Posted on 06/30/2005 8:11:43 AM PDT by CHARLITE
President Bush appealed to the nation to stay the course in Iraq on Tuesday in a nationally televised speech that was nationally televised only when the Big Three Networks made a last minute decision to carry his comments live. Reaction was fascinating in both its scope and its idiocy.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi immediately accused the president of "exploiting 9-11" which, she informed the nation, had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
According to Rep. Pelosi (who is actually allowed to participate in making important homeland security decisions)
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9-11, knowing that there is no connection between 9-11 and the war in Iraq. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began – a magnet for terrorism – because the president invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell. The insurgency took root in the unstable conditions that have now existed in substantial parts of Iraq for far too long.
No connection with the war in Iraq? Somebody should nudge her and inform her that the war in Iraq isn't a war against Iraq – it is a war against the terrorists who planned and executed 9-11.
It just happens that the war is being fought in Iraq, but I suppose that is much too deep a distinction for her to grasp. Our forces aren't fighting against Iraq. Al-Qaida is fighting against Iraq. Our forces are fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Her second complaint is that Iraq is now what it wasn't when the war to remove Saddam Hussein began. This is just too rich! Of course it isn't. Before that, it was a dictatorship where the government dropped people into tree shredders feet-first for failing to amuse Uday Hussein or forgetting to kiss Saddam's armpit when greeting him.
Now it has a representative government, an independent judiciary and is no longer a threat to anybody except terrorists. Which brings us to part two of Rep. Pelosi's second complaint. Now it is a "magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq ..."
Evidently, Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles? I thought that was the strategy – fight them in the Middle East instead of fighting them in the Midwest? Maybe I am missing something about the nuances of politics.
The insurgency "took root" in the unstable conditions of post-war Iraq? How could that have been avoided? Well, we could have nuked Baghdad. Then there wouldn't be any "insurgents" – which is a catch-all phrase that includes remnants of the Bathist regime and thousands of foreign al-Qaida fighters (who, if they were not attacking American military forces in Iraq, would have resumed attacking American civilians in the homeland).
American forces are protected with Kevlar vests and helmets, armed with great, big guns, are supported by radar, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, heavy weapons, helicopters and fighters, and are trained for exactly this eventuality.
American civilians at home have been disarmed by the government, fly in unprotected commercial aircraft and are protected by business suits and briefcases, and aren't even supported by the liberals in Congress. This is a rebuttal?
Maybe I am missing something. If al-Qaida has concentrated its forces in Iraq, doesn't that limit its ability to concentrate its forces elsewhere? Like Philadelphia? And if al-Qaida is bound and determined to bring war to Americans, isn't it a good idea for them to run into the U.S. Marines instead of a civilian office building?
What has she been smoking?
Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth."> He writes this weekly column exclusively for WorldNetDaily. Be sure to visit his website where he provides up-to-the-minute analysis of today's world events in the light of ancient prophecies.
Sorry....I get her and Barbara Boxer mixed up sometimes.
"Why aren't these empty suits and empty dresses humiliated by their own profound IGNORANCE?"
Because they are ignorant?
That's easy to do. They are both Marxists and are fugly to boot.
This really clouds their thinking and makes them do silly and foolish things. The are self-destructing and that's fine with me. I welcome more idiocy from them.
You know...this is exactly what they did during the first Gulf War, when we had Saddams Republican Guard on the run. The media turned the Highway of Death into an Abu Ghraib spectacle as they molded public opinion against us dealing Saddam a fatal blow. And then, these same liberals have the nerve to question why we didn't finish Saddam the first time around.
She looks like she died and was re-animated.
They have to realize that their actions have consequences.
I think they know that full well, though.
A friend saw her in Marin County last year.
She said Pelosi Galore looks like a woman who has had the last plastic surgery that can be performed on her and made Joan Rivers look like a virgin to plastic surgery.
Nope. That was Hal Linden.
A.A.C.
What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”
Surprisingly, though, even though I have never been a Lindsey admirer, I liked what he said in the article about the rebuilding of the Temple not to be found anywhere in the NT.
It's not ignorance; it's a calculated disinformation campaign to demoralize the country with the hope of wresting control and eventually enslaving the citizens...
That was Hal Linden. I must admit though, they do even look a little alike. Must be that they both have the heavy mustache. (I really loved that show)
Thanks for the ping!
From Lindsey: "Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so."
It's kinda hard to put a man on trial for making a false prediction when he puts a gigantic caveat like that and then says only that it could indicate the date range in which everything will take place. Perhaps Lindsey should have been more creative with the fonts to make sure that those so eager to crucify him wouldn't miss a couple of key clauses in this passage. Perhaps those so eager to do so should learn the difference between a prediction and a speculation.
Now, you said in post #7 that Hal "keeps missing the date he prophesies the end of the world will happen..." That means that you must have multiple examples. So tell me, what other dates has Hal "predicted"?
Btw, I should point out that while I like Lindsey and Missler both (and I've had occassion to meet and converse with the latter, and I can say without reservation that he is a scholar and a gentleman), I've got grave reservations myself about Hal's tendency to compare Scripture-to-technology before he finishes comparing Scripture-to-Scripture and I disagree with him that the Rapture will be pretrib and separated from the Second Coming sequence, so don't take my response as putting me in his camp.
However, I do get tired of the false accusations thrown carelessly around by his critics. Perhaps they should concentrate on demonstrating the validity of their own beliefs instead of simply throwing mud on the opposition.
Not a huge follower of Lindsey myself (I prefer Missler as well), but it irks me whenever Lindsey's name is mentioned here and he is dismissed out of hand as a quack when he raises many a good point.
It just happens that the war is being fought in Iraq, but I suppose that is much too deep a distinction for her to grasp. Our forces aren't fighting against Iraq. Al-Qaida is fighting against Iraq. Our forces are fighting against al-Qaida in Iraq.Opinions are now facts? He knows this how? From listening to the 'right' politician?
Lest we forget we have all the information provided on the links I've seen posted time and time again. Of course one could ask if these links were so defined, surely the President or someone in the administration would provide definitive proof. Or are they just disseminating the info through such fine upstanding 'conservative' magazines as Weekly Standard and the National Review? How clever of them.....
And yet somehow this information was dismissed over a year ago and it's relevant now again why? Because the 'right' politician alluded to a link in his speech?
Those that claim Lindsey as a date-setter and end times snake oil salesman have yet to provide a clear example of such errors.
I suppose that's why you find most of his books on websites such as Armageddon Books. From the description of the soon to be 'classic' VANISHED INTO THIN AIR
We live in a world essentially devoid of hope. Visions of the future as portrayed by popular books and films include catastrophic events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and plagues. Images of the future are more often than not eerie, post-apocalyptic scenes complete with darkened skies over ruined cities presided over by chaosDon't think ol' Hal's going to be spending a lot of time discussing spreading of the Gospel and how we can come to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in this barn-burner. What was that question put forth in the description? When will it take place? Guess I'd sort of have to buy the book for Hal to tell me huh?Those images are completely in harmony with the prophecies of the Book of the Revelation for the last days. But there is another prophecy-the promise of the Rapture of the Church. What is the Rapture? Which view is correct? What are the other views? Is the Rapture a recently developed doctrine? When will it take place? Who will go? Hal Lindsey explains in clear, easy to understand terms the answers to these and many other doctrinal issues surrounding the Rapture of the Church.
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.