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.
Well .. since Pelosi is from the San Francisco district of CA - that pretty much explains it.
Dr. Dean was saying the exact same thing Pelosi was saying - and I loved Hal's retort: "Rep. Pelosi's second complaint ... is a 'magnet for terrorism because the president invaded Iraq' ... Rep. Pelosi thinks that is a bad thing for America. Where would she prefer to locate the "terrorist magnet"? New York? Washington? Los Angeles?"
In fact, just this morning I sent Rush a msg making the same comment about Dean's statement re our being a "magnet".
Ranting about Hal not having "inside knowledge" is just plain dumb. Do you rant against Coulter, Steyn, Stein, or any other conservative commentator taking a liberal to task because you don't think they have "inside knowledge"?
It's also utterly irrelevant to what I posted to you.
From the description of the soon to be 'classic' VANISHED INTO THIN AIR
You have no idea how the publishing industry works, do you? The authors don't write the blurbs for their book covers; that's the publisher's (specifically, the marketer's) job. And in answer to the question, "When will it (the Rapture) happen?" I'd venture that Hal's answer amounts to, "Before the tribulation, and possibly very, very soon."
That's hardly date-setting.
Don'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.
Again, irrelevant. I could take Gary DeMarr's "anti-barn-burners" and make the same criticism. I don't expect every book written by a Christian on Scripture to dovetail directly with evangelism--indeed, when you're writing on prophecy, advanced soteriology, spiritual warfare, or whatever, many books simply assume that most of the audience is already saved and interested in evangelism, and focus on their particular subject.
I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of all of Hal's failed predictions for the date of the Rapture. If you can't produce them, please admit that you have slandered your brother in Christ, and apologize.
Hal Lindsey is great. He's really tuned in to what's going on.
Somebody had to say it.
It was a good decade for him.
LOL, but I wasn't wrong. Lindsey supposed within a few years. Honestly no one is stupid enough to say the world is going to end June 28, 2007. But that's the thing with prophesy fanatics. This happened x number of years ago so by my 'calculations' this should happen x+40...or so. Leaves himself a little wiggle room that way. And anyone calls him on it, they're somehow dishonoring a fellow Christian 'brother' for daring to doubt. From his own Late Great Planet Earth word for word
“The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matthew 24:34, NASB). 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.So 'forty years or so' by his deduction. But it's nice of him to put the 'if' in there so when it doesn't happen, he can claim he may have just guessed.
I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of all of Hal's failed predictions for the date of the Rapture. If you can't produce them, please admit that you have slandered your brother in Christ, and apologize.
I have produced just one supposition but there are more. I will not apologize to those that are for leading away from the Gospel of Christ and are more concerned with what seems a fascination with numerology and prophecy
Heh heh. Reading that column and imagining the trademark Hal Lindsay low country paranoid grumble was satisfying indeed. He is right on the money. Now that I have DVR I'm going to have to make a note to start Tivo'ing him.
They are inbred nearly to the point of extinction. Certainly to the point of becoming caricatures of themselves.
It is the deference to the liberals that is the worst mistake the political and military has made in this war and it has cost the President a lot of capital. While they dither, the bad guys kill the real innocents. Witness Fallujah. They let the people live under a true reign of terror for four months longer than they should have to try every diplomatic option to avoid the use of force in which some civilians would die. When will we remember that a lightning shock attack (Blitzkreig) might result in some casualties at the moment but will save thousands over time and get the damn war over.
That's what makes me mad. Other than that, i think they're doing ok, I think we'll prevail, barring a drastic change in goobernment, but I believe it's taking much longer than it needs to ultimately because of the treacherous rats, but really because the military accommodates them.
I would applaud proper trial and convicting and executing pullllousy for treason in wartime.
And we never killed all those 10,000 people on the highway of death. We made a couple of passes so they could leave their vehicles and run, and then destroyed the vehicles. At least that's what I read recently.
Just so that this keeps getting pressed home: You claimed that Hal is "someone who keeps missing the date he prophesies the end of the world will happen..." Ergo, you must have many dates that Hal has stated flat out that the Rapture would happen that have failed--remember that supposition is not prophesying, no matter how much your side wants to make it so for the purpose of your deliberate slander. A person who prophesies says, "Thus says the Lord:" and doesn't pepper his comments with caveats as Hal did the one you keep quoting and alluding to.
Produce those many dates that Hal has prophesied the Rapture, or be known for a liar. If you misspoke because you were misled by another whose quotes you did not seriously examine for yourself (like DeMarr), then I think you should admit as much and then, in the interest of fairness, go and make snide comments about everything that person has or will write ever again, just as you have done for Lindsey.
I just like his analysis of a lot of things on his Weekly Update, and he's darned funny, always with a complete deadpan expression.
Did you know that Fox has hired Wesley Clark as an analyst? I'd rather listen to Hal Lindsay than Wesley Clark.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell46.html
Hal's own spin---”I also said that ‘if’ a generation was forty years and ‘if’ the generation of the ‘fig tree’ (Matthew 24:32-34) started with the foundation of the state of Israel, then Jesus ‘might come back by 1988.’ But I put a lot of ifs and maybes in because I knew that no one could be absolutely certain.”--Hal Lindsey
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/l/lindsey-hal.html
I think Hal needs to keep this verse in mind
"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour"--Matthew 25:13
Produce those many dates that Hal has prophesied the Rapture, or be known for a liar
I have no need. Another of his 'prophecies' debunked and his own backpedaling.
"If al-Qaida has concentrated its forces in Iraq, doesn't that limit its ability to concentrate its forces elsewhere?...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?"
We all agree with Hal on this - fight them in the Middle East. Though it would almost be fun to see Nancy and Barbara having to scream for help because al-Qaida had suddenly decided to make San Francisco the battle ground.
Heck, you just disproved your own point and proved mine by Hal's quote!
Hal shared a speculation with a caveat that later proved to be wrong. You have not shown that this is a repeated pattern. That puts Hal a lot better off than DeMarr. As a preterist, he insists against all evidence that Revelation was penned before 70 AD instead of in 90-95 AD. He's been proven soundly wrong on this point. Should I then call him a false prophet?
And again, you change the subject to attempt to obscure the fact that until you produce many prophecies--direct unequivocating predictions, not a single speculation issued with a ton of caveats--by Hal on the date of the Rapture, you're still lying about him. Be a man, stop dancing around, and either stand by and prove your original statement that I took issue with, or else stand down and apologize for your slander.
I wouldn't. He's not going around calling for the end of the world within a 'few years' only for it to not come true. The more I read about Lindsey, the more he's starting to sound like Joseph Smith if you ask me. I'm sorry but I grew up in a deep Southern Baptist faith and believed a lot of what Hal, Hagee, and the rest believed. Since I've changed denominations, I see the lot has spent more time on prophecy than be workers Christ called us all to be.
And again, you change the subject to attempt to obscure the fact that until you produce many prophecies--direct unequivocating predictions, not a single speculation issued with a ton of caveats--by Hal on the date of the Rapture, you're still lying about him
Changing the subject? I point out another of his missed 'prophecies'. If I were you I'd go back and reread that article. First off the guy's an actual minister and secondly he's not offering opinion as much as showing where Lindsey went wrong (using Biblical passages the same as Lindsey)
And how is showing Lindsey's backtracking changing the subject? His date, string of dates, timeframe, whatever you want to call it, didn't come true so he has to release some sort of statement absolving him of his nonsense. I don't think even Hagee is dumb enough to say Christ will return within a certain decade
And FWIW, I know that Christ will return as promised, I'm just not going to wrap myself up in the nonsense of trying to predict something even He said we couldn't do. When He tells us to watch for signs and to be ready, He's telling us to be about His business instead of trying to divine when it will happen.
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.