matches and mud-slinging exercises. The end result of which is that we get nowhere and America becomes more polarised as a nation. Who really works to bring these people together in politics? GWB sure doesn't, and the Dems have offered no one else willing to even attempt it. And the erosion of cicil liberties in America under the Patriot Act has only served to polarise it even further. You talk about terror attacks - you remember all those terrorist atrocities that happened on the Millenium? You know, the ones that were planned for ages? That's right, you don't. Because Intelligence did their jobs. And yeah, on 9/11 they had a bad day. It went wrong. They should have done better. But you know what? America's not supopsed to be a country that spies on itself, or one that treats Freedom of Speech like an enemy.
And if you think the Dems are being weird about Bush, you should check out the campaign the Repubs waged against Clinton, which was no less vitriolic and was in many ways (who luckily for them couldn't keep his dick in his pants, though he was perfectly competent as a President). I assume that when US troops were in Kosovo and the Repubs were attacking Clinton you backed him up, because otherwise that would be udermining the mission of the troops, wouldn't it? Because obviously you can't support the troops and not support the Commande rin Chief, right? The Republicans are no white lillies, live4ever, and you'd be better off if you dissuaded yourself of such a notion post haste.
You have your opinions and you are entitled to them. That's what freedom's all about. Good luck with your opinions, dude. But to suggest that America needs less political parties is crazy, man: You need MORE of the bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 18, 2005 8:48:24 GMT -5
Agreed...gd response
i didnt write the article mind you, i just posted it
I cant stand the ppl who only vote for Republicans or only vote for Democrats....every candidate is different--my view is listen to what both have to say and choose the one who you view is better....I HATE labels (in everything--Ivy League, Dem/Repub, etc) i could rant all day about that, but i wont
nice post lisamoorish
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Nov 18, 2005 8:58:30 GMT -5
Cheers dude. It's a shame the middle ground is such a barren place these days. People from both sides would find they got a lot more good and positive things done if they just tried to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Nov 21, 2005 14:52:44 GMT -5
another, better, less bias article
America, America God shed His grace on thee By Marie Jon' MichNews.com Nov 21, 2005
America, you must be asleep. You received a letter from two men named Al; Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi, on Oct 11, 2005, laying out the full plan on just how these two world-wide known terrorists were going to win the debate in America. Unfortunately, it seems that the American public is buying into their plan. Bill Clinton is helping them do so. The AP reported: "Former President Bill Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war."
Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi want our government to cut and run and leave behind millions of innocent Iraqi people left to be slaughtered by the same Islamic fascists that are causing the trouble we are seeing all over the world. Just this week, we had a senior Congressman call for a total withdrawal from Iraq. What is he thinking? Doesn't he know that he is politicizing the war at our country's and troops' expense? The Congressman, whose name is John Murtha, sparked quite a controversy when he said: "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency; They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
He then went even further as he called for our troops to be removed from Iraq. I do not care if this man served in Vietnam. A liar named Senator John F. Kerry also served in Vietnam and made false accusations about the troops.
Just as in Vietnam, our troops are being subverted. The very same neo-communists bastions of anti-American pacifists in this country are doing it all over again. America, wake up. This is not a quagmire. Vietnam is not only past history, but a despicable one at that. Millions of Vietnamese people were killed brutally after America withdrew her presence from there. Learn from past history when it comes to being swayed by the wrong voices that do not speak the truth.
The Democrats are no longer a party that is telling the truth about Iraq. Their main enabler, the mainstream media, is doing the very same ugly spin and giving daily to our enemies more lies to help undo all the good that we have done.
In Iraq and where ever else they hang their turbans and call home, terrorists are listening to a very unseemly and troubling disingenuous debate. The enabler of the Democrats, the mainstream media, are 90% far left in their political beliefs, and are eager to give America the shaft for the political gain of their preferred Party.
These men and women of the old media have become a menace. They are a powerful group who has no conscience to the health and well-being of a nation. There is not much truth being told in the old media. America is fed disinformation and leftist propaganda. The media in many ways seems to be running the country. They are poisoning the well of truthful information regarding winning the war on terror by trying to depose a sitting president.
At the same time, the media helps humiliate our brave and courageous troops by printing the lies about them. This all started with Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is not an accurate reflection of our awesome troops who serve their country bravely and willingly. Those few who disgraced the uniform and the country were dealt with, and are serving time. But the media could not wait to tell you ad nausea what went on. The New York Times alone ran a streak of Abu Ghraib stories 37 days in a row.
We all know the many lies about the troops that have been generated by the American media. Those lies have also caused more hate towards our troops. We were also told lies about Koran's being flushed down toilets and other falsehoods about Gitmo. Our troops are being told daily that our president lied to them about why they are in Iraq.
The Democrats and the media are the villains and the real problems as to why America is loosing her will to do what is noble and good. America has a strategy, and an exit plan. We will leave when the Iraqi people are able to take care of themselves--and when we are asked to do so by the Iraqi government. The Iraqi's will hold another election on December 15th, 2005.
America has done a more-than stellar job in Iraq. A real democracy is blooming. Be proud that freedom is on the march. America, God shed his grace on thee with patience and fortitude to stay the course. Remember, we got a letter from two men named Al. Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi are nodding their heads with agreement as the shameful Democrats spew the same gutless dribble to undermine a president and weaken his ability to lead our nation to victory. The patriots of America will not let them prevail.
|
|
|
Post by Poshbird05 on Nov 21, 2005 17:48:17 GMT -5
behind you 100%
|
|
|
Post by nyr401994 on Dec 24, 2005 23:43:04 GMT -5
1) There was a natural tendency to believe that Saddam had WMDs or could have them again quickly because he had them and used them in the recent past. 2) When Bill Clinton left office, having had 8 years to listen to the CIA and perhaps 30 other domestic and foreign intelligence agencies, he talked openly about whether Iraq would use WMDs in the run up to the war. He said, “I’ll guarantee that he’ll use the arsenal.” 3) Hans Blick, the main UN weapons inspector, never found WMDs but assumed Iraq had them based on the incredible lengths to which Iraq went to impede the investigation. 4) The whole United Nations Oil For Food program that impoverished Saddam was put in place to pressure Iraq into disclosing its weapons, but still Saddam would not disclose that he had no weapons? It’s hard dealing with a mad man, and harder still to predict his next move. 5) Recorded conversations just before the war began show that Iraqi Generals thought they would be called on the use WMDs. If Iraqi generals didn’t know the truth, it is unlikely that Bush would have. 6) The American Military, which protects its own, has its own intelligence capability, and they went into battle fully equipped and prepared for WMD counter attacks. 7) Immediately before the war, the CIA director was asked how certain he was about WMDs in Iraq. He said it was a “slam dunk.” 8) Joe Wilson was persuaded from his trip to Iraq that Iraq was not buying or trying to buy “yellow cake” from Niger but the CIA, for whom he worked at the time, was not convinced by Wilson, and neither was the bipartisan Senate Select Committee which also analyzed his findings. 9) Other investigations by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Robb-Silverman group concluded there was no cherry picking of intelligence or pressure to manufacture it as needed by the Administration. 10) The Democrats, by law, saw all or most of the intelligence prior to the war. They always had the option to reject it, ask for more of it, or to refuse to fund the war. Now, like little children they want a “do over,” and they want to pretend they were not integrally involved in the run up to war. here are my reponses to these allegations. firstly, let me say that this so-called "liberal bias media" does not exist. somebody obviously forgot that conservatives have a huge advantage over liberals, especially on radio. bill o'reilly (or as i like to call "bill o'liely"), rush limbaugh and so many more conservatives have a huge number of stations that pick them up and a gigantic number of listeners. all the democrats have is air america radio. with people on the air such as al franken, wow, some bias. 1) if there was a "natural tendency to believe that Saddam had WMDs or could have them again quickly because he had them and used them in the recent past," then surely we would have found them? 2) you guys are absolutely right that clinton said that. my only problem is that you're quoting bill clinton, somebody you all allegedly hate because he fucked somebody who wasn't his wife. honestly, you would have slept with somebody else too knowing that your wife was hilary clinton. 3) if hans blick had never found actual evidence of plans to buy or build wmds, then why assume? anyways, when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me! (get it? ass-u-me? anybody?) 4) i have no idea what point you guys are making with this one. 5) you guys said, "if iraqi generals didn’t know the truth, it is unlikely that bush would have." then why invade the country and kill so many of our troops!?!?! what is this, the central intuitive agency? who's the mastermind behind this, miss cleo??!! 6) "the american military, which protects its own, has its own intelligence capability... they went into battle fully equipped and prepared for wmd counter attacks." if we had intelligence, we would have known if iraq actually had wmd's. as to the second part, why are we losing so many of our troops if we're so well prepared for defense?!7) "immediately before the war, the cia director was asked how certain he was about wmds in iraq. he said it was a “slam dunk.”" [glow=red,2,300]then why didn't we find any?!?![/glow] 8) "Joe Wilson was persuaded from his trip to Iraq that Iraq was not buying or trying to buy “yellow cake” from Niger but the CIA, for whom he worked at the time, was not convinced by Wilson, and neither was the bipartisan Senate Select Committee which also analyzed his findings." if this was the case, why did his wife, valerie plame, get framed? to discredit wilson!!! all of this was directly (and publicly) connected to karl rove and bush's buddies. they definitely had something to hide. 9-10) the last time i checked, even bush admitted that he used bad evidence as reason to go to war(http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=798731). if you were given such conclusive evidence which said that iraq had wmd's (which later turned to be false), you would have supported the invasion as well. i certainly did, and now i know the truth and am anti-war. oh, and just before you all hate me for my so-called liberalism, i just want to let you know that i went to rallies supporting both rudy giuliani and mike bloomberg, and still support the both of them today. and if john mccain or giuliani are running for office in '08, you can bet your asses that i'm voting for one of them. i must say good night to the conservatives out there, as i'm running off to osama's homobortion pot-commie-gizz-porium.
|
|