Posted on 11/13/2004 4:26:07 PM PST by wagglebee
I agree.
As I posted earlier, anyone who thinks this is an opportunity to change those raging, diabolical, blood-thirsty, hate-filled terrorists (mourners) into peace-seeking, tolerant neighbours of Israel is dreaming.
Good luck with that.
By the by, I'm a Judith Anne too!
Amen.
Thank you for again saying this. Arafat, a filthy, stinking, disgusting POS was legitimized by the Klintons. This cannot be emphasized enough in my opinion. And this should be wrapped around Hildebeasts neck for every day of the rest of her existence. Mr. Hildebeasts neck too.
It is refreshing to see someone come out and say exactly what this terrorist was, a terrorist. Just because a terrorist dies doesn't mean that the archives have to be searched in order to fine something nice to say about him. If the only way for a terrorist to quit being a terrorist is to die then good riddance.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id301.htm
A good summary and a must see for liberals who blame President Bush for muslim terrorists.
Nice to meet you. Great minds, and all that. ;-D
BTTT
Arafat was one of the most detestable human beings (and I'm giving him more credit that deserved) in modern history. There is no redeeming virtue anywhere to be found in this reprehensible life. The world is worse for having had him in it.
If the Old Gray Whore had been eulogizing Hitler back in 1945 they way they are with Arafat today, the ball on New Year's Eve would be dropping in "Building Burned in the Defense of Freedom Square."
I think that context is important here. Bush's tone, when Bill Sammon informed him of Arafat's death was, "God bless his soul," the inflection of which suggested to me that Bush believed that Arafat may have led a rotten life but that he was not going to say so about a recently departed man, and that Bush wished his soul good luck, because, bluntly, it was going to need it in the hereafter, when that soul was judged for its behavior here on earth, which behavior was bad, bad, way bad.
The President is not going to say, "may he burn in hell." Bush's comments struck me as Christian in the best "pray for your enemies" sense.
Did the NYTimes publish their letter?
I'm surprised that the Slimes actually published their letter.
BTTT
They need to know we don't all think of Arafat as a hero
just because he's dead.
Proof the MSM does not get it!
Actually, the Shah was a monarch, not really a dictator in the modern sense; he was far better than what followed.
Batista was a Cuban politician who operated within constitutional constraints for much of his career. Cuban politics has long been a scene of turmoil, and Batista was probably no worse than other players on that stage, and certainly better than Castro. For one of the few balanced accounts, see: http://geocities.com/pwhce/batista.html
The Somozas were elected presidents, and followed constitutional practice. There last president overthrown by communists. Anastasio Somoza Debayle, American educated and pro-US, was assassinated in exile by Sandinista agents. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Debayle
None of these three were dictators of the type or to the degree of those who followed them.
Given what we know today about the mendacity and disingenuousness of the NY Times, it is totally beyond my understanding why any thinking person would choose to read that left-wing rag at all.
Daughters love for their father bump.
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.