Posted on 09/01/2004 9:30:22 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Giuliani: "The idea that taking out Saddam Hussein wasn't part of the War On Terrorism really misunderstands the War On Terrorism."Behar: "No, but people say it was a distraction from going after bin Laden."
Giuliani: "No it wasn't! Saddam Hussein was one of the principal supporters of international terrorism. He was sitting on top of $4 billion or $5 billion, he had used weapons of mass destruction, and Abu Nidal, who killed Leon Klinghoffer and maybe about 25 other Americans and a hundred other people, was operating out of Iraq."
Behar: "So were the Saudis!" .
The proper response to this DNC/Michael Moore talking point is always "So then you support going to war against Saudi Arabia?"
no, I'm not, Ive been here since november of 2000 when rush mentioned free republic during the election dispute.
For the good of the board don't get territorial about 'your' threads. If there's an existing one, help the site by contributing to that one and not clogging up board with minor variations on the same article.
Every morning I go through all the threads since I last read the board and usually see many articles that are posted 2 or 3 times because people don't bother to check for duplicates before posting. Then we have 2, 3, or 4 threads each with it's own comments that is just wasting bandwidth and making it more expensive to operate the site. And the clutter wastes the time of people reading the site. It's inefficient.
I'm anxiously anticipating the roll call of celebrities who'll be calling for the carpet bombing of Riyadh.
It seems like they want to intentially misunderstand this statement. I think of it this way. Imagine two football teams in a game, the Cowboys and the Steelers. One of the players for the Cowboys criticizes the coach for bad play-calling. This does not mean he's 'with the Steelers'. However, if he begins rooting for the Steelers to win, then he IS. In fact, this is what some on the Left seem to do. They actually want the terrorists to win.
"Does anyone believe for one moment that Joy-less Behar was thinking.....oh I wish Al Gore was the president on that awful day?"
***
I sure do. Which is what gives me such worry about our future.
Here in L.A. we had some sort of local election with a couple of ballot measures shortly after 9/11 and I recall some old woman saying right there in the polling place how horrified she was that Clinton was no longer president and what are we going to do now?
Behar: "I know, but so would Al Gore. Don't you think he would have been as tough on it? Of course he would. Any President would respond."Sure Gore would have attacked Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power and scooped up Al Qaeda members-- just like Bill did when Al Qaeda attacked us all those times. Oh, wait.Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "I don't think so." [Audience applause]
Giuliani: "No."
Behar: "You don't?"
Giuliani: "No, I don't think there's any chance at all that Al Gore would have been as determined. I think Al Gore would have backed off now about four times with the kind of criticism that George Bush– [trails off]" [Audience applause and boos] . Giuliani: "Taking out Saddam Hussein was critical to defeating global terrorism."
Again, we all will be alerted to our wasting the time of readers as well as the bandwidth thru our faux pas in posting.
Thanks again and...
You have a good day,
fight_truth_decay ;)
Brooklyn native.
Though overall it sure looks like Rudy put his foot in a few butts pretty hard, straight and true -- There is one thing I wish he would have said to further clarify the point about with-us-or-against-us:
Yes, you can have misgivings about the invasion of Iraq without being unpatriotic. It's the REASONS GIVEN for said misgivings/objections/dissent that determines whether you are patriotic or not.
For example: if you're a military wife with 5 mouths to feed and no family or support system to help you if your husband is KIA, I can understand being against invading Iraq.
But if you take the Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky/Jim McDermott/Hollywood line that the invasion of Iraq is more evidence that America is an inherently evil, corrupt, genocidal institution, then I don't know how much more UN-patriotic can get than that. Sheesh -- with "patriots" like that, who needs traitors?
The View, or as Hubby calls it "The Screaming Witches"
He pronounces "Witches" with a "B" though.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
LOL! Repeat, as needed.
Winner!
Watching The View.
Edvard Munch's "The Scream":
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some uninformed viewers think the host's "views" are the actual facts on a subject. They use Barbara Walters's background and those of some of the hosts', as well, to present an image of a news team...with "giggles".
Some uninformed viewers think the host's "views" are the actual facts on a subject. They use Barbara Walters's background and those of some of the hosts', as well, to present an image of a news team...with 'giggles'."
***
True, and I used to be one of them 20 years ago. Any time a 60 Minutes or 20/20 "expose" came on the tube, their credibility with me was very high and I sat there wide-eyed because, hey -- these are 'serious news people' so this must really be a serious situation!
But after years of soaking up rather gratuitous (to say the least) hip Anti-American cynicism from people I knew and having it largely supported by these serious news people, I was at the tipping point. It had been grating against my North Carolina conservative value system (not to mention common sense) on a subconscious level and this frustration was finally bubbling to the surface.
Then I caught Rush one day on the radio -- and like most converts, I didn't like him at first.
But his slogan he used to say a lot in those days was to listen for 6 weeks and you would start to "get" the show definite applied. The braggadocio and bombastic-ness, I figured out at long last, was just a way to tweak lib noses, and when I understood it that way, it was hilarious.
I made it official in '92 when I registered Republican. I was never exactly a Joy Behar but I was a bit soccer-mommish (embarrassing for a guy).
They can revise their stories but they can't revise the truth.
I was there!
Hmmm. Perhaps he can have that lisp checked. ;)
Here, honey, let me help you bash those dishes. Say, can you bake me up at 6:00 tomorrow morning? I bonder what's on TV now?
Shalom.
"From my recollections, the dems were whispering among themselves that they were thankful it wasn't Gore.
They can revise their stories but they can't revise the truth.
I was there!"
***
I believe you. Gore was never nearly as solidly backed and loved by the Democrats as Clinton, but they had no choice since he was the sitting Veep and not nominating him would be admitting they made a mistake. But he was Clintonian vacillation and indecision without Clinton's charm and charisma (as is Kerry).
I'm not saying that none of the Democrats secretly prefer Bush against Al Qaeda & Co., only that I believe someone like Behar could be that way and that she is far from alone.
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.