Posted on 06/20/2004 10:16:14 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Judging by the title of the column, I think you may have an idea of where I’m going with this. Liberals will take this as a personal attack. Oh well….
Like those espoused by Howard Dean, my argument is also circumstantial. American liberal conduct illustrates an intentional disregard for the traditional politics-ending-at-the-water’s-edge protocol. Not a good position to take when our men and women beyond the water’s edge are in war zones. The very talking points liberals make are being used by our enemy as justification for the sloppy beheading of American civilians, among other things.
Kidnap victims Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson were both killed and the reasoning cited was the humiliation of Arab prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. Both Al Qaeda and ''Democracy Now!'' liberals equate the cold-blooded murder of thousands of innocent civilians worldwide with hurting the feelings of a couple hundred captured Islamic terrorists.
Now what may al Qaeda and American liberals have in common?
Both hate our capitalist society except when they personally benefit. They both hate President Bush and want to see him defeated in November. Al Qaeda hates him because, unlike a liberal president who would probably leave them to their own devices, Bush wants them all dead. It must be hard to sleep at night when you know the President of the United States has taken a hit out on you.
Unlike other religions that liberals have successfully removed from public venues, Islam has been exempted. Is it out of respect for that particular religion, or do the rumors of possible violence scare them into true ''tolerance?'' Who knows? But while al Qaeda worships the leadership of Osama bin Laden, liberals here consider him a more misguided, yet sympathetic figure, trained and inadvertently unleashed on the world by U.S. intelligence.
The latest tactic being used by the American left is the repeated mantra that Bush misled the American people and the world into war by stating unequivocally that there was a relationship between Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terror network. That assertion was the impetus for the war on Iraq.
If one looks back, it would seem a lot of people came to that conclusion long ago. That conclusion doesn’t serve the Democrat presidential election machine well, so certain recollections need not be brought up.
''ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.'' - Sheila MacVicar, ABC News, January 14, 1999
In quintessential American tradition, the attempt to find blame has led to a commission seeking answers as to why 9/11 happened. With the exception of Bush administration personnel, few on the left and in the media have reached the simple conclusion that the Tower and Pentagon attacks were carried out by very bad people.
Despite plants inserted on the panel to insure no past or present administration was blamed directly, one of the first of many conclusions issued was that we were caught with our pants down on September 11. Also determined was that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was assisting al Qaeda on other sinister projects.
Now while al Qaeda hoped this commission would provide them with valuable information as to our logistical, intelligence, and military weaknesses, unfortunately we’ll see in the very near future just how valuable these hearings were to them.
Both American liberals and al Qaeda hope the hearings will provide political ammunition that will damage Bush. They assert Bush lied about a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden, and subsequently conducted an unnecessary and illegal war.
The commission released some findings on Thursday, June 17. The commission’s conclusion backed up Bush’s claim that Iraq and al Qaeda were essentially allies.
But the response from American liberals was true to form.
''Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Plot Tie'' - New York Times headline, June 17
The correction was almost immediate.
''The President's correct. And the commission yesterday said exactly that. What the commission also said was there was no evidence of collaboration on any of the attacks against the United States. But we had previously pointed out that, particularly in Sudan, there is very hard evidence of collaboration on the X gas and other evidence, and additional contacts between Saddam's intelligence service and al Qaeda in the assistance in training in weapons, chemical and biological weapons, anthrax manufacture, and that's what we had in our report yesterday, but unfortunately, the New York Times sort of highlighted only one half of that.'' - Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, CNN’s June 17 “Inside Politics”
This is a battle for power.
Al Qaeda wants us dead and gone while liberals want their power back. The terrorists have no problem concealing the truth and offering up propaganda for their simple masses to consume. Liberals shamelessly do the same.
''Now that the 9/11 Commission has said that there is no evidence to support a collaborative effort--relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the president has a responsibility to the American people to speak truth on this subject." - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, CNN’s June 17 “Inside Politics”
Of course, Pelosi is deliberately misleading the public (she probably considers simple as well) herself with that comment.
Liberals, like al Qaeda, don’t like their positions being challenged. For example, Fox News is vilified for being an ''extreme right'' mouthpiece simply because all sides of an argument are heard. Shows like ''Democracy Now!'' allow no point of view that disputes their own conclusions.
Al Qaeda will just kill you.
Terrorists recruit children to be suicide bombers; the left indoctrinates American children under the guise of ''education'' and encourages activism. Have you ever wondered who motivated the violent, domestic terror group ELF (Earth Liberation Front)?
So when the 9/11 commission members themselves dispute the conclusion disseminated by the American media and declare there was a long-standing relationship between the Iraqi government (Saddam Hussein) and al Qaeda, it doesn’t deter the left from repeating their false political accusations on Bush and America.
And have you noticed the terrorists themselves aren’t denying it?
''I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me.'' - 9/11 Commission Democrat Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton
Even Russian President Vladimir Putin stated years ago there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Yet the left marches on.
''President Bush refuses to dismiss, one day after the 9/11 commission threw more cold water on the idea of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. The Bush administration may keep insisting there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. But some top Democrats don't seem to be buying it. Today, Bush rival John Kerry again accused the president of misleading Americans when he made the case for war in Iraq.'' - Judy Woodruff, CNN's ''Inside Politics''
The left marches on.
''There continues to be a discrepancy between the commission's findings and the president's on whether al-Qaeda has a link to Saddam Hussein.'' - Peter Jennings, World News Tonight
And the left marches on.
''The commission yesterday said it had found no credible evidence of a quote, 'collaborative relationship' between al-Qaeda and Iraq--no plotting together against the United States.'' - Dan Rather, CBS Evening News
And the left marches on.
''But despite that conclusion, President Bush insisted there was a relationship between the two.'' - Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News
And the left marches on.
''Everything's been built on lies. Everything! I mean the entire pre-text for war.'' - Meredith Vieira, CBS News/ABC News veteran, ''The View''
And the left marches on.
''Etymologists have the Clinton years to thank for bringing to our attention what the definition of 'is' is. At the Bush White House, meanwhile, it looks like some parsing of the word 'connection' is in order, as in, 'Is there a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda or not?’ On this delicate and divisive matter, we heard from the president once again today, once again asserting that the 9/11 Commission doesn't know its Iraq from its elbow.'' - Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's “Countdown”
I firmly believe the American left will do anything to defeat conservative America, as is the ironic goal of al Qaeda.
Experience tells them that liberals, whether they are in New Paultz or Madrid, will change the government to one accepting of the al Qaeda line (and basically retreat from the War on Terror) with the slightest shove.
Conservatives have that ''bring ‘em on'' attitude when it comes to people who believe their way of life is better than ours and the regime change is to be conducted by any means necessary.
If there is any link between American liberals and al Qaeda, it should be as obvious to you as it is to me.
===
About the author: Bob Parks is a versatile writer, activist, and political campaigner, who currently resides in Boston.
Both hate our capitalist society except when they personally benefit. They both hate President Bush and want to see him defeated in November. Al Qaeda hates him because, unlike a liberal president who would probably leave them to their own devices, Bush wants them all dead. "
Hit the nail on the head.
bump
Great post! BTTT
Love that title.
But, who investigates liberals???
Question: Why would Saddam have a painting made showing his pleasure at 9/11 .. IF he was not a participant in it ..?? Maybe Saddam didn't plan it, organize it, or train the terrorists .. but he could easily have funded it, and provided the place for training as evidenced by the airline shell at Salmon Pak.
I find it somewhat incredible that there is a link between Al Qaeda and liberals except for individual cases. I am sure there are some cases where a liberal such as McKinney has maybe contributed to terrorist fund raisers. Hillary accepted funds from an Arab-American organization. But a blanket endorsement of all liberals supporting Al Qaeda does not help the credibility of conservative groups. We do not need the dubious honor of being the Larouche of the conservative branch of politics.
When are Americans who call themselves Democrats going to realize that they can*t elect progressives {socialists/fascists} to positions of leadership and then expect these people to respect and protect our Constitutional rights? If progressives believed in our form of gov*t with it*s individual rights.....to own land, own weapons, speak freely, etc, then they*d not be socialists who believe in None Of Those Things.
"a link between Al Qaeda and liberals"
What ..??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.