posted on July 25, 2007 10:48:16 PM new
As we've watched/read over and over....from one vote to another the liberals/dems continue wanting to admit defeat by withdrawing in the middle of the Iraqi war.
Cowards, who only have their OWN political gains in mind....NOT how very important this war with terrorists really is.
Great article....and I hope as the election draws closer....more Americans will wake up and realize that a party that wants to RUN away from our enemies......cannot EVER be trusted to defend us. NEVER be counted on to make the hard decisions that face our nation.
================================
"Al Qaeda's rhetoric is peppered with references to America's "weakness."
Be clear - NOT 'AMERICA'S WEAKNESS' - LIBERAL/DEMOCRATIC PARTY WEAKNESS They seek to run from our enemies.
=======================================
Iraq Is the Central Front
The Democrats are in denial about our struggle against al Qaeda.
by Thomas Joscelyn
07/30/2007, Volume 012, Issue 43
The leading Democratic presidential contenders have voiced a new conventional wisdom in recent weeks: The war in Iraq has little or nothing to do with defeating al Qaeda. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have embraced this view, as has the New York Times. It is dangerously wrong. At the very time it is being propounded, al Qaeda continues to fight fiercely to expel U.S. forces from Iraq in pursuit of its long-announced objective of establishing a safe haven there. It is contradicted by U.S. intelligence and by the repeated pronouncements of al Qaeda's top leaders going back years.
Oblivious to these facts, the Democrats insist: "This is not our fight." So wrote Hillary Clinton and her Senate colleague Robert Byrd in a July 10 op-ed. "Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle."
Campaigning recently in Iowa, Barack Obama agreed: "We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield." Pointing to al Qaeda's resurgence along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Obama called for troops to be redeployed from Iraq. He promised that when he becomes president, "Nobody will work harder to go after those terrorists who will do the American people harm. But that requires a commander in chief who understands our troops need to be on the right battlefield, not the wrong battlefield."
And in the same spirit, the New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt scolded the Bush administration under the headline "Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner."
This narrative is politically convenient for anti-Iraq war Democrats and like-minded members of the press: Public support for the war and the president has plummeted; most now believe the United States should not have gone into Iraq in the first place; and the Democratic base wants American troops withdrawn as soon as possible. What the new conventional wisdom isn't is consistent with the actual struggle we are in.
Just last week, the summary of a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) representing the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was released. It states that the organization "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is the terror network's "most visible and capable affiliate." Al Qaeda's leadership still desires to strike the U.S. homeland and "will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)" to do so. "In addition," the intelligence estimate notes, al Qaeda relies on Al Qaeda in Iraq to "energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."
These judgments are obviously inconsistent with Obama's belief that America is fighting on the "wrong battlefield." But the judgments of the intelligence community have been wrong before--witness the October 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. So we should be wary of taking this latest pronouncement at face value.
The NIE's conclusions are, however, supported by a source that cannot be ignored: al Qaeda's two principal leaders. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have repeatedly called Iraq the "front line" in their war against Western civilization. Indeed, a review of their statements--readily accessible in translation in the anthologies edited by Bruce Lawrence (Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden) and Laura Mans field (His Own Words: Translations and Analysis of the Writings of Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri) and from other public sources--confirms that they have made Iraq their fight.
Consider what bin Laden said about the importance of the war in Iraq in December 2004:
I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.
The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation. The nation today has a very rare opportunity to come out of the subservience and enslavement to the West and to smash the chains with which the Crusaders have fettered it.
Likewise, here is how Ayman al Zawahiri described the war in Iraq in a letter to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, then al Qaeda's chief terrorist in Iraq, in 2005:
I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.
According to Clinton and Obama, "this is not our fight." According to bin Laden and Zawahiri, the war in Iraq is the "most important and serious issue today for the whole world" and "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."
Plainly, there is a disconnect. The comments by al Qaeda's leaders quoted here are typical. Al Qaeda has repeatedly told us that it has drawn a line in the sands of Iraq. Some in America simply choose not to listen.
Indeed, nearly six years after the September 11 attacks, the fog of war has descended. Our view of the enemy has become clouded by partisan politics. But our blindness hasn't stopped al Qaeda's leadership from reconstituting itself along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan and in Iran. The organization still desires to strike the American homeland and continues to execute attacks in Europe. (The recent attacks in Glasgow and London, for example, had numerous ties to foreign plotters.) And hotspots around the world continue to flare up.
Let us be clear, then: Iraq is the central front in this global war. Al Qaeda has made it so. For that reason it is worth revisiting why Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have invested so heavily in Iraq.
As al Qaeda's leaders see it, the U.S. intervention in Iraq was not intended merely to overthrow Saddam's regime and replace it with an elected government. It was further proof that the "Crusaders and Zionists" were conspiring against the Muslim people. In February 2003, bin Laden viewed the "war on terror" and the coming invasion of Iraq through this conspiratorial lens:
The Bush-Blair axis claims that it wants to annihilate terrorism, but it is no longer a secret--even to the masses--that it really wants to annihilate Islam. . . . Nor can there be any doubt that the current preparation for an attack on Iraq is anything other than the latest in a continuous series of aggressions on the countries of the region.
Bin Laden warned that the conspirators intended to dominate the region and establish a "Greater Israel":
One of the most important objectives of this new Crusader campaign, after dividing up the region, is to prepare it for the establishment of what is called the state of Greater Israel, which would incorporate large parts of Iraq and Egypt within its borders, as well as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, the whole of Palestine, and a large part of Saudi Arabia. Do you know what harm and suffering Greater Israel will bring down upon the region?
Few sober-minded observers would agree with bin Laden's characterization. Nonetheless, bin Laden attacked Middle Eastern regimes for not resisting the conspiracy: "And what have the governments of the region done to resist this hostile strategic goal?" he asked. "Nothing."
Criticism of the region's rulers, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, is an integral part of al Qaeda's recruitment propaganda. Bin Laden and Zawahiri continually tell Muslims that their rulers have been feckless in the face of the "Crusader-Zionist" conspiracy. Therefore, their only alternative is to join al Qaeda's jihad, which is the vanguard of the new Muslim resistance. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was simply the latest proof that the regimes of the Middle East refuse to defend Muslim soil.
Bin Laden explained that turning a blind eye to the American-led removal of Saddam was simply unacceptable:
It is true that Saddam is a thief and an apostate, but the solution is not to be found in moving the government of Iraq from a local thief to a foreign one. Helping the infidel to take the land of Muslims and control them is one of the ten acts contradictory to Islam.
As this statement shows, bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein an "apostate" and an "infidel." He said so many times. It is widely believed in the West that this ideological difference precluded any form of cooperation between al Qaeda and Saddam. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD has documented repeatedly, however, that judgment is flawed. In fact, as the war approached in February 2003, bin Laden explained the necessity of joining forces with Saddam. However distasteful, Saddam was still preferable to the "Crusaders":
It is well known that fighting under pagan banners is not allowed, and that the Muslim's belief and banner must be clear when fighting for God. As the Prophet said: "Only he whose aim in fighting is to keep God's word supreme fights in God's cause." There is no harm in such circumstances if the Muslims' interests coincide with those of the socialists in fighting the Crusaders, despite our firm conviction that they are infidels. The time of these socialist rulers is long past. The socialists are infidels, wherever they may be, whether in Baghdad or Aden. The current fighting and the fighting that will take place in the coming days can be very much compared to the Muslims' previous battles. There is nothing wrong with a convergence of interests here.
There was a clear convergence of interests in the Iraqi insurgency against the coalition. Neither Saddam nor bin Laden planned the Iraqi insurgency in every detail. However, extensive evidence found in Iraqi intelligence documents recovered by the coalition and the testimony of al Qaeda operatives confirms that Saddam welcomed al Qaeda terrorists and other jihadists to Iraqi soil in the weeks and months prior to the war.
For example, Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, explains in My Year in Iraq that a Mukhabarat (Iraqi intelligence) document he had seen "showed that Saddam had made plans for an insurgency." Bremer elaborates: "And the insurgency had forces to draw on from among several thousand hardened Baathists in two northern Republican Guard divisions that had joined forces with foreign jihadis." Iraqi intelligence documents similar to the one Bremer describes were released online by the U.S. government last year. One, from the top military command, contains the order to "utilize Arab suicide bombers" against the Americans. It also orders Saddam's agents to provide these terrorists with munitions, religious instruction, shelter, and training at the outset of the war. Instead of fighting a purely conventional war, Saddam clearly intended to confront American forces with an insurgency made up of foreign and homegrown terrorists, notably suicide bombers.
In February 2003, bin Laden predicted that such an insurgency would arise in Iraq:
We also underline the importance of dragging the enemy forces into a protracted, exhausting, close combat, making the most of camouflaged defense positions in plains, farms, hills, and cities. What the enemy fears most is urban and street warfare, in which heavy and costly human losses can be expected. Further, we emphasize the importance of martyrdom operations, which have inflicted unprecedented harm on America and Israel, thanks to God Almighty.
Some now try to downplay al Qaeda's role in the Iraqi insurgency. But it is clear that al Qaeda--sometimes with the aid of Saddam's former Baathists--has executed the most spectacular and devastating attacks in Iraq. Al Qaeda's attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad on August 19, 2003, and its destruction of the golden dome of the al-Askari Mosque on February 22, 2006, rocked Iraqi society. The latter attack plunged Iraq into horrific sectarian violence, which led many commentators to claim that Iraq was in the midst of a civil war.
From al Qaeda's perspective, these attacks are not intended only to sow chaos and wreak havoc. Al Qaeda has long-term territorial aspirations in Iraq. The forced retreat of American and Western forces is just the first stage in its plan for the post-Saddam era.
Since the last caliph was dethroned by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey in 1924, Islamist ideologues have repeatedly lamented the loss of the Muslim empire. The caliphate--whose seat was Baghdad for 500 years--had little real political power by the time the Ottoman Empire fell. But influential Islamists like Sayyid Qutb--whose brother may have taught Osama bin Laden and whose work is cited throughout al Qaeda's various proclamations--made the reestablishment of a common Islamic government and the imposition of their strict version of sharia law, rooted in the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad's sayings, a central tenet of their radical vision. Al Qaeda's leaders often hark back to a time when all Muslim peoples were united in a single empire centered in the Middle East, stretching as far as Spain in the west and Afghanistan in the east.
Ayman al Zawahiri explained the importance of rebuilding the caliphate in his 2001 screed A Knight Under the Prophet's Banner:
Armies achieve victory only when the infantry takes hold of land. Likewise, the mujahid Islamic movement will not triumph against the world coalition unless it possesses a fundamentalist base in the heart of the Islamic world. All the means and plans that we have reviewed for mobilizing the nation will remain up in the air without a tangible gain or benefit unless they lead to the establishment of the state of caliphate in the heart of the Islamic world.
At the time, Zawahiri noted that "the establishment of a Muslim state in the heart of the Islamic world is not an easy goal or an objective that is close at hand." Nonetheless, "it constitutes the hope of the Muslim nation to reinstate its fallen caliphate and regain its lost glory." That hope now lives in Iraq.
In 2005, U.S. forces intercepted a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the affiliate of bin Laden's terror empire also known as "Al Qaeda in the Land of Two Rivers" and "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." (Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike in 2006.) Zawahiri noted that he had studied the issue carefully and at one time believed "the center [of the reborn caliphate] would be in the Levant and Egypt." However, Zarqawi's "efforts and sacrifices" in Iraq were "a large step directly towards" the goal of reestablishing the caliphate.
Zawahiri offered a program of action for Zarqawi, with several "incremental goals" to be achieved in four stages:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate--over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power. . . . The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
Al Qaeda's desire to establish an Islamic state in Iraq, based on Allah's divine sharia, was an important reason why bin Laden and Zawahiri denounced the Iraqi elections and the adoption of Iraq's new constitution: These ensured that, for a time at least, Iraq would remain free of the sharia legal system that al Qaeda and its allies implemented in Sudan and Afghanistan when they controlled those lands. As Iraq's democracy was beginning to take shape in late 2003, bin Laden scolded anyone who thought that free elections were the answer:
Voices have been raised in Iraq--as previously in Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and others--calling for a peaceful democratic solution in cooperation with apostate governments, or with the Jewish and Crusader invaders, instead of fighting for God. We should therefore make note, briefly, of the danger of this wrong-headed, errant idea which contravenes God's law and stands in the way of fighting for Him.
Similarly, Zawahiri has denounced America's attempt to promote the establishment of freer governments in the Middle East. He scolded Hamas for entering the "political process" in the Palestinian-controlled territories. And he warned:
My Muslim brothers in Palestine, Iraq and everywhere: We must be cautious of the American game called the "political process." This game is based on 4 deceiving things: The first one is giving up Sharia as a rule of law.
Instead of joining the "political process," al Qaeda has proceeded to set up an "Islamic State of Iraq." In so doing, it has sown discord within the insurgency in places like Anbar, where some of al Qaeda's former allies have turned against it. This led Zawahiri, in a message released earlier this month, to extol the virtues of al Qaeda's new government, saying that even though it had "shortcomings" or was "something less than perfection," it was still better than working with the new Iraqi government.
Al Qaeda believes in jihad to the end. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have repeatedly implored their fighters in Iraq to be patient. They are confident of victory. "The mujahedeen fighters in Iraq turned America's plan upside down," Zawahiri said in September 2004. "The defeat of America in Iraq and Afghanistan has become just a matter of time, with God's help."
Bin Laden and Zawahiri cite past occasions when America was struck by terrorists and simply retreated--Lebanon in 1983, Somalia in 1993. Just as al Qaeda claims its mujahedeen alone forced the Soviet Union to retreat from Afghanistan, so it claims they will force America to retreat from the Middle East.
Bin Laden explained this long before the Iraq war:
We believe that America is much weaker than Russia, and we have learned from our brothers who fought in the jihad in Somalia of the incredible weakness and cowardice of the American soldier. Not even eighty of them had been killed and they fled in total darkness in the middle of the night, unable to see a thing.
In addition to slandering America's bravest, al Qaeda spokesmen have repeatedly questioned the resolve of America's leaders. They mock the idea of timetables for withdrawal and the belief that U.S.-trained Iraqi forces will be able to fight off the mujahedeen once America leaves. According to al Qaeda, America should withdraw from Iraq immediately in order to save lives. According to Zawahiri, Iraq is the new Vietnam:
The truth that Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld hide from you is that there is no way to escape Iraq, except by withdrawing immediately, and that any delay in making this decision means nothing but more dead and more wounded.
But if you don't leave [Iraq] today, you will most certainly leave tomorrow, but you will leave after tens of thousands die, and many more are crippled and wounded.
And [v]all of the same lies they said about Vietnam, they repeat today about Iraq[/b]. Did they not say that they would train the Vietnamese to manage their own affairs, and that they were there defending freedom in Vietnam?
Al Qaeda's leaders are eager to claim victory in Iraq. And should American forces withdraw, leaving Al Qaeda in Iraq a viable entity, we most certainly will hear victory speeches like the one Zawahiri prematurely delivered in early January 2006. Just over a month before, in a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy on November 30, President Bush had trumpeted the progress made in training Iraqi forces. He had explained the U.S. strategy for Iraq by saying, "And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down." The very hint that American forces would leave Iraq any time soon led Zawahiri to taunt:
I congratulate everyone for the victory in Iraq. You remember, my dear Muslim brethren, what I told you more than a year ago, that the U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq. It was only a matter of time.
Here they are now and in the blessing of God begging to pull out, seeking negotiations with the mujahedeen. And here is Bush who was forced to announce at the end of last November that he will be pulling his troops out of Iraq.
He uses the pretext that the Iraqi forces reached a high level of preparedness. But he doesn't have a timetable for the pullout.
If all of his troops--air force, army--are begging for a way to get out of Iraq, will the liars, traitors and infidels succeed in what the world superpower failed to achieve in Iraq?
You have set the timetable for the withdrawal a long time ago and Bush, you have to admit that you were defeated in Iraq, you are being defeated in Afghanistan, and you will be defeated in Palestine, God willing.
It may already be too late to save Iraq. It is possible that the current surge strategy will fail. And the war raging in Iraq--let us be clear--is certainly not "all al Qaeda, all the time," as some critics now accuse the Bush administration of believing. But the idea that the Iraq war has nothing to do with al Qaeda is demonstrably false.
Bin Laden and Zawahiri's own words tell us that the American project in Iraq jeopardizes everything their group stands for: These two top leaders of al Qaeda have promised the people of the Middle East that al Qaeda will protect Muslim soil from the "Crusader-Zionist" invaders, even if the region's rulers will not, and even if doing so meant cooperating with the "apostate" Saddam.
Zawahiri believes that Iraq is al Qaeda's best opportunity for establishing a true Islamist state in the heart of the Middle East. Democracy does not belong in the region, the two men say, and only an Islamic government based on sharia law is acceptable in Iraq. The mujahedeen will drive the Americans out of Iraq using the same tactics they used to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. America's leaders and soldiers are weak, al Qaeda says. They are looking for a way to run from the fight in Iraq, and they will do so, bin Laden exults, while the "whole world is watching."
The whole world, that is, except the leading Democratic candidates for president.
=================
Thomas Joscelyn is a terrorism researcher and economist living in New York.
Weekly Standard,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 26, 2007 01:04:13 PM new
WASHINGTON – Undercutting new assertions by President Bush, a top U.S. intelligence official testified Wednesday that al-Qaida’s organization in Iraq is overwhelmingly composed of fighters from that country, and that the terrorist network’s ability to operate in Pakistan poses the greater danger to the United States.
The testimony came just one day after Bush forcefully argued that al-Qaida in Iraq is substantially controlled by foreign operatives, and that most of them would be trying to kill Americans if it were not for the ongoing war there.
The competing characterizations of al-Qaida’s affiliate in Iraq – and the extent to which the issue dominated a congressional hearing Wednesday – again underscored the role of intelligence assessments in shaping the political debate over the war.
Testifying before the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, Edward Gistaro, the nation’s top analyst for transnational threats, said that the U.S. intelligence community’s “primary concern” is al-Qaida in South Asia, which he said is “organizing its own plots” against the United States.
Gistaro, who was the principal author of a recent national intelligence study on threats to America, noted that al-Qaida in Iraq – or “AQI” as the group is known in U.S. intelligence circles – has “expressed an interest” in launching attacks against the United States.
But he said that 90 percent of the members of the group are Iraqis who joined al-Qaida’s organization there subsequent to the U.S. invasion. He estimated the group’s strength at “several thousand” members and said that “the bulk of AQI’s resources are focused on the battle inside of Iraq.”
In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly drawn connections between the al-Qaida organization in Iraq and the core of the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. He has also ratcheted up his argument that pulling out U.S. troops would lead not only to chaos in the country he sought to remake as a democracy, but also to a heightened risk of terrorist attacks inside U.S. borders.
That case has been complicated, however, by National Intelligence Estimates warning that the war in Iraq has become a “cause celebre” for Islamic extremism around the world, even while Osama bin Laden and other leaders have used their haven in Pakistan to reassert control over the broader organization.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the latest assessments make clear that “the al-Qaida threat emanates from Afghanistan and Pakistan and not Iraq, and that United States has missed critical opportunities to address that threat.”
Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the panel, shot back that critics of the Bush administration “have ignored or misrepresented” recent intelligence reports for political purposes.
Some of Wednesday’s testimony amounted to an endorsement of Bush’s military surge in Iraq.
Asked about recent reports that some Sunni tribal leaders have turned against al-Qaida in certain provinces of Iraq, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper said: “I think it reflects the effect of our sustaining the attacks on the offensive against AQI. And more specifically, I think it is a reflection of the effectiveness of the surge.”
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 26, 2007 01:27:58 PM new
One would think that all Americans would be on the side of America against AQ and any muslim/arab enemies.
But the liberals who are working, continue putting up bills for the US withdrawal, for American DEFEAT....America to run away from our enemies....sure AREN'T. And can NEVER claim they are.
==================
"Some of Wednesday’s testimony amounted to an endorsement of Bush’s military surge in Iraq."
"Asked about recent reports that some Sunni tribal leaders have turned against al-Qaida in certain provinces of Iraq, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence James Clapper said: “I think it reflects the effect of our sustaining the attacks on the offensive against AQI. And more specifically, I think it is a reflection of the effectiveness of the surge.”
============
Can we reasonably question the patriotism of those Americans who want to surrender to our enemies? We sure can. Can we question why it's mostly the radical liberals/progressives and far left liberals that are so much against our troops being given the opportunity to PROVE they can chance the situation? We sure can.
Can we point out that while we are NOW beginning to see many successes in Iraq - this is the time the radicals choose to pull us out? Why? For no other reason than we leave in DEFEAT of our mission there.
As more and more reports are made public about our successes in Iraq....about positive changes....the harder the liberals/dems work to get us out of Iraq. Let it fall.
They want our DEFEAT.....not stabilization in Iraq.
Can we reasonably question the patriotism of those who want America to FAIL in Iraq?
We SURE can. And I do.
==========
Guest Commentary
A recent Gallup Poll confirms what conservatives have long suspected, and what liberals knew but concealed: liberals are less patriotic than conservatives.
----------
Liberals Protest, "Don't Question Our Patriotism!" Actually, We Will
By Ray Seilie
A recent Gallup Poll confirms what conservatives have long suspected, and what liberals knew but concealed: liberals are less patriotic than conservatives.
The poll, published July 3, asked 1,002 adults if they were "extremely proud" to be American. Self-described conservatives were 71 % likely to be extremely proud, whereas only 40 % of liberals described themselves as such.
This disparity comes as no surprise amid a plethora of offensive statements by liberals, statements that strongly suggest a willingness to prioritize international opinion and partisan politics over American interests. For years, liberals have issued a parade of these statements, all the while excoriating Republicans for allegedly questioning their levels of patriotism.
In June 2005, for instance, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) compared the American military to some rather unsavory historical figures: "If I read this [testimony] to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings."
Senator Durbin's comparison might have been accurate if American forces were indiscriminately rounding up peaceful civilians, separating men from women and children, slaughtering them in gas chambers and burying them in mass graves. Instead, Durbin's statement amounts to nothing more than anti-American hyperbole. Embarrassed by the subsequent outcry, Senator Durbin tearfully corrected himself days later.
Reinforcing Senator Durbin's words later that year, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) accused American troops in Iraq of "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."
More recently, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rushed to praise the Supreme Court's application of Geneva Convention protections to al Qaeda operatives: "Today's Supreme Court decision [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld] reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system." In other words, Pelosi applauded the Supreme Court for siding with international opinion and granting terrorists the same legal protections to which American citizens are entitled.
Perhaps the Supreme Court's decision conformed to French ideals of American policy, but, contrary to Pelosi's statement, it was not an "American ideal."
Politicians are not the only liberals who blindly and overzealously denounce American interests. The New York Times recently ignored the boundaries of journalistic responsibility by exposing the government's program of monitoring terrorist banking transactions internationally. Despite appeals from politicians of both parties, the publication opted to blatantly undermine American interests by exposing national security practices.
If the Times' actions successfully allow international terrorists to escape the purview of intelligence officials, the newspaper will undoubtedly waste no time criticizing the administration for failing to effectively combat terrorism. By leveling indiscriminate partisan criticism at the Bush administration, the Times undermines its own alleged goals of providing an objective news service and prioritizes its liberal political agenda over genuine national interests.
Of course, whenever liberals' loyalties are exposed to criticism, they feign offense and zealously defend their patriotism.
During his presidential campaign, for instance, John Kerry responded to criticisms against his own shameful record of denouncing American troops by gratuitously asserting his patriotism: "The Republicans need to answer to the American people for their craven tactics that degrade our democracy and question the patriotism of those who stand up and ask questions about the direction of our country."
Apparently, despite Kerry's "reporting for duty" as a candidate who openly flaunted his own alleged patriotic credentials, the Republicans were employing "craven tactics" and "questioning his patriotism" when they questioned his historic condemnation of American military action.
Former Georgia Senator Max Cleland resorted to a similar strategy when Saxby Chambliss criticized his voting record against Homeland Security provisions. Cleland dismissed Chambliss' negative campaign advertisements as simplistic and unwarranted attacks on his patriotism, and his fellow liberals eagerly rushed to his defense. Kerry defended his party comrade against "the most craven moment I've ever seen in politics, when the Republican Party challenged this man's patriotism." Again, according to liberals, pointing out problems with Cleland's voting record was off-limits during an election campaign.
In this way, liberals nervously defend their patriotic commitments with fiery rhetoric. After all, voters would never elect a candidate who was expressly against America. However, the liberal track record of indiscriminately parroting other countries' rhetoric often belies substantive commitment to American interests.
The Gallup Poll simply reveals this truth more starkly.
So the next time liberals demand that conservatives not question their patriotism, conservatives need only point to the survey and say, "We don't need to. You already admitted it."
Ray Seilie - Center For Individual Freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 01:33 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 01:43:09 PM newConsider what bin Laden said about the importance of the war in Iraq
so now you are following the wisdom of the terrorists?
I see, so if Osama says the US needs to be in Iraq, we should definitely believe him.
posted on July 26, 2007 01:48:28 PM new
zoomin - your post makes NO sense to me.
Are you saying there are NO AQ in Iraq fighting US troops. Can YOU prove the AQ is NOT funding the terrorism in Iraq?
Are you saying many of the ME radicals aren't supporting the war against Americans?
IF you are....you're not keeping in touch with what's going on over there...what's been reported.
But it appears to me from your post that even though binladen has over and over again, promised to work towards destroying America....YOU don't believe it.
That to be speaks to your lack of patriotism. OR major hatred of our President. But something is VERY wrong if you believe they have no 'bad' intentions against America. And that AQ areN'T actively working towards our defeat there, as is Iran.
LOL...matter of fact, binladen has been right about the American left....repeating over and over how we'll quit...we'll conceed...and that's JUST what our elected dems/liberals ARE calling for.
They're doing EXACTLY what BL said they would. Deny that FACT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 02:02 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 03:32:56 PM new
Who will the American voters decide they can trust more on what's in American's best interest? The surrender liberals or our top commanders/military?
For our future security, I hope it won't be some scumbag, admit defeat, liberal politicians.
===============================
Patraeus, diplomat say they will urge Congress to give strategy more time
Robert Burns / AP
Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, signaled that he would like to see a substantial U.S. combat force remain on its current course through at least 2008.
Updated: 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - The top U.S. general and diplomat in Iraq warned on Thursday against cutting short the American troop buildup and suggested they would urge Congress in September to give President Bush’s strategy more time.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, in separate Associated Press interviews at their offices in the U.S. Embassy on the banks of the Tigris, were careful not to define a timeframe for continuing the counterinsurgency strategy — and the higher U.S. troop levels — that began six months ago.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 03:35 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 04:18:07 PM new
The AQ is the MOST lethal. They promote the fighting between the two religious groups....they support it. The AQ wants a civil war.
=======
As to the other garbage...again more proof most liberals/progressives don't believe in facts.
clinton/HIS justice dept. claimed an Iraq and al Qaeda link in 1998 Gosh, he must have been LYING.
In 2003 a clinton fed judge in NYC ruled that Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11. Another LIAR, according to the left I guess.
IF they only knew what they THINK they know....they might have a leg to stand on....but using our national security for their own political gain is nothing short of un-American.
=================================
But the anti-war, SURRENDER left, doesn't CARE what other democrats said....no, they try and minimize the severity of this war....how very important the results of this war are...and what it will mean to our future.
No, they'd rather let the Iraqi's suffer a genocide...wait until AQ has a firm strong-hold in Iraq...and then WHEN we are attacked again, they MIGHT go in and go to war at that time. LOL But don't count on it....they're too cowardly to deal with it NOW.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 26, 2007 04:22:33 PM new
"If you’ve been paying attention to the legislative demise of the “John Doe Protection Amendment” orchestrated by Reid and Pelosi last week, you might conclude that this liberal controlled Congress has a death wish[."
FSM Contributing Editor Sher Zieve pulls no punches in her analysis.
Democrats Overtly Support Terrorists against US Citizens
Author: Sher Zieve
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: July 25, 2007
If you’ve been paying attention to the legislative demise of the “John Doe Protection Amendment” orchestrated by Reid and Pelosi last week, you might conclude that this liberal controlled Congress has a death wish. FSM Contributing Editor Sher Zieve pulls no punches in her analysis.
Democrats Overtly Support Terrorists against US Citizens
By Sher Zieve
Just when we thought Congress could not become more demented—it has. As the Democrat-run Senate and House of Representatives are experiencing their lowest approval rating in recent recorded history (Zogby polling ranks said approval at only 14%), with the stroke of 2 pens Democrat leaders have removed provisions from legislation that would have protected US citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorist activities. This is the latest addition to the ever growing Democrat Death Wish List that its leaders have been preparing since taking Congressional leadership in 2006.
In this latest fiasco, leader of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stripped out the provision that would have allowed limited immunity for reports of witnessed suspicious behavior. Reps. Peter King’s (R-NY) and Steve Pearce (R-NM) had drafted the ‘John Doe Protection Amendment’ after the infamous Flying Imams simulated airline hijacking behaviors.
Now that the Democrats have deleted and destroyed any protections for US citizens who would report potential terrorist activities, the terrorists are free to pursue their evil intent and mission with full support from the Democrat Congress.
Suffice it to say, we-the-people had no participation in this suicide pact decision. Congressman Steve Pearce commented that the Democrats had to make a choice as to “whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists” and Rep. King noted: “This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists.” And, in true Democrat anti-American/anti-we-the-people fashion, Congressional Democrats chose the terrorists’ side.
As was to be expected, both the ACLU and CAIR (the pro-Hamas Council on American-Islamic Relations) are thrilled by this patently insane decision.
Note: This is what the 2006 Congressional elections have wrought. Instead of appeasing only our enemies, the MoveOn.org Democrat leaders are now actively working for the Islamist terrorist enemies. House and Senate Democrats have now overtly—and with no apologies to the American people—taken another huge step toward effectively handing the United States of America over to the terrorists. Their suicide treaty is almost complete. Is there anyone out there who still remembers when these sorts of behaviors were considered treason?
With the Democrats’ new absence of fear of anyone stopping their treachery, they have now been unleashed to do whatever it takes to end this country. This is not an exaggeration. In fact, considering the dire consequences of the Democrats’ pro-terrorist vote, it is an understatement. Much the same as our US Border Patrol Agents now fear reprisal for doing their jobs—Agents Ramos and Compean are bearing the brunt of pro-illegals obsessive US Attorney prosecutions—the American people must now face lawsuits or even jail if they report suspicious potential terrorist activity!
What in the name of any common sense—at all—is going on with our ostensible ‘leaders’? Have they finally, completely and irrevocably lost their minds? Do they believe they have a God-given right to support the enemies of humanity—whoever and whatever they are? Note: I do not believe God condones anti-human behavior. Or is it that our leaders have sunk into some dark abyss and are forcing the American people to join them and participate in their own self-destruction?
As was the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty bill, the John Doe Protection Amendment is a non-partisan issue. All of us—Republican, Democrat and Independent—are impacted by not being allowed to report probable terrorist activities. If we don’t, we and our loved ones could very likely die. If we do, we are now being told by Congressional leaders that if we do so we could face financial ruin, jail time or both. If this doesn’t make sense to you, contact your Senators and House Representatives and advise them that your life is worth at least as much as are theirs. You might also tell them that if they do not resuscitate the John Doe Amendment and continue to vote against your right to self-protection, they will be voted out of office. By the way, has anyone out there considered using the public’s right to recall rogue elected officials?
This latest insane anti-US citizen protection decision badly and possibly irreversibly impacts the American people—directly. Is this any way to run a county? No. But, it is the most flagrant and definitive pronouncement, yet, to end it.
She's like Ann Coulter, in that she CAN see the un-america actions of the liberals in our current congress.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 04:31 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 04:32 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 05:04:06 PM new
Thanks, Kiara. Holy Mackerel--With her ability to see the future, why didn't she tell us about 9/11 before it happened? Why doesn't she tell us where Bin Laden is? Linda, I can't believe you take someone like this seriously--CC
[ edited by coach81938 on Jul 26, 2007 05:04 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 05:18:22 PM new
Of course you can't, CC.
YOU support the liberal defeatests in our congress. You support withdrawing from a war that we are beginning to see successes in.
That's NOT the American way.....
I agree with almost everything that writer said. She speaks the truth. Not PC enough for the surrender leftists? Too bad.
======================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 26, 2007 05:27:50 PM new
And another from a man who can see that the liberals are the BIGGEST problem we're dealing with in meeting our mission in Iraq.
They're willingness to surrender and admit defeat to the terrorists they SAY they're willing to fight. LOL LOL LOL ...Yea, just not in Iraq. LOL
==================
Author: Jonathan Strong
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: July 23, 2007
Liberals in Congress continue to spout the same old bromides on the Iraq issue, despite sinking approval ratings that are dropping by the day. Are they out of touch with voters? FSM Contributing Editor Jonathan Strong explores the rationale behind this apparent truculence.
Politicking on Iraq
By Jonathan Strong
The most recent Gallup poll puts President Bush’s approval rating at 31%. At first glance, this seems to be a lowly and depressing figure. However, in comparison to Congress’ approval rating of 24% according to Ipsos-Reid, Bush is doing surprisingly well.(source) Last November American voters voted for change, but it appears that they are quite unhappy with the results thus far. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have come through on virtually none of their promises for change on the domestic front or in terms of foreign policy. While the Republican Party might have an uphill battle in November of 2008, the Democratic Congressman may have even more difficulty holding on to their majority if they continue their pattern of investigation, obstruction, and breaking promises.
Sen. Feinstein, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha and others seem intent on denying even the possibility of achieving victory from the American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite that Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq the central front in the war on numerous occasions, the Democrats insist on labeling the conflict in Iraq a “civil war”. There is no doubt that civil strife exists in Iraq, but in recent months the main fight in the country is between Al Qaida and U.S. forces and our allies.
Both Diyala and Anbar provinces have made impressive progress that favors our goals in Iraq as tribal leaders join us in the fight against Al Qaida. Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly effective in battling insurgents and Al Qaida, helping ease the burden of American forces.
Despite his weakening campaign for president, John McCain is continuing to be an impressive figure in the Senate in regard to his support of the Iraq War. Following the Levin-Reed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2008, McCain refuted the Democrats’ effort to begin the process of withdrawal and retreat from Iraq stating:
“All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.”(source)
READ IT AGAIN.....SOME OF IT MIGHT SINK IN
It is undeniable that our premature withdrawal from Iraq would be considered a great victory for Al Qaida in Iraq and would embolden Islamic terrorists everywhere to engage in attacks against U.S. interests and the American homeland. Osama Bin Laden once remarked that he believed America was a paper tiger. The Democrats seem determined on proving him correct, because their hesitating, fearful type of policy represent exactly those positions which encouraged Bin Laden to carry out the attacks on New York and Virginia in September 2001.
Going back to the poll numbers, it appears that while the American people may disapprove of the President’s policy in Iraq, they would disapprove of the policy of the Democrats in Congress even more. The ongoing struggle in Iraq is unpopular. After all, quick victories are usually popular with the people. Nevertheless, defeats are even more unpopular. As General Patton once observed, “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser.”
Newt Gingrich aptly asked the question, “How are we stronger in the Persian Gulf if we are defeated in Iraq?” Gingrich continues, “A forced withdrawal from Iraq would undoubtedly be a defeat.”(source) He is right. If we truly believe that Islamic extremism is the most significant threat to our interests and security of this generation, then we cannot accept defeat in any form.
It should be remembered that since 9/11, American forces and our allies have not lost a single major battle. That certainly did not occur during World War Two at Dunkirk, Dieppe, Kassarine Pass, Operation Market Garden, and the Battle of the Bulge where considerable defeats occurred for Allied Forces. At the Battle of the Bulge, 19,000 Americans were killed in just a few months. After being in Iraq since 2003, we have lost more than 3,000 American soldiers. This is not an insignificant number but certainly a sustainable one in contemplation of past wars.
American and allied soldiers are proving that we can achieve victory in the struggle against Islamic fascism, but many politicians (usually on the left) in America, Canada, and Europe seem intent on bringing about defeat for the sake of short-term political advantages. Defeat in war carries serious consequences strategically, economically, and politically, this fact cannot be overstated. Losing in Iraq is nothing short of a win for Al Qaida and a win for Iran.
Let us hope that General Patreaus is to President Bush what General Grant was to Abraham Lincoln. Winning in Iraq should be the only option for politicians in Washington. Defeat will only result in the slaughter of Iraqis who worked with us in the hope of freedom, it will only embolden enemies, and it will humiliate the troops who fought so hard for victory at the behest of their civilian bosses.
Politicians may describe losing as “redeployment”, “withdrawal”, or whatever, but anything less than victory is defeat.
The Democrat hero Robert F. Kennedy once remarked, “I am not one of those who thinks that coming in second or third is winning.” Let’s hope that his political successors on the left heed his words.
============================
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jonathan D. Strong, Esq., is a member of the Florida bar and blogs at The Strong Conservative (http://strongconservative.blogspot.com).
FamilySecurityMatters.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 26, 2007 05:28:25 PM new
as usual, linduh is here pretending she knows best for this country... sounds familiar... oh yeah - President Cheney and King George. We see where that got us.
The analogy from Bush Sr was "putting a fist into a hornets nest". I think it is more like sticking your tongue into a hornets nest. This administration is so swollen with stupidity, and even worse... there are people like Linduh out there that still think the Cheney Administration is doing good for this country.
It must be truly embarrassing for anyone who knows her. Can you imagine her family gatherings... Linduh gets to sit at the folding card table, set out for the children.
Fortunately, most people have seen the actions of this so called leadership as a fraud. It is only people like Linduh who drink the kool aid, supporting the fascist nazi's to the end.
Makes me wonder what could possibly ever change her mind. We know Linduh doesn't answer questions, so maybe we should all answer them for her.
posted on July 26, 2007 05:53:23 PM new
LOL.....I AM awake. But I'm PRO-America NOT un-American, and I don't wish to have the liberals cause another American DEFEAT as they did in VN.
They are doing their best....but I'm still hopeful enough Americans in the next year, year and a half, will see the motives of the radical left who seeks our defeat.
=================
. For then the supporters of the American presence in Iraq will be quickly proven right as Iraq descends into ethnic cleansing, creates millions of refugees who destabilize nearby countries, emboldens Iran to directly enter Iraqi life, spawns a potential genocide, and produces the largest base for Islamic terror in the world. These are not the predictions of pro-war advocates. Every one of these consequences of an American withdrawal was acknowledged as likely in a recent New York Times editorial arguing for American withdrawal from Iraq.
What will Americans who called for American withdrawal -- especially among those who supported the war until now -- tell future historians? That 3,600 American lives in four and a half years was too high a price to pay to fight the cruelest individuals and ideology on earth at that time? (By contrast, in World War II, America lost more than 300,000 lives in three and a half years, fighting the cruelest ideology of that era.) That they thought that an Islamist victory in Iraq would make America more secure?
And what will Republican senators and representatives tell their descendants? That they read the polls and saw that most Americans supported withdrawal, so they changed their minds and abandoned the cause of freedom in Iraq and fled an unpopular Republican war president?
History may not harshly judge those who opposed entering Iraq at the outset. But that is not what matters now. All that matters now -- and what history will judge -- is an American's position on whether to stay and fight in Iraq or whether to leave Iraq.
Just about every generation has some horrific evil that it must fight. For the Democratic Party today that evil is carbon dioxide emissions. For the rest of us, it is an ideology that teaches that its deity is sanctified by the blood of innocents, just as the Aztec deities were.
History will see that clearly. And judge accordingly.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 05:55 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 06:08:49 PM new
And while sybil and rusty continue calling me a fascist ....LOL....they support the communists ideals of hillary. Both by saying she'd TAKE....TAKE mind you....the profits from private companies and use it how SHE wishes to.
She says we need to make other things more EQUAL too......take from those who earn it and use it for those who won't. After all....in communist nations all MUST be equal. LOL
Hillary the communist??? Sure appears to be her REAL agenda.
============
Hillary's Oil Industry Threat: 'I Want to Take Those Profits'
Her statement from 2004: "the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
===============================
Never a word against her form of communism....nope, not by even ONE dem/liberal here. Only slams against those who supported president clinton as he barely fought Iraq....said the same things about saddam/iraq....and this administration who actually DID something about it. TALK is all the radical left wants....ACTION is what is necessary against these evil ones.
=================
More Proof that The Liberals/Dems are CONFUSED about just who our enemies are.....lol They want to RETREAT from the REAL 'jihadists' and believe those who oppose their wicked ways to be the 'jihadists' that they aren't.
SO CONFUSED.
July 26, 2007
House Democrat calls Republicans "jihadists"
Not only is it absurd moral equivalency. It's also extraordinarily ironic in light of the fact that the Democrats would never, ever call Muslims "jihadists" -- even and perhaps especially the jihadists themselves.
"Democrats Say GOP Complaint of Spending ‘Shutdown’ Strategy Doesn’t Add Up," by Bart Jansen and Alan K. Ota for CQ Today (thanks to Anon):
And while Democrats rebuff Republicans and their accusations of shutdown politics, the majority is throwing some brickbats of its own.
“They’ve been stalling,’’ said John W. Olver, D-Mass., chairman of the House Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. “They are nihilists. They are jihadists.”
But of course the real jihadists aren't nihilists at all, and assuming they are is just another way in which our learned analysts are missing the point.
As my first columnist said.....the liberal left IS insane. No doubt about it. The issue/disagreement isn't the point. But rather that they're so blind to what and whom we're fighting in Iraq.....but think the America right are the 'jihadists'.
sick.....and hopefully MORE America voters will take note before '08 arrives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 06:15 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 26, 2007 06:34 PM ]
posted on July 26, 2007 06:10:47 PM new
I've never seen anyone who hates America and Americans more than linduh...
AQ in Iraq ...10%....and they were NOT there at all before America invaded.
linduh drools out the side of her mouth...."They promote the fighting between the two religious groups"
What a dolt...the Sunnis and Shias have been fighting for about ten thousand years, ya dope, they hardly NEED AQ, who they don't LIKE, to encourage them to kill each other.
Keep screamin' linduh...it ain't going anywhere or convincing anyone...
posted on July 26, 2007 06:20:35 PM new
YOU have no way of knowing that, sybil.
It surely won't any anti/un-American that has taken the side of the evil ones.
Nope...but those wacko's have always been a part of America....and they've NEVER been able to get control of our government. Although many liberals now are sure trying to support that happening.
I have faith it won't ever happen. That most American's don't support anti/un-American radical wacko's nor their platforms to 'remake' America into a socialist/communist Nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 27, 2007 05:33:52 AM new
Just because it is the opinion of some off-the-wall neocons that liberals are un-American, does not make it so. It is my opinion, which holds as much weight as yours, that they are the ones who are un-American. They do not care that American soldiers are being killed and maimed in a war started by this administration for it's own agenda. They do not care that billions of American dollars are being spent to further this agenda in Iraq. Following your leader blindly, is not the American way. Never questioning how our country is being run is not the American way. The Revolutionary War was fought because were were not willing to blindly follow a leader who did not have our best interests at heart. At least that George was a real King. This one just thinks he is.
posted on July 27, 2007 09:52:51 AM new
CC - I love it when you anti-war liberals say we conservatives/Republicans don't care about our soldiers dying and being injured.
Shows you to be the LIARS that you are. Especially when it's OUR children who are most likely to volunteer for service to our Nation. NOT the radical lefts children...they've been taught by their flower-child, drug abusing, un-American parents that war is never necessary. We can talk it out with anyone...even the madman in Iran. Meanwhile the US suffers from the 'do nothing dems' who WERE elected to protect this Nation. Just like clinton who failed to do his CIC job.....when he failed to take action with those who murdered our soldiers....bombed our ships....etc. A do-nothing coward. And then we experienced 9-11. When we were thought to be WEAK by our enemies.
Think pulling out of Iraq will make them NOW see the US as being strong? LOL LOL LOL
Oh, but that's NOT the liberal mind think. They want the world to LOVE us. No matter how many times the terrorists attack us...no matter what they do....respect THEM...not our own Nation and our elected leaders. They are the 'blame America first' fools.
Especially when most realize that it's the conservatives, republicans that support our military MORE than most liberals. That are the majority of volunteers to our Armed Forces...not the radical left. They're the ones who run off to canada when asked to serve. You know, like clinton did.
And anyone who actually reads or listens to the liberal left....or they MSM they're NEVER calling for our victory/success. They're NEVER praising our troops successes. Just the opposite. Always the opposite....always AGAINST America. But boy, can they report every NEGATIVE thing some lying Iraqi [anti-American] so called reporter tells them. Then again blast it all over the news...even when they have NO proof/verification of ANY such thing. They decide they're guilty before they even listen to our troops side. Oh, yes, that's sure supporting our troops. LOL LOL LOL In their twisted minds only.
We support a larger, strong military. We support using it when it's necessary. And we support attempting to WIN...meet our objectives...NOT like the liberals who are ALWAYS calling for us to quit.....the defeatists...the quitters. Those people aren't coming from the right...the conservatives...but rather from the left.
On the other hand, we have the dems/liberals/progressives who start whining every time any troops are sent to do what they're trained to do. But they don't mind when they're sent all over the world to be used in other ways. LOL LOl And certainly NOT when the UN says it's necessary. lol lol lol
Over and over again, we read how much we could be doing for the freeloaders in America if we weren't spending it on a war. Anti-Capitalists....pro-BIG BROTHER gov. programs...making everything EQUAL. Just like that communist motto....
Guess what. IF we don't seek victory in the ME IF we RETREAT as the liberals call for our doing....we won't need to worry about any social programs....we'll be fighting the terrorist on our own soil....just as the UK has been doing lately...maybe more like another 9-11.
Might also be why they're voting for more conservatives over liberals in their country now too.
But basket-weaving is NOT what our forces are trained to do. And neither is that our CIC's job. It's to act in Americas BEST INTERESTS. As this President has done...and continues to do.
There are times when I read how the liberals FIGHT any recruitment on our college campus' that I wonder just how anti-American one has to be to NOT support a strong military for our Nation - to be so against allowing recruitment. Just as all industries/companies are allowed to do. NOPE....they fight tooth and nail to ensure our own Armed Forces can go spit in the wind. That's another way they THINK they're 'supporting our troops'???? LOL LOL LOL sure they are. lol
Then I read during each war, how they FIGHT against actually winning a war. They did that all during VN and they're doing it now in Iraq. It's like they have this 'admit defeat - run - surrender' ingrained in their little 'peace at any cost' minds. tsk tsk tsk
-------------
And as far as your other garbage, I laugh every time some silly liberals spews such nonsense.
Why? Because ANY intelligent person KNOWS the FACTS that the past THREE administrations said the same thing about saddam/Iraq. Period....no doubt about that.
They know the UN was demanding proof that all the womd they DID have was destroyed. They wanted it proven. But the liberals didn't even care. They were, at that time, fighting to remove the sanctions against saddam for NOT cooperating with the UN.
LOL LOL LOL Make nicey nicey after 13 years of him thumbing his nose at the world. AND not a word said about that from the anti-war left. Nope no blame at ALL put on saddam....only an American President who after 9-11, felt saddam was even MORE a threat than previously thought. Yes, according to the un-Americans.....that's a BAD thing to do.
Their administrations all said the same thing....ALL told Americans saddam DID have nuclear weapon programs. clinton's included....and passing bills for saddam to BE REMOVED.
But for the ignorant to only be upset that this admins. has ALSO said those same things....to believe he's lying/lied....makes them the unreasonable fools that they are.
They can't see it's not just this President/administration....but their hatred blinds them to ANY FACTS. They live in denial...continue to blame ONLY this President and want to give the victory to our enemies.
They ARE most definitely THE surrender cowards. And the un-American ones. One cannot honestly call for our defeat while CLAIMING, falsely, to be pro-American. LOL LOL
That's why I often laugh at statements you liberals make. You're so confused and so blind to reality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL And one last thing. The difference between YOUR opinion and MINE is that the military commanders are who I side with....who I believe....while you're buying the propaganda of our enemies.....and of those who WANT to see America FAIL. That's NOT the American way.....even though you'd like to think differently.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 27, 2007 10:18 AM ]
posted on July 27, 2007 10:22:17 AM new
It's your poor memory again, kaira.
I've often posted about clinton running off to england. When he'd promised and lied to his mentor who got him out of the draft in VN.
He even lied to him. tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 27, 2007 11:10:32 AM new
Look at a map and you will find that England and Canada are not the same place, Linda_K.
Everyone knows Clinton went to England and became even more educated as he was accepted for a Rhodes scholarship which was only given to a select few.
Meantime, "Your Guy" had his Daddy buy his way into the National Guard and he couldn't even do that properly, he was taking drugs and getting drunk and damaging his brain cells so he is unable to think clearly and now we have the mess in Iraq.
Some choose their heroes depending on what they value, some value education more and others think the drugs and alcohol count I guess as long as there is power and money backing it.
posted on July 27, 2007 11:19:31 AM new
The problem with "rights" is that by liberal definition some people have more than others.
You have the "right" to be a Muslim professor spouting violence in an American university, but not a Nazi for example.
Laws guarantee your rights, but some people need "special" laws. And the twit brigade decides who decides all this.
Now your average liberal cannot seem to figure out your 2 bit dictators and have never seem to have been able to. They harp on people dying and yet are responsible directly or indirectly for the deaths of MILLIONS. Japanese, Nazis, Communists, Muslim fanatics, they are all the same and the end result is always the same.
There has to be some underlying, perhaps genetic, basic stupidity here. When Reid gave his little speech about the administration being crazy about Iran's involvement in Iraq and their desire to dominate Iraq, you know Mingo and the rest were nearing ecstasy when he said "Why would dey do dat?" Nobody answered my request to name a time in maybe the last 4000 years when the vacuum of a major power leaving an area has not resulted in the enemy filling that vacuum.
posted on July 27, 2007 11:35:20 AM new
They rarely answer questions, desquirrel.
They can't. IF they did they'd see what they spew is nonsense. So they avoid what to them are the 'difficult' questions.
It's their MO here, sadly.
================
kiara, I KNOW you're easily confused....but I'm sure most know that MOST of our cowards ran off to canada....not england. LOL But clinton avoided HIS service by lying to his mentor and promising to serve in the ROTC IF he would write a letter for him which would grant him a deferment...which of course he NEVER did. His character has always been very low.
Now....I hope your life-long confusion is set in the right direction. As I get tired of explaining to idiots things they SHOULD be aware of. Read, learn, become informed for YOURSELF. Quit playing dumb....or maybe you're not 'playing'. Maybe you really are especially since we've discussed these SAME issues over and over and over again and YOU just can't grasp anything.
And I'm sure most here have read your full support for any of our Iraq cowards ....welcoming them again to canada.
No surprise coming from you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 27, 2007 12:00:11 PM newkiara, I KNOW you're easily confused...
No confusion on my part at all, Linda_K.
You're just upset because once again you didn't know your facts or your geography.
Just think, if you didn't pay attention, or didn't care about what I write here (as you keep insisting) you'd be missing out on all this. Chalk it up to another learning experience.
