Posted on 06/30/2005 11:43:23 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I was listening to Rush today, and he was playing excerpts from miscellaneous Dems' reactions to President Bush's speech on Tuesday night. They are outraged - outraged, I tell you! - that the president dared to connect the events of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq.
It's just like their purported indignation at Karl Rove's comments about liberals not supporting aggressive (read "military") responses to 9/11.
Well, they have to act outraged and indignant, now, don't they?! Because they know full well that Americans will rally behind whatever is necessary to avenge 9/11 and prevent another one. They don't want the footage of 9/11 shown on network television anymore, because they think that Americans are so stupid that we won't make the connection between the terrorist attacks on Americans here, and the conduct of the terrorists (uh -- the MSM calls them "insurgents") in Iraq.
Yes, it was so easy to stand on the Capitol steps and sing "God Bless America," wasn't it? But that's pretty much the extent of the liberal Democrats' commitment to the War on Terror, isn't it? Isn't that what they point to when they huff and puff about anyone "questioning their patriotism"? But it's all blather, smoke and mirrors. After all, what exactly have they proposed that we do?
They don't want us in Iraq, they don't want enemy combatants held in Guantanamo Bay. They don't want Americans to notice that the 9/11 attackers, the persons being detained at Gitmo, and the bloodthirsty individuals attacking GIs and Iraqi civilians (including children) all across Iraq claim the same loyalty (to Al Qaeda), purport to practice the same "religion," [placed in quotes out of respect for peace-loving Muslims everywhere], use the same tactics, and espouse precisely the same objectives.
Bush has never said that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Those of us with memories longer than a fruit fly's know this. What he has said is that the same people who attacked us here were - and are - being harbored and supported there. And this has been proven true, over and over again. He also said (famously) that if we do not fight the War on Terror on our terms and their turf, then we will be fighting it on their terms and our turf.
The Dems know all of this, of course. And they are wailing and gnashing their teeth not because it isn't true, but because it is, and Bush knows it, and the majority of American people know it, and because the Dems have absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative in the way of policy. (Damn those terrorists, anyway! If it weren't for those blasted Islamofascists, we could still win elections using race-baiting, discredited Marxist economic theories and class warfare!)
And guess what? Boo hoo! This doesn't bode well for them in 2006, much less 2008. But they don't want you to notice this. So like spoiled toddlers, they think they can deflect attention away from the truth by throwing a collective temper tantrum.
Waaaaa-a-a-a-a-a-ah. We're not stupid. And we're not buying it.
BINGO!
BTTT
Fact is: the current Democrat Party is made of a bunch of traitors and folks that are guilty of treason to the United States of America. If the American people have any brains at all, they will rise up and destroy this political party at the voting booth in both 2006 and 2008. I suspect that will be the case!!!
The day the dems stood behind Clinton on the White House after he was impeached sealed their fate as a party and ours as a nation, imo.
They are not worthy to claim any right to be called protectors of the Constitution or this country, much as the Senate also proved when it failed to do its duty by removing him from office, so spineless were the leaders.
We could have gotten rid of Gore in 2000 and just MOOOved on, but NOOOO! Even to this day, they entrap and ensnare their witless victims with their cacophony of lies and baloney.
Our country may have been subjected to all this punishment for the vanity of a few who thought they knew what was best for America.
We had only been attacked how many times during that sad POS administration with no response, other than blowing up tents and an aspirin factory.
At least Carter sent troops in to try and free hostages, only to fail .. Clinton never even tried, and his wife is now who we seek to turn to in 2008?
Insanity reigns supreme in the liberal mind, imo.
You have just stated my fondest wish; - one for which I'm willing to work as hard as I worked to defeat John Kerry and re-elect George W. Bush. My only other request of the Patron Saint of American Elections (should there be one such!), is that he or she pay attention to the necessity of defeating the woman whom Rush calls "Hillary Rodham-Rodham"......and in such a way that this rapacious wolverine will be politically.......TOAST!
Thanks for your comments!
Char :)
I believe that the last two presidentail elections were won by hard work and Devine intervention. '08 can be as well.
Mention Abdul Rahman Yasin and most dems scratch their heads
Maria, I have long believed just that, especially in 2000. Bush's margin was so narrow, and he was elected in spite of massive Democratic voter fraud in the large inner cities, that I became convinced that not even outrageous Dem cheating would he be denied the office.
In 2004, the message was the evangelicals, when motivated, can provide vote margins in the millions.
Trivia point in re the word "insurgent". This word was supplied by Colin Powell during the "terrorist/freedomfighter" kerfuffle in re Reuters. Colin Powell used the word EXPLICITLY to describe the TERRORISTS who were pouring into Iraq from other countries. MSM has stuck with that word. The word "insurgent" was used in military coinage. Therefore, everytime I read the MSM use the word "insurgent" I get another giggle: They are being vicariously pro-military everytime they use that word. :>
What fools!!!! The MSM
I'll drink to that! Oh wait, it's too early.... I'll drink to that later today!
The talking points were well established by the time the idjits went on the air afterwards.
They seem to feel no embarrassment at all using the exact same phrase.
Kind of like the 'gravitas' silliness.
IMHO, the MSM thinks they are applying a foil to the Bush Admin through using the word "insurgents". And that in so doing, they'll be fooling a great many Americans who, themselves, know very little about the military, and military verbiage. Ergo, MSM thinks by using the word "insurgent".. they are coming across as "patriotic". I think it's going to bite them back, when they least expect it.
You are so right on all counts!!!
In every word utter.
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.