Bush-Hatred Blinds Left to Terrorist Threat
In a piece on the parallels between the foreign policy views of GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul and those of the far left, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby gets at (some of) the real differences between the GOP and the Democrats. And how Bush-hatred has prevented the Democrats from understanding what is going on in the world around us — and the threats which face us:
Paul helps illustrate what may be the most significant difference between the two major parties today: Republicans who don’t take the threat of radical Islam seriously are marginalized. Democrats who don’t do so constitute their party’s mainstream. . . .
As long as the 43d president remains in office, a significant number of Americans will be so consumed with Bush-hatred that they will be unable to acknowledge — let alone defeat — the real evil that confronts us all.
That pretty much sums it up. Now, just read the whole thing!
76 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Not true, even by a long shot. The Dems aren’t blinded by Bush hatred. Believe me, it’s possible to hate the idiot and still keep focused on the important issues. You don’t need a reckless, constitutional hating bigot in office to combat terrorism.
Can’t wait to have intelligence back in the White House. It’s been gone for so long. You guys here won’t recognize intelligence, since you think things are going so swimmingly under Dubya. But when there’s a Dem in office, you’ll notice how much better things are. But just give us time. It’ll take a time to clean up the mess Republicans have created.
Comment by Larry — May 20, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - May 20, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Bush-Hatred Blinds Left to Terrorist Threat — May 20, 2007 @ 9:08 pm - May 20, 2007
“Bush-hatred”? More made up words to avoid real issues…
Comment by sean — May 20, 2007 @ 9:22 pm - May 20, 2007
you widh, rotf
Comment by george — May 20, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - May 20, 2007
sean: LOL. You’ll have to do more than say someone is using “made up words” when all you offer are the same content-less complaints that Democrats have made an artform of for the past 10 years.
Comment by Vince P — May 20, 2007 @ 10:15 pm - May 20, 2007
#1 - I guess made-up words like “truthiness” and “moral authority” are okay for lower-case sean, but he balks at phrases like “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 20, 2007 @ 10:19 pm - May 20, 2007
Larry: I think by “Terrorists” they meant the Islamic Jihadis,.. not Bush.. Democrats are blinded to the Islamic Jihadis.
Comment by Vince P — May 20, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - May 20, 2007
Larry in comment #1–your comment all but makes my point.
You spend most of it ranting against the president without telling us what “important issues” the Democrats are focused on. They attack him on Iraq without giving serious consideration to what happen should they succeed in withdrawing US troops.
It’s fascinating to see how some Democrats who advocated more troops last year (when the president was against it) now oppose the president’s plan to do what they once suggested.
And I never said that things are going swimmingly under W. If you take a gander at our posts, you will see that while we generally support the man (especially given the reckless rhetoric of his opponents) we have criticized him on numerous occasions.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 20, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - May 20, 2007
oh i cant wait for the reply.
He’ll just rehash how “Bush lied”.. Saddam was a nice guy. There never were WMD. There were not enough troops. Blah blah blah.
Comment by Vince P — May 20, 2007 @ 10:45 pm - May 20, 2007
Great quote from Christopher Hitchens today
More and more I find that those [Leftist Democrats] people are the real enemy intellectually. There’s no dishonesty like liberal dishonesty, just like there’s no intolerance like liberal intolerance. There’s nothing they won’t excuse and no excuse they won’t deploy. Their piety is a big aspect of that. Brilliantly exploited by Bill Clinton. Currently being exploited by Barack Obama and by Sen. Hillary Clinton. Cheap mediocre piety and sanctimony is their stock in trade.
Comment by Vince P — May 20, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - May 20, 2007
Here’s a two parter of possible (catalysmic) consequences if Nancy Legosi and Harry Reid get thier way and makes this country lose.
Frightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZspcKIqOgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_DNDK_kZU
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 12:29 am - May 21, 2007
These are telling:
But don’t question their bastardized “patriotism”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 21, 2007 @ 1:30 am - May 21, 2007
So we should count on you to let us know when the libs start focusing on important issues, right? It’s been 5 months. Do they plan on starting anytime soon?
Which is why we don’t need a liberal in the WH.
Billions in tax increases will be better how? How about the middle class having to pay $3,000-4,000 more per year? Can you explain, with folks dying in other countries, how Socialist healthcare will be better?
Seriously. When will the libs start to focus on real issues, besides placating their union, tort lawyer and kook base? Are “non-binding” resolutions serious?
How about the fact that a war profiteer and an identity thief are calling for a “non-binding” vote of “no-confidence” in the A.G. Are we supposed to consider that serious? That would be the biggest f-ing joke in history if it weren’t so pathetic.
When are libs going to start doing the “will of the people”? We were told that the “will of the people” was for the liberals to immediately end the Iraq Theater, but they just don’t seem to have the support to do so. And yet supposedly they have polls that that’s what the American people want. Seems to me that the libs don’t have a frickin’ clue what the American people want.
You’re good for a laugh, Larry.
an he had been a dog that should have howled thus, they would have hanged it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 21, 2007 @ 1:51 am - May 21, 2007
So far, the Democratic Congress has been able to enact a mere 26 laws, 12 of which “changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area.”
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 2:16 am - May 21, 2007
If anyone wants to know what is motivating Iran’s government, this broadcast gives a very good over-view of the religious fanataticism that is in control of that country.
I have studied Islam for years, so I know some of you wont like the source, but their information is accurate and I couldnt find another video like this.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1323467294633213247
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 4:07 am - May 21, 2007
***As long as the 43d president remains in office, a significant number of Americans will be so consumed with Bush-hatred that they will be unable to acknowledge — let alone defeat — the real evil that confronts us all.***
Well, I certainly hope, when we take 10 steps backwards, by electing a democrat in ‘08, we see terrorist attacks abound! Maybe then, “the left” will take notice of the real enemy, which is not George Bush, but islamo-fascism. Oh, wait, that would mean the neo-libs would have to actually address a real issue. Nevermind.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 21, 2007 @ 7:48 am - May 21, 2007
Let’s recap exactly how ‘focused on terrorism’ the Air Pelosi Democrats are.
- Working out time-tables for surrender to terrorists in Iraq.
- Diverting funding away from counter-terrorism to study “Global Warming.”
- Not bothering to meet with the General leading the fight against terrorism.
- Creating legislation to expand the civil rights of foreign terrorists, making them equal to American citizens.
- Drafting legislation to create a “Department of Peace and Non-Violence.”
- Leading Democrat presidential candidate John “The Breck Girl” Edwards pandering to 9-11 “truthers.”
- Leading Democrat Presidential Candidate Barack Obama responding to a debate question about a terrorist attack in the US by focusing on how badly FEMA performed after Hurricane Katrina and not even addressing a military response.
- Larding up a military spending bill with pork directed at spinach growers and peanut farmers.
- Drafting legislation to force the military to buy “carbon offsets” any time it deploys. (The troops won’t get body armor, but Al Gore’s carbon offset brokerage will get rich.)
Yeah, sounds to me like the Democrats are all over that terrorism thing. Maybe if you could figure out a way for Diane Feinstein to make money off of it, they might get somewhere.
Comment by V the K — May 21, 2007 @ 7:56 am - May 21, 2007
busdh was the blind on that let 9-11 happen
Comment by george — May 21, 2007 @ 9:24 am - May 21, 2007
George, you’ve just set a new standard for lefty incoherence and illiteracy. Take a bow.
Comment by V the K — May 21, 2007 @ 10:14 am - May 21, 2007
#! I like the standard Larry gives us in #1. When a Dem is back in the White House we will see the difference an intelligent President makes, “but it will take time to clean up the mess.” Like how long, how much time? Maybe 8 years til we notice any difference. If ALGORE, Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, are the lefts examples of this intelligence, I’d say the terrorists will be celebrating. Bush 43 had better university grades than Kerry and ALGORE. But again facts shouldn’t get in the way of the Bush hatred.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 21, 2007 @ 10:46 am - May 21, 2007
A common sentiment I see expressed here and on other blogs I visit is the one that goes something like this:
“I say we help elect a Democrat in ‘08. Then, things will get so bad that people will wake up, Republicans politicians we re-focus, and our side will surge to victory!”
What crap. To advocate this, one would have to believe that we don’t face true danger, that we can afford to take a few years off and let it get ‘really bad’. If pre-emption is supposed to be our hue and cry (so we’re told), then why is this same philosophy not applied domestically? Over and over, we’re told we cannot cut and run from the dire circumstances in Iraq (that we’re told are improving), yet we’re to cut and run not from Islamofascists, but from Democrats?
V the K expresses the general sentiment in another thread:
“Vince and Syn, it’s been a generation since Carter. Americans have forgotten how truly awful it is to live under unchallenged liberal Democrat rule. Maybe 2009-2013 should remind them.”
As a nominal, indeed Taftian isolationist, I was against invading Iraq. However, I’m certain that an early withdrawal would be suicidal for us and murderous for the nascent democratic Iraqi government. And I am certainly not willing to see my own country go to further hell under the auspices of liberal good intentions/cynicism/something more sinister. Above, LesbianNeoCon writes:
“Well, I certainly hope, when we take 10 steps backwards, by electing a democrat in ‘08, we see terrorist attacks abound! Maybe then, “the left” will take notice of the real enemy, which is not George Bush, but islamo-fascism.”
This might be tongue-in-cheek, but this kind of sentiment is commonly expressed by some frustrated with the GOP and with Bush’s leadership. It’s our own hybrid Bush Derangement Syndrome. It advocates we take 10 steps backward, then, when the GOP surges back to power, we take 5 steps forward (only 5 because we’re our own worst critics and thus we impede our own momentum). Which all means that in total, we take 5 steps backward.
I for one am not willing to relinquish any territory. And I don’t think there is anyone here who is more openly critical of Bush than myself. The GOP is in a difficult spot — like the war in Iraq, it is one of our own making and the hardship is both there and here. Let’s not cut and run.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am - May 21, 2007
Sorry. I made a mistake in my link above. Try this one.
Comment by HardHobbit — May 21, 2007 @ 11:47 am - May 21, 2007
HH: i cant recall anyone other than VK having advanced the view that we should let the Dems win in 08 to teach the GOP a lesson.
I think most of us are sufficiently mortified with the damage they are doing now… and those people who could have made a difference wont make the same mistake again. (lets hope)
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 11:50 am - May 21, 2007
***busdh was the blind on that let 9-11 happen***
george, 1st of all - WHAT??? English please.
Secondly - HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one!! Hmmm, let’s see - 8 years of fratboy governance by Clinton, or 8 months of cleaning up from the previous administration - yeah, I could see where you’d be a little confused. Sorry, but Clinton, aside from the islamo-freaks themselves, is responsible for 9/11. But you “lefties” seem to have all the answers, so, far be it for facts to get in the way. The wall which that administration put-up between the different intelligence agenies, to cover-up the crimes the Clintons committed, had a direct cause in 9/11. So, before you start that myth again, that Bush knew about the attacks, or could’ve somehow stopped them, just stop and think for a minute - oh wait - that would mean actually understanding the situation. Nevermind.
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — May 21, 2007 @ 11:50 am - May 21, 2007
VP, when I write “Maybe 2009-2013 should remind them,” I am referring to the probability of Democrat rule from 2009 to 2013, not the desirability of said rule. The word ’should’ is in the subjunctive tense.
I would prefer the GOP right itself and return to first principles: limited government, national security, and basic integrity. If it does so, it has a better chance of both winning in 2008 and securing the future of our country. Unfortunately, the GOP shows no signs whatsoever of reforming itself. As such, it is unlikely to win. If it does win without reforming itself, the GOP is unlikely to either remain in power long nor preserve the Republic.
I would prefer proper Republican rule to four or more years of a disastrous, Carteresque Hillary/Obama/Edwards administration. But only severe organizational change at the GOP is likely to prevent that, and they don’t seem to be very interested in reform.
Comment by V the K — May 21, 2007 @ 12:20 pm - May 21, 2007
VK: I thought a while ago you said you no longer vote for republicans.. (which is ok with me. i’m not judging)
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - May 21, 2007
I may have said that in anger, I may have mis-spoke, or I may have been misunderstood. I also may have been referring to the current choices among potential presidential candidates. None of the front-runners have any convincing attachment to first principles (limited government, national security, political integrity) that compels me to believe they would be more than marginally better than Hilldog.
I believe there is a much better chance of reforming the GOP than of reforming the Democrats … the party of unlimited government, national insecurity, and corruption, corruption, and more corruption. What I struggle with is… will the party ever reform itself unless the alternative is electoral oblivion? I’m not seeing any sign that they will.
Comment by V the K — May 21, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - May 21, 2007
Here is how the Democrats are boosting the confidence of the jihadists…
The Democrats are working towards reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate
This is from a Jihadi in Iraq:
the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/05/winds-of-war-straight-from-camels-uh.html
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 12:54 pm - May 21, 2007
[...] tip: GayPatriotWest Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Politics, Congress | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/05/21/why-dont-democrats-understand-the-level-of-the-threat-we-face-from-islamofascism/trackback/ » Comments [...]
Pingback by Sister Toldjah » Why don’t Democrats understand the level of the threat we face from Islamofascism? — May 21, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - May 21, 2007
Geez, Vince, shades of 1453 and Constantinople.
We need to remember how Fernan e Isabel, los reyes catolicos, dealt with the Islamists 500 years ago. Kill them or convert them - take your pick.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 21, 2007 @ 6:01 pm - May 21, 2007
Wow, you all seem to hate your fellow Americans and America. If you really believe that Democrats are working for Islamists, etc., then why aren’t you loading your guns already? Oh, that’s right: 101st Flying Keyboardists.
This ‘blog’ never fails to amuse.
Oh, and Peter, “Bush Derangement Syndrome” sounds the most like something out of Orwell. Besides being just plain childish and silly.
Comment by sean — May 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm - May 21, 2007
If you really believe that Democrats are working for Islamists, etc., then why aren’t you loading your guns already?
As the aphorism goes, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2007 @ 6:18 pm - May 21, 2007
oh spare us sean. The Democrats are doing everything the Jihadis expect them to.
You people have to be the stupidiest people on the planet as to be the only ones NOT TO KNOW that every one of your actions is exactly what the Jihadis are counting on to undermine the United States.
In fact you take pride in the amount of discord and disunity you cause with your constant complaining and protesting.
So, spare us your empty shout of “hate”. No one in America is as hateful as the tyrannical Left.. well no one execept the Jihadis lurking in the shadows waiting for the day to come.
Comment by Vince P — May 21, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - May 21, 2007
Wah, wah, wah. Conservative whining among the commenters here is becoming a well-developed art form. No wonder the GOP hierarchy considers you beneath their contempt.
Look, the GOP is lashed to the mast of the foundering SS Bush - deal with it already. The only GOP Presidential candidate with a lick of sense about foreign policy is the principled libertarian Ron Paul and he’s in danger of being banned from the rest of the debates for his intellectual honesty. Bush will never withdraw from Iraq and the Repubs will continue to enable him much to the detriment of our country. Hopefully, the Bush GOP will go down to utter defeat such that we can be rid of them for the foreseeable future. It will take that long for the country to recover from their disastrous misrule.
Comment by Ian S — May 21, 2007 @ 10:24 pm - May 21, 2007
And of course, Ian, you and your fellow Democrats intend to ensure that by making numerous attempts to encourage terrorists to attack our troops, as Pelosi did, and by slashing funding to our troops, as Murtha did, and by demanding that every attempt they make to stop terrorists and insurgents who are kidnapping, torturing, and bombing Iraqi civilians and police officers is considered a “war crime”, as you have.
Our troops have done an amazing job despite you and your fellow Democrats’ attempts to harm them, stop them, and get them killed. Given that you even support Cindy Sheehan, who sent cash to insurgents for them to use in buying supplies for IEDs, you have made it obvious that you will do anything — even support murder — to stop our troops from succeeding in Iraq.
Why is that, Ian?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 22, 2007 @ 1:51 am - May 22, 2007
If the ass-hat fits….
What saddens me is that you’re probably serious.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 22, 2007 @ 1:58 am - May 22, 2007
Ron Paul? The guy caught on video telling 9-11 truthers he believed there was a 9-11 coverup and a Kennedy assassination cover-up? That’s who Ian considers “intellectually honest.”
That tells you everything you need to know.
Comment by V the K — May 22, 2007 @ 5:14 am - May 22, 2007
I would guess Ron Paul has Art Bell & George Noory’s home numbers.
And Ian has Coast to Coast on speed dial.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 22, 2007 @ 5:56 am - May 22, 2007
Ian: Ron Paul??? Gee, it never occured to me that I could actually have regarded myself for having any respect for your earlier positions, so I guess now I have negative (below zero) respect for you.
Comment by Vince P — May 22, 2007 @ 11:41 am - May 22, 2007
Hey, Ian, here’s some more “intellectual honesty” from your new hero, Ron Paul:
All those quotes are from a 1992 issue of Ron Paul’s political newsletter.
Comment by V the K — May 22, 2007 @ 11:54 am - May 22, 2007
V the K.. that’s a double whammy.. Not only are quoting the new Savior, Ron Paul.. but you also quoting sactified OPINION POLLS.
All govt action must mirror OPINION POLLS.
Coming back to reality, this summer is going to be bloody.
I keep remember Pat Robertson’s statement that God told him something like millions of people in America are going to die in September. Not that I accept it, but its still in my mind.
lawhawk.blogspot.com/2007/05/not-so-secret-iranian-summer-offensive.html
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
“Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it’s a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,” a senior US official in Baghdad warned. “They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government].”
Comment by Vince P — May 22, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - May 22, 2007
#40: Of course, none of this ever bothered you conservatives before, it’s only Paul’s criticism of Bush’s occupation of Iraq that provokes a negative reaction. Why am I not surprised?
Comment by Ian S — May 22, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - May 22, 2007
#42: Um, short-bus, because until he ran for president, nobody gave a hoot about Ron Paul.
So, what’s your excuse for keeping Grand Kleagle Byrd in a prominent position in your party.
Comment by V the K — May 22, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - May 22, 2007
42:
You are such a mental midget.
I”m glad VK responded sufficiently for me. I would have felt I was dragged down to your level of stupidity if I had to explain.
Comment by Vince P — May 22, 2007 @ 2:42 pm - May 22, 2007
And a lot of people don’t know that Ron Paul was actually a Lyndon LaRouche candidate before he switched over to the GOP. This guy has appeared on the ballots here in Texas so often under so many different “party affiliations” that it was a wonder he even got elected to Congress in the first place.
This is one of the few times I consider myself lucky to be in Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s district. And THAT is saying a lot.
At least with Queen Sheila, you have some idea of where you stand. Preferably not between her and a news camera.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 22, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - May 22, 2007
I would have felt I was dragged down to your level of stupidity if I had to explain.
Does this mean I was dragged down to that level of stupidity.
Oh no! I can’t remember which direction to face on the toilet! Will someone tie my shoes for me? I forgot math! John Murtha is a patriot! Surrender is victory! Nancy Pelosi is ethical!
Comment by V the K — May 22, 2007 @ 6:09 pm - May 22, 2007
#’s 43, 44: Tsk, tsk, tsk such name-calling. I guess it’s because your only altenative is to spin, dodge and dance to avoid admitting that your GOP was fine with Ron Paul and all his ideas until he committed the unpardonable sin of questioning Dear Leader’s - as well as his slavering sycophants’ - dogma on Iraq and foreign policy in general.
Comment by Ian S — May 22, 2007 @ 8:18 pm - May 22, 2007
Actually it is the carping of Bush 43 freeing 45 million people from tyranny that bothers me most. Liberals don’t care about Muslim or Arab women and children. If a million are killed in a civil war, so be it according to the Democrats. They are bigots.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 22, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - May 22, 2007
I lov ian. The Democrats have two exhalted leaders, one a guy who murdered a secretary and the other a “former” Grand Wizard (ian is that what the head guy is called?) of the Klan. Glass houses…
The Democrat controlled House today refused to censure Murtha (ABSCAM) for threatening another member of the House. Which use to be against House rules when it was controlled by the Republicans. Fish rot.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 22, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - May 22, 2007
#48:
You mean Bush’s occupation don’t you? Yeah, all those Iraqis ought to be happy that Bushco has liberated them… from their lives.
Comment by Ian S — May 22, 2007 @ 11:26 pm - May 22, 2007
#49:
And I wuv you too Gene!
Comment by Ian S — May 22, 2007 @ 11:27 pm - May 22, 2007
Massive Constitutional Scholar in #45:
Do you have any evidence for that or did you just pull it out of your no doubt massive butt?
Comment by Ian S — May 22, 2007 @ 11:51 pm - May 22, 2007
52: A quick google search I made was unable to document that link. I only see comparasions made.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 12:38 am - May 23, 2007
Again.. the leftists keep ignoring this..
Ian: is this what you want to happen?
lawhawk.blogspot.com/2007/05/not-so-secret-iranian-summer-offensive.html
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
“Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it’s a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,” a senior US official in Baghdad warned. “They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government].”
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 12:39 am - May 23, 2007
There’s one reason why Iran can even contemplate this.. and that is because the Left has weakened the fighting ability of the West.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Iran-planning-strike-on-Europe-analyst/2007/05/23/1179601443913.html
Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has reconnoitered European nuclear power stations, a security analyst told a meeting at Britain’s parliament.
Claude Moniquet, president of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre, a private think-tank in Brussels, said his organisation also had evidence Tehran has increased the number of its intelligence agents across Europe.
“We have serious signals that something is under preparation in Europe,” Moniquet said. “Iranian intelligence is working extremely hard to prepare its people and to prepare actions.”
The centre, which he said deals directly with European intelligence agencies, believes Iranian operatives have carried out “reconnaissance of targets in European cities, including nuclear power stations,” Moniquet said. He mentioned no other specific targets.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 am - May 23, 2007
#54:
Gee, I wonder which officials those were. Cheney’s office perhaps? Look, Iran isn’t dense. They can see that Bushco, with its minimal original troop commitment, is totally incompetent and now preoccupied with simply passing the whole mess on to the next President who will withdraw from Iraq. To them what goes on in our Congress is irrelevant at this point.
As for Iran preparing something in Europe, why are you surprised? After all, it’s folks like you and other “conservatives” who have been cheering on a preemptive attack on Iran. Now you’re going to whine about how unfair it would be were the Iranians to respond to such an attack on their country?
Comment by Ian S — May 23, 2007 @ 1:11 am - May 23, 2007
Ian: Let me get this straight.
According to you…
US/EU makes verbal threats, therefore Iran is legitimate in its getting prepared to attack Europe.
I’ve been holding onto these quotes for years… how come Iran’s verbal threats dont legitmize US/EU concern about Iran’s nuclear program?
It’s freakin amazing how you side with them. It’s unbelievable really.. You must not know sh1t abotu them or worse.. you support their program.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 1:22 am - May 23, 2007
#57:
The US has done more than threaten, it has prepared for a preemptive strike on Iran. Like it or not, every country has the right to prepare for and respond to an attack, even Iran. It is undeniable that any attack by Iran would come as a result of a first strike by the US and its European allies.
Comment by Ian S — May 23, 2007 @ 9:42 am - May 23, 2007
#52 - Dear IgnoAndNaus:
Fascination with my butt notwithstanding (unless it is next to your face after I’ve eaten a few bean burritos), here are the “links” you requested after questioning my statement that Ron Paul has not only run under a variety of party labels but is affiliated with Lyndon LaRouche:
“He [Paul] was a speaker at the founding convention of the Constitution Party (then the US Taxpayer Party) and is a featured speaker at many Constitution Party state events through out the country.”
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
“Below is a speech by Dr. Ron Paul congressman from Texas. A most interesting man, I met him twice during his campaign for president
of the united states in 1988 when he was a candidate as a Libertarian.”
http://kvinamondo.blogspot.com/
And from the late Molly Ivins (no GOP darling, of course) in 1996:
“Ron Paul, the old Libertarian, made it into a runoff against incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin despite the nastiest set of campaign ads anyone has seen in years. The entire Republican establishment was supporting Laughlin, a party switcher, who accused Paul of everything short of eating babies for breakfast.”
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/96/03/15/ivins0315.html
And the zinger is LaRouche’s own coverage of Ron Paul on HIS OWN WEBSITE:
“Republican Presidential candidates disgraced themselves as Cheney-style fascists, in the May 15 debate in Columbia, South Carolina, with the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Rep. Paul (R-Texas) ripped into the war insanity..”
http://larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/16/ron_paul_cheney.shtml
Match, set, game. You know the rest.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 23, 2007 @ 11:25 am - May 23, 2007
HELLO.. IAN.. Earth to Ian..
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 11:51 am - May 23, 2007
Yeah, but Ian will claim Iran could never realistically carry out an attack on the United States. That would be as unlikely as 19 Muslim fanatics hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Ian and I think a lot of the people in both parties are stuck in a 19th century strategic mindset and don’t realize that dictators like the Mullahs and Chavez (who just revoked the broadcast license of the last opposition TV station in Venezuela {Our Democrats would call this “invoking the Fairness Doctrine}) are not interested in territorial conquest. They are consumed in the conquest of ideology.
The 21st century strategic mindset recognizes that in a war of ideology, holding and occupying territory is unimportant. The goal is simply to weaken and destroy the will of your enemy. The jihadis have been very successful on this front, at least with the blue half of our country. The ability to inflict massive damage through targeted nuclear strikes, for which Iran will soon have a capability, is far more relevant than ground armies or tactical capabilities.
Also, in a war of ideology, quitting the battlefield (as in Iraq) hands the aggressor a victory far greater than the square mileage of the territory ceded.
I don’t think Ian’s party has the slightest clue that we are in a war against two ideologies… Islamo-fascism and revolutionary socialism. Either that or they are rooting for the other sides, which in light of their behavior, is not an unreasonable conclusion.
Comment by V the K — May 23, 2007 @ 12:12 pm - May 23, 2007
#52 - “Do you have any evidence for that or did you just pull it out of your no doubt massive butt?”
Trite words from someone who is so anal-retentive. But(t) I digress.
Here’s your request for proof about Ron Paul and his “flavor-of-the-month” candidacy history:
“[Ron Paul] was a speaker at the founding convention of the Constitution Party (then the US Taxpayer Party) and is a featured speaker at many Constitution Party state events through out the country.”
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/
And this gem from 1996 from the late Molly Ivins (herself no GOP cheerleader, that’s for sure):
“Ron Paul, the old Libertarian, made it into a runoff against incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin despite the nastiest set of campaign ads anyone has seen in years. The entire Republican establishment was supporting Laughlin, a party switcher, who accused Paul of everything short of eating babies for breakfast.”
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/editorial/96/03/15/ivins0315.html
And here’s the ringer - LaRouche’s own view of Paul from his OWN website:
“Republican Presidential candidates disgraced themselves as Cheney-style fascists, in the May 15 debate in Columbia, South Carolina, with the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul.”
http://larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_news/2007/05/16/ron_paul_cheney.shtml
Did I also mention that these breakaway splinter parties mentioned above (except for the Libertarian Party) are connected with LaRouche?
Match, set, game…you know the rest.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 23, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - May 23, 2007
#60:
Actually, that idea was not at all far-fetched, Condi’s pathetic “no one could have imagined” mantra aside. Instead it’s simply a reflection of the fact that the incompetent Bushco preferred to chase New Orleans whores rather than terrorists.
As for Iran, the idea that they are going to attack the West in the absence of a first strike by the US is about as realistic as were Iraq’s “Winnebagos of Mass Destruction.” We have to engage the Iranians in tough negotiations rather than bombastic blather from both sides.
Comment by Ian S — May 23, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - May 23, 2007
“tough negotiations”? bwahahahaaha… you are really dim.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 8:00 pm - May 23, 2007
Planning for the 9/11 plot started in the late 1990s, Ian.
The hijackers were in the country training well before January of 2001.
In short, the Clinton administration had a hell of a lot more time to uncover and put down the terrorist plot than did the Bush administration, but they didn’t.
And before you try your usual rant and whine about how the Clintonistas supposedly warned the Bush administration, answer me this; if the Clintonistas could give such a precise and complete warning about when, where, who, and how, why hadn’t they acted already to break it up?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 23, 2007 @ 8:11 pm - May 23, 2007
#63: Typical bob and weave. The fact remains that Condi Rice, Bushco’s National Security Adviser could not imagine that terrorists would hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings yet just such a plot was discussed in newspapers years prior to 9/11. Such has been the breathtaking arrogance coupled with incompetence on display by the Bushies these past six years.
Comment by Ian S — May 23, 2007 @ 8:22 pm - May 23, 2007
Ian, I think you just proved what a retard you are.
1. You tell us that planning and scenarios for hijacking jets and flying them into buildings were openly known and spoken about prior to 9-11.
2. It happened.
3. Vince demonstrates that an Iranian general has discussed specific plans for attacking sites in the US, possibly with nuclear.
4. But you insist this would never actually happen.
I know you’re going to whine and snivel about name-calling, but you’ve just screwed yourself using your own argument. Welcome to the short bus. Population: You.
Comment by V the K — May 23, 2007 @ 8:30 pm - May 23, 2007
Ian needs a primer on Islamic thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8MKvw
What the West needs to know about Islam
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 8:41 pm - May 23, 2007
this is the full length video
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1595008652884842880&q=What+the+West+Needs+To+Know
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2007 @ 8:44 pm - May 23, 2007
Nicely done, V the K.
Furthermore, leftist Ian has yet to explain why the Clinton administration supposedly knew exactly when, where, how, and by whom 9/11 was going to take place, since they allegedly told the Bush administration — yet did nothing about it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 23, 2007 @ 9:17 pm - May 23, 2007
#79 NDT: I can’t take credit for it. Ian has nothing but his own stupidity and blind loyalty to Democrat talking points to blame.
Comment by V the K — May 24, 2007 @ 10:12 am - May 24, 2007
#67-71: Speaking from personal experience, wait for Ian to start (wrongly) commenting on your as-unseen physical appearance in lieu of an actual constructive argument. Then you will know that he’s been thoroughly chastised by your persuasive counter-argument.
And I too have to echo: Well done!
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 24, 2007 @ 11:54 am - May 24, 2007
#67:
Not just spoken about, an actual hijacking occurred but before the airplane could take off on its mission under control of the hijackers, it was successfully stormed by the authorities. It turned out that the hijackers planned to fly it into the Eiffel Tower or blow it up over Paris. This occurred in 1994. It was not just blather - it came close to fruition.
As for some Iranian general spouting off, it’s actually good he did - we should be watching Iran very closely. However, it has nothing to do with Condi’s incompetence.
Comment by Ian S — May 24, 2007 @ 6:55 pm - May 24, 2007
#62: C’mon, you weasel, you stated that Paul was a “Lyndon LaRouche candidate.” He’s nothing of the sort and never has been. You claim the Constitution Party is connected to Larouche. None of your links shed light on that so don’t lie and claim they do. Your “knowledge” of Ron Paul apparently is only rivaled by your “knowledge” of the US Constitution. LOL!
Oh and thanks for quoting Molly Ivins: if you’d bothered to read her piece you’d have seen her criticism was directed at the GOP establishment, not Ron Paul.
Comment by Ian S — May 24, 2007 @ 7:16 pm - May 24, 2007
IgnoAndNaus, of course I stated that Ron Paul was a LaRoucheite and I stand by my arguments. If you bother to READ the information given about Paul’s beliefs and compare them to LaRouche’s, you would find out that they are almost mirror images.
Plus, you obviously did not take umbrage with my remarks that Paul was a “flavor-of-the-month” candidate so it is obvious that you agree with them, and my links show exactly that kind of proof.
I am not going to sit here and play Elisabeth to your Rosie and force you to interpret your own sayings. All I can say is that if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is in all probability a duck. So go take a flying leap.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 25, 2007 @ 12:26 am - May 25, 2007
#75:
More BS. He’s run as a Repub and a Libertarian in a 30-year political career. That’s hardly “flavor-of-the-month” you dolt.
Comment by Ian S — May 25, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - May 25, 2007