Unbelieveable…. can you guess which national Democrat said these comments this morning on various cable news shows?
The repressive steps taken by the [coalition], to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.”
“The war against America and its allies has not remained confined to Iraq as he (Bush) claims, but rather Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified forces.”
“The Pentagon’s figures indicate an increase in the number of killed and injured in addition to the massive material losses, not to mention the collapse of troop morale and the increase of the suicide rates among them.”
Ted Kennedy — who celebrated the anniversary of the Abu Grahib prison revelations, but not the free elections in Iraq?
John Murtha — who advocates an immediate retreat from Iraq because it has nothing to do with the War on Terror?
Howard Dean — who thinks President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks?
Nancy Pelosi? Barbara Boxer?
Nope, keep guessing… (answer revealed after the jump)
(Hat tip: Tammy Bruce who says, “Newsflash for the Dem Elite: When you sound an awful lot like the psychopathic genocidal enemy, you’ve got a lot of soul searching to do. If any of you have a soul left, that is.”)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I wonder if OBL is going to be on the demoncRAT ticket with Shrillary in 2008…it might just balance out the party platform.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
What can I say? The man knows who his friends are. (If he’s alive, which I remain unconvinced of.)
And … wait for it… hysterical leftie “Bush hasn’t caught Bin Laden” post* in 5… 4… 3… 2…
* (Because as we all know, OBL is the only terrorist in the world, and if he is caught and put on trial under terms acceptable to the ACLU and Howard Dean, then all terrorism will be over for ever and ever.)
Exactly right. Per SF Board of Supervisors, we can and should dissolve the entire U.S. military immediately and rely on police and firefighters to protect us from al Qaeda.
Here we go again. You get your panties all in a wad over Greenwald claiming conservatives are too blindly loyal to ever break with Bush. Now comes good ol’ Tammy saying Dems lack a soul because OBL and Teddy agree that Iraq has become a terrorist recruiting ground.
Do as we say, not as we do. It’s not okay for dems to generalize but it is okay for republicans to generalize.
I don’t suppose it crosses your mind that OBL knows exactly how you’re going to react and that he benefits more from our staying in Iraq than leaving.
So, by doing what OBL wants and what will benefit him profoundly**, we can defeat him.
Yeah.
(** = i.e., withdrawing immediately from Afghanistan and Iraq)
Oh, and I forgot to add: and once he’s been “defeated” thusly, all those insane cartoon-rioting Muslims around the world will instantly settle down, start loving Barbra Streisand and the West, and so join us in a round of Kum-bay-yah.
I’d rather be seen as a fool for an American president than a fool for America’s sworn enemy. The main reason Leftist attacks on pro-Bush citizens never achieve anything is that we cannot be charged with sacrificing this nation to its enemies. The Left doesn’t have the benefit of that expectation these days. Thus, their generalizations get more scrutiny and mistrust.
Let the Left continue “generalizing” since its all process and politics to them anyway. Its not like they actually believe what they’re saying. The more honest they are with us, the less power they have.
#5 — So, you’re saying that Greenwald’s (idiotic) comment that all conservatives have to be in lockstep with Bush… is equivalent to the comment that Osama bin Laden is apparently parroting Democrat talking points and vice versa?
What’s with the lefties and the stupid analogies that make no sense lately?
I don’t suppose it crosses your mind that OBL knows exactly how you’re going to react and that he benefits more from our staying in Iraq than leaving.
OBL benefits from having his jihadis ground into cheap hamburger and red mist? OBL benefits from having to live in a cave and on the run (if he is even still alive?) OBL benefits from having the terror-friendly Saddam Regime replace with an (albeit imperfect) democracy? And if OBL benefits so much, why are his jihadis and his Iranian allies trying to drive us out? (Oh, I guess it’s just reverse-psychology, R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.)
#1
Looks like he and Saddam are vying for speaking invitations to the “Democrat” National Convention.
VinceTN writes: “The main reason Leftist attacks on pro-Bush citizens never achieve anything is that we cannot be charged with sacrificing this nation to its enemies.”
…except when your party wants to give our ports to Dubai, I guess…
“except when your party wants to give our ports to Dubai, I guess… ”
Unless they’re not. Frist came out today against the deal and he is only the latest, not the first Republican. Although it s true that it was Democrats that raised the howl first. Very bipartisan of everyone.
The deal was approved in various parts of the executive, which is supposed to be basically non-partisan.
Conservatives all over the US are violently opposed to this port thing. But liberals won’t understand that, since they do nothing but groupthink.
What an interesting little logical morsel this thread offers up to us: “Newsflash for the Dem Elite: When you sound an awful lot like the psychopathic genocidal enemy, you’ve got a lot of soul searching to do. If any of you have a soul left, that is.”
Yes, indeed, GayPatriotLogic TM is fascinating. According to it, if the Democracts and Osama say something similar, it is wrong, because of the First Principle of GayPatriotLogic TM, namely,
Many interesting things follow from this a priori principle. The most comforting thing about this little nugget is that it eliminates the whole 9-11 tragedy: Osama believes the World Trade Center was destroyed: ergo, following the First Principle, the World Trade Center never was destroyed. What a relief! BOTH Democrats and Republicans were wrong when they agreed 100% with Osama on this one!
Likewise, Osama believes that American soldiers have died in Iraq. Apply GayPatriotLogic TM, and, suddenly, it follows necessarily that no American soliders died in Iraq. Again, Bush was wrong, folks, when he agreed with Osama about the American soldiers. Thank God Bush was wrong on that one; if he had been right, in agreeing with Osama, thousands of American soldiers would have died. But GayPatriotLogic TM has prevented that from occurring.
But young convert to GayPatriotLogic TM cries: “You are wrong, you sophist, for GayPatriotLogic TM does not apply to matters of fact; it only applies to matters of morals.”
Unfortunately, the young convert has not yet grasped the effect that even this ad hoc alteration would bring about. Let’s try it, why don’t we?
Osama believes that it is people’s moral duty to fight their enemies to the death. Therefore — following GayPatriotLogic TM — it is immoral for them to do so. Bush was morally wrong to send soldiers to Iraq, the GayPatriots declare, when he agreed with Osama on that moral point. Fascinating!
Even more interesting effects result we look more closely at what Osama believes. For, given that Osama believes he is the enemy of the United States, once we apply the First Principle of GayPatriotLogic TM, it turns out, he is not our enemy, but rather, our bestest friend. It’s looking better for us already!
But, as it so turns out, Osama also believes he exists, which, according to GayPatriotLogic TM, means that he doesn’t exist! It is a sad sight to see GayPatriots crying because America has lost it bestest friend.
Personally, I think a better test for the soundness of statements would be to ask, “Are they true?,” rather than, “Did Osama say something similar to them?” But, then again, I’m not a GayPatriot.
#9: I’m addressing the question of ad hominem attack and generalizing a particular attitude of some wackos to everyone who calls himself republican or democrat.
It’s well known that Iraq has become teh world’s primary training ground for terrorists now and it’s also clear that the insurgency is winning the war. So, as long as we are in Iraq losing and killing people, OBL’s PR machine benefits.
If we find some way to grind them into meat, as you say, well, yeah, the tide may turn. For the present, the vast majority of Iraqis polled want the US out of their country.
“Personally, I think a better test for the soundness of statements would be to ask, “Are they true?,” rather than, “Did Osama say something similar to them?” But, then again, I’m not a GayPatriot.”
LOL!
I was actually surprised to see this GP Logic posted, since the argument was beaten to death around the internet a few days after rightwingers started making it after the OBL tape was released. It’s the same logic that allows Ann Coulter to call liberals traitors with a straight face.
bin Laden’s citation of Pentagon statistics is accurate, so the Pentagon too must need to examine its unconscious alliance with the madman.
#14 – I guess I haven’t taken enough medication or booze today to follow your post which is the most nonsensical thing I have possibly ever read.
The point isn’t whether OBL says something factual or not…. the point is that one political party is using the same talking points as OBL to WIN BACK POWER IN THIS NATION.
Duh.
So you’re saying it would be wrong to win back power by means of the truth.
Yes, GayPatriot: The point isn’t whether OBL says something factual or not…. the point is that THE PENTAGON is using the same talking points as OBL to WIN THE WAR IN IRAQ.
To #12: So, given the bipartisan opposition, especially the Republican opposition, it’ll obviously be fixed. …or not.
====
Bush says Dubai port deal should go forward
21 Feb 2006 20:55:14 GMT
Source: Reuters
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, Feb 21 (Reuters) – President George W. Bush said on Tuesday that a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major U.S. ports should go forward and will not jeopardize U.S. security.
Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.
“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, “I’ll deal with it with a veto.”
Nutcases sound like nutcases. Who said it: Al Gore or the Unabomber?
So you’re saying it would be wrong to win back power by means of the truth.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of “truth”.
For instance, you obviously consider this statement “truth”:
The repressive steps taken by the [coalition], to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam.”
The truth is much less flattering to Saddam.
Unfortunately, the Democrats are repeating Osama’s lie and, as we saw pre-war, hiding the truth in the name of “dealing peace”.
Let’s try “truth”, blog responder; over the decade that Saddam was under UN “supervision”, over a million-plus people were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, for reasons of religion or outright genocide.
Can you admit that? If you can, expect to get hate mail from the Democratic Party.
Um, Saddam’s crimes have been known for a long time, way back to when our pal Rumsfeld (under our hero Reagan) was restoring relations with him, and Reagan was funding his military, when the US’s own intelligence said that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Kurds.
“Liberal” * groups like Human Rights Watch have tracked his crimes for years. Another example would be Amnesty International, which has also tracked Saddam’s torture, but Cheney says of Amnesty International its claims are “offensive,” “I frankly just don’t take them seriously,” whereas Bush contests Amnesty International’s claims because, he explains, “It seemed like [Amnesty] based some of their decisions on the word and allegations by people who were held in detention” (I’m betting none of the people Saddam tortured were detained, then, since detaining people because you believe them to be enemies of the state means it’s impossible to believe their allegations of torture, apparently).
* Presumably, human rights are not just a “liberal” concern, but are a concern for all of us. (Some conservatives disagree, however, and claim that torture, attacking civilians [what some people call terrorism], etc. are all “necessary.”)
LOL….quoting the two most-hypocritical groups on the planet will get you nowhere, blog responder; it only proves that liberals will knowingly perpetuate in power people they know are vast human-rights abusers as long as those individuals are anti-American, while throwing massive tantrums over allegations.
In short, as long as liberals like yourself want to write the US a ticket for allegedly jaywalking while you ignore someone raping a defenseless woman right in front of you, you SHOULD be “not taken seriously”.
Mm-hhmm. So the pictures in Abu Ghraib were only of alleged “jaywalking”. I hadn’t known that. I’m sure the people in the pictures would relieved to hear that it was only alleged jaywalking — somehow they might have gotten the opposite impression, say, that it was actual beating unto death, among other things.
(PS I’m sure the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered will be happy to hear that abuses against them are simply alleged jaywalking, too. Nice to hear nothing ever actually happens to them.)
How exactly is reporting the abuses by Saddam and seeking action against it (things which you falsely claimed liberals never did) “ignor[ing] someone raping a defenseless woman right in front of you,” again?
If we were discussing the actions of the US administration, as opposed to merely the watchdog groups, you would have to add the part of the story where we gave the rapist his new knife, after we found out he’d already raped someone else using the old one we’d replaced for him.
LOL….unfortunately, that’s not your claim, blog responder.
As ColoradoPatriot already showed, you constantly accuse the US of ordering torture at its highest levels, but even more consistently fail to provide proof. When the Abu Ghirab pictures show THAT, then it will be more than allegations.
(PS I’m sure the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered will be happy to hear that abuses against them are simply alleged jaywalking, too. Nice to hear nothing ever actually happens to them.)
So says the person who calls denying gays legal rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do it. You have no problem with discrimination and mistreatment of gays when practiced by your fellow liberals.
How exactly is reporting the abuses by Saddam and seeking action against it (things which you falsely claimed liberals never did) “ignor[ing] someone raping a defenseless woman right in front of you,” again?
And what “action”, exactly, did any of these groups seek? Or did they just walk around pretending they actually wanted to do something while they got fat on Saddam’s bribes?
If we were discussing the actions of the US administration, as opposed to merely the watchdog groups, you would have to add the part of the story where we gave the rapist his new knife, after we found out he’d already raped someone else using the old one we’d replaced for him.
Actually, you might want to read your memo more closely, especially that part about “possibly a US foreign subsidiary”.
Tell me more. I don’t remember having done that (supporting anti-gay measures, bills, policies), but maybe I didn’t know the policies you had in mind. (E.g., I think Clinton’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was ridiculous. But that’s also because he was trying to appease the right — a bad move, in my opinion — instead of just making it clear than no discrimination would be tolerated at all. But maybe I don’t understand your take on it.)
Yes, Colorado Patriot is waiting for a signed confession from President Bush — that I cannot supply. Bush can’t even admit to having made any mistakes (well, OK, other than the mistake of appointing people who weren’t lackeys or cronies) — he’s not going to admit it on crimes against humanity. But then again, I don’t think that singed confessions are the only evidence one can refer to.
#27: Oh really? I figured since you accused me without a shred of proof, I could do the same. But I’ll make it easy — did you defend John Kerry’s, Hillary Clinton’s, or Harry Reid’s gay rights stances?
#28: Of course not.Why have evidence when conspiracy theories are quicker?
North Dallas Thirty asks: “#27: Oh really? I figured since you accused me without a shred of proof, I could do the same. But I’ll make it easy — did you defend John Kerry’s, Hillary Clinton’s, or Harry Reid’s gay rights stances?”
I didn’t defend Clinton for not defending gay rights at that time when he didn’t (“don’t ask, don’t tell”), if that’s what you mean. As for Hillary, I’m not a big fan; she said some things that I was glad to hear, but I don’t quite trust her. Harry Reid I don’t remember ever discussing; don’t know much about him; anything I would say about him would have to rest on some future homework.
“#28: Of course not.Why have evidence when conspiracy theories are quicker?”
I did offer evidence. Just not what you wanted. Your (false) claim is that some evidence is none. So I’m not overly worried about your wondrous evaluation. As if Condi was even able to simply say (during her confirmation) that torture was wrong, point blank! She couldn’t–she refused to simply declare that torture is wrong; she always said there were some people that the US should be able to torture. I mean, that says a lot, I think. To claim that that’s nothing just doesn’t make sense. It really seems odd to me for someone to think that torture isn’t supported from the top of the administration when Condoleezza Rice herself reserves the right to torture people. It isn’t–I fully admit!–the signed in blood confession you want. But it’s not nothing.
I didn’t defend Clinton for not defending gay rights at that time when he didn’t (”don’t ask, don’t tell”), if that’s what you mean.
Of course not. You PROMOTED him as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for doing it.
As for the last, Condi Rice is not stupid; why should she say something that she knows isn’t true? If torture can save lives, it can be used. It is absurd to categorically throw away something that could potentially be used in that fashion.
Furthermore, for liberals such as yourself to oppose torture is sheer hypocrisy, especially given that you support its use yourself — when paid Democrat spokesperson and liberal Cindy Sheehan’s “freedom fighters” are doing it.
I don’t support anyone using torture, whether or not they’re called “freedom fighters.” But if you yourself believe that torture is ‘OK’ when it is useful: “If torture can save lives, it can be used.”), then it doesn’t make sense for you to oppose others (“freedom fighters” of whatever stripe) using it when it seems useful to them, just as you say it should be used–when it seems useful for saving lives. Obviously, if torture is OK to use when it is believed it can save lives, then it’s OK for “freedom fighters” (of whatever stripe) to use it when they believe it can save lives, and that would include its use against us–at least, that would follow form your stated position. And that would make the people who would use it (say, against us) more like “freedom fighters” than “terrorists”–since they would be using North Dallas Thirty-approved methods (namely, torture), instead of something presumably illegitimate. I, on the other hand, do not believe that they should use it against us, because I don’t believe anyone (including us) should be using it.