Not sure if you’ve seen Hillary’s tough-sounding words in support of Isreal in their current fight for security. Something struck me as I read it; specifically (emphasis mine):
America will support Israel in her efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom – that we will not permit this to happen and we will take whatever steps are necessary.
Not only that, but her Senate website has this to say (again, emphasis added):
Israel’s right to exist, and exist in safety, must never be put in question.
Really?
As with the rest of the liberals: don’t listen to what she says, WATCH WHAT SHE DOES.
Her cozying up to the PLO and its useful idiots makes Joe Lieberman’s “Judas kiss” from GWB look positively innocuous by comparison.
Regards,
Peter H.
Indeed. Besides the murderous nature of the PLO, how much of the money donated by other nations ended up in Mrs. Arafat’s purse? That alone is enough to condemn her for stealing from her own people while they are left in squalor.
Wow…what a misleading post. I spent a year studying in Israel and interning for the Likud Party, and I think most Israelis would disagree with your assessment. This seems like just a petty entry, and no better than the left’s use of the picture of an embrace between Lieberman and Bush.
Perhaps you should put up an entry about how Donald Rumsfeld says he wants to win in Iraq, but he secretly still supports Saadam Hussein. After all, there is that picture of them embracing. What? That doesn’t prove anything? Rumsfeld embraced a butcher and a genocidal maniac. He must want us to lose.
I’m not really a fan of the Clinton’s, but I was in Israel during the end of that administration, and they were an active partner with Israel.
“No tongue, Suha… Oh, all right, Tongue.”
1: You mean much like conservatives do:
Rush Limbaugh’s rants against drugs/dealers
Newt’s defense of morals and marriage when he himself served his first wife with divorce papers while she was in hospital being treated for cancer. (for that matter, any conservative politician who’s been divorced)
Many politicians and political pundits are quite fond of “do as I say, not as I do” and Republicans are just as guilty as democrats.
3: Good point. No apology from the Republicans who helped give Saddam the power that he used to subjugate, torture and murder his people.
Oh…and I wasn’t trying to take a left position with Rumsfeld thing. I just meant it as an illustration.
No apology from the Republicans who helped give Saddam the power that he used to subjugate, torture and murder his people.
What a static load of bullshit. However, should we be expecting an apology from Carter for creating present day Iran ( you know, subjugation, torture, murder etc.)? How about apologies from the Clintonistas who gave us NoKo and 9/11?
Matt (#3): Thanks for the moral equivalence…
Kissing GWB, the liberator of 50 million Muslims = Kissing someone who had just advocated, minutes ago, the destruction of Israel.
Point well made, and sadly typical.
There’s that liberal lie again.
We did not, to any appreciable degree, ever support Hussein, nor did we put him in power (that was France). We minimally supported him against Iran, because Iran was the greater threat, but we also supported Iran against Hussein. Remember Iran-Contra?
You leftists could at least start dealing with reality, instead of living in your paranoid fantasy world.
Every now and then I get a little reminder about why I switched to Libertarian. Now my politicians can lose elections with dignity! Ugh…
So let me understand this. A girl-girl (lesbian?) kiss titillates you. But y’all will ignore a boi-boi (Bush-Lieberman) kiss.
Interesting.
#7 ThatGayConservative — July 19, 2006 @ 1:53 am – July 19, 2006
bullshit. However, should we be expecting an apology from Carter for creating present day Iran
More clap-trap from the loonies. It was Eisenhower who created the present-day Iran, what with his support–with the idiot Brits–for the overthrow by the American CIA of the previously-last democratically elected government in Iran. In 1953.
Sorry, but one fact that you might want to learn is that the history of the world did not begin yesterday. That is one thing that conservatives–gay or otherwise–apparently wish to ignore.
raj baby, I think you AGAIN fail to comprehend even the simplest points about history or geo-political events with that nonsense that Eisenhower “created” the present day Iran –to use TCG’s phrase: “What a static load of bullshit”. TCG nailed it.
Nearly all respectable and responsible historians of the modern age peg JimminyCricketCarter’s moment of indecision, failure to support our friend and loyal ally the Shah in his time of critical need, as the single most significant event that led to Iran today.
Hell, even one of your own liberalLeft hags of the tabloids and senior journalist of the first order –Barbara Walters– can make the point that today’s problems in Iran began with Carter’s shameful backstabbing acts against the Shah while trying to vainly wag the human rights banner. Carter is responsible for modern day Iran. Carter. No one else.
Try rewriting history elsewhere… as long as there are knowledgable, thinking conservatives in the world to remember the nonsense that arose in Carter’s corrupt administration, you’ll fail in your attempts to rewrite history. You’re batting 0 for 12 these days… is that a GayLeft or radicalDemocrat badge of honor?
7: Modern day Iran was created long before Carter: It was created when the US assisted installing the Shah, a controlling dictator who controlled his people and his country with ruthlessness only marignally less than the fundamentalists who came to power in the late 70s. They simply traded one nasty regime for another. Of course the difference was, the first nasty regime freely sold oil to the US. In the current nasty regime, Haliburton gets the oil out through a series of fake companies so they can’t be accused of doing business with an enemy of America.
Guess what you say goes to prove that leaders of America, be they Republican or Democrat, have done some nasty things in foreign countries that end up coming back to bite us in the ass.
raj, you can interpret history your way and others of us can interpret it differently. Yes, the Shah was installed during the Eisenhower Administration (as opposed to a pro-Soviet government controlling the Gulf) but it was the Carter Administration that pulled the rug out from under the Shah, enabling the takeover by Islamic extremists.
ColoradoPatriot, that picture is really a cheap shot. While it ultimately failed, the Clinton Adminstration made a strong effort to get Yassar Arafat involved in and committed to the peace process. There was nothing wrong with Mrs. Clinton greeting Mrs. Arafat in the Middle Eastern custom of kissing each cheek.
In the current nasty regime, Haliburton gets the oil out through a series of fake companies so they can’t be accused of doing business with an enemy of America.
Kevin you ignorant, gullible, cum swallowing slut! Haliburton was not “getting the oil out”. The contract was for a foreign subsidiary, which does exist, to develop natural gas fields. Furthermore, the Justice Department subpoenaed Haliburton over it. You can sit there and continue to spin bullshit about Cheney, Bush & Haliburton, but it just makes you out to be an even bigger dumbass.
Cheers!
Where’s that picture of George W. Bush holding hands with Saudis?
Silly post. Really silly.
Kevin writes at #14, picking up on raj baby’s misdirection, spin and rewrite of history at #12:
“They simply traded one nasty regime for another. Of course the difference was, the first nasty regime freely sold oil to the US. In the current nasty regime…”
Again, the tired old LeftistLiberal spin game that it is all about oil in the MiddleEast –profits for the Bush family’s “buddies in greed”, etc. Well, at least this time you stopped short of telling us about the conspiracies of BigOil with BigCar to keep inefficient gas powered vehicles on the street. Thanks for that; I don’t think I can hear one more time that there’s an engine all ready patented that runs either on water, egg shells, human waste or the hot air coming from the Democrats.
Kevin, your comments like raj baby’s, continue to show how shallow and superficial your understanding of geopolitics truly is… it was access to listening and monitoring posts that made the Shah a useful ally in the MiddleEast… plus his willingness to use state and regional assets to ferret out anti-West interests operating in the MiddleEast.
I doubt there are many informed, aware observers who would not agree that if the Shah and the Plavi family had remained in power to today –if they hadn’t been vitrually deposed by the incompetencies of CricketCarter’s idiot Administration– 9/11 would NOT have happened, Israel would NOT be in the horrible fix it’s in today, Saddam would NOT have invaded Kuwait, we would NOT be in Iraq, and the world war on terror would NOT have to be waged today.
While we shouldn’t blame JimminyCricket for all those events… we sure as Hell can lay the blame rightly on him for deposing the Shah and creating modern day Iran.
To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest, fails to understand simple historic precedents, and shows how partisan your blinders have become.
Right, you keep thinking it’s all about oil and someday the Easter Bunny will come pay you a visit.
jimmy at #18, that picture is right alongside the picture your ilk relished bringing out at the start of the Saddam trial –you know, the one with Rummie shaking hands with Saddam ala the early 1980’s. The one you guys like to contend PROVES that Rummie was Saddam’s drinking buddy, ally, ideological mentor, et al.
The point you miss in ColoradoPat’s instructive post is that Hillary is as duplicitious as her hubbie-Bubba-Prez when it comes to political loyalties. Yeah, Hillary is a whore –for the camera, for the moment, for whatever she needs to whore to get. So was Bubba-Prez.
They relish it. For them, it’s what politics is supposed to be –but you can’t blame them, they learned it from the Kennedy family.
Indeed, Carter did kiss terrorist ass when he buddied up with Arafat, and the reason it failed is because Arafat was always a terrorist, and had no interest in anything but exterminating Jews.
Kevin, if anyone followed your flawed logic in #5, then the following should also occur:
Ted Kennedy should be a designated driver (oh, wait, he was – for his son Patrick, also guilty of drug abuse).
Bill Clinton should be an advocate for women’s issues (oh, wait, he was too – until Monica came along).
Cynthia McKinney should be preaching against intolerance and violence (oh, wait, she was – until the Capitol Police were caught doing their job).
I don’t even want to get started dissecting your Halliburton rant. Then again, I would have to bring up Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm and then your head would explode.
Try again, youngster. You’ve obviously been reading too many posts from Inserted Anal Nozzle and Really Annoying Jerk and taking them as gospel. Poor you.
Regards,
Peter H.
And is it just me, or does Suha look like a REALLY BAD drag queen? Almost as bad as Helen Thomas. Poor Arab women. No wonder the Taliban insisted on burqas. God only knows what’s lurking underneath those robes.
Regards,
Peter H.
#15 Trace Phelps — July 20, 2006 @ 12:00 am – July 20, 2006
raj, you can interpret history your way and others of us can interpret it differently. Yes, the Shah was installed during the Eisenhower Administration (as opposed to a pro-Soviet government controlling the Gulf)….
Oh, so let me understand. Aside from the fact that the Mossadegh government in Iran had been popularly elected, you are actually going to excuse the Eisenhower malAdministration’s actions in regards Iran–at the behest of the British MI6 because Iran intended to nationalize the Iranian oil industry to the detriment of British Petroleum.
That’s interesting. You are acknowledging the fact that the American government has been interested in democracy in the lurch, not in the norm.
But I know that, and I’ve known that for a long time. Hypocrisy might be a new word for you, but it isn’t for me.
#13 Michigan-Matt — July 19, 2006 @ 1:41 pm – July 19, 2006
Nearly all respectable and responsible historians of the modern age peg JimminyCricketCarter’s moment of indecision, failure to support our friend and loyal ally the Shah in his time of critical need, as the single most significant event that led to Iran today.
Some of us recognize that history did not begin with Jimmy Carter. Some of us also recognize that Victor Davis Hanson, the “respectable and responsible historian” of the right wingnuts, is himself a nut. He got himself a gig doing some commentary on the Histerical Channel (the channel that wouldn’t exist if Adolph Hitler had not come to power), but other than that, he’s a nut.
To really annoying jerk, nut=conservative, sane=leftist.
He demands sources and then tears them down for not being leftist enough without looking at the arguments.
raj baby, of course history didn’t begin with Carter. What? You can’t seem to be right so now you’re going to be tedious again?
No one said history began with Carter.
What you implied was that the problem presented by modern day Iran could be responsibly traced back to Eisenhower –the guy who single handedly freed your beloved Germany from the grips of the true character of the German people, Mr Hitler and his merry band of thugs.
I pointed out that was wrong. The real culprit for modern day Iran is JimmineyCricketCarter and his backstabbing of the Shah. Simple as that.
No one said history began with Carter. Are you that challenged on reading for comprehension?
#27 Michigan-Matt — July 20, 2006 @ 7:52 pm – July 20, 2006
I pointed out that was wrong. The real culprit for modern day Iran is JimmineyCricketCarter and his backstabbing of the Shah. Simple as that.
Point out whatever you wish. You are still incorrect. What you and others like you wish to ignore is that history did not begin yesterday. The real culprit for the modern day Iran was Eisenhower and his buddies in the British MI6. Had Eisenhower’s CIA and the British MI6 not orchestrated the coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh, there would have been no Shah in power in the late 1970s for there to be a revolt against. Moreover, the process of revolution in Iran in the late 1970s is apparently far too complicated for your simple mind to comprehend.
It’s amazing that you continue to bloviate. BTW, say hello to your buddy Art Finkelstein for me the next time you’re in the Boston area.