Posted on 03/05/2005 4:11:36 AM PST by beyond the sea
More important than a committed Rat operative (Soderberg) espousing her cynical and hypocritical Rat political philosophy, was that John Stewart was clearly rethinking his position on GWB's Middle East policy.
Throught 2003 and 2004, Rats selectively decided to focus on WMD's and al Qaeda as the sole justification for invading Iraq, even though it had been quite out in the open *well before the invasion* that a primary goal was to spread democacy in the Middle East.
Example from the indisputable historical record:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/democracy_2-27.html
NewsHour With Jim Lehrer
DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ?
February 27, 2003
MARGARET WARNER: Could Saddam's ouster lead to a democratic Iraq and **broad democratic change in the region**? We turn to two experts on the region.
[snip]
Do you, Patrick Clawson, **share the president's optimism that just as Germany and Japan were transformed after an American-led war into democracies, the same could happen in Iraq?**
[snip]
MARGARET WARNER: Broaden this out now, Patrick Clawson, to *** the president's broader point, which is that if you could get a representative government going in Iraq, that it could be the catalyst for broader democratic change in the region.*** How realistic is that?
"They will sell it to us."
I watched it, and I just don't believe it was Stewart's intention to "ambush" Soderberg (have been watching Stewart for years).
Rather, Stewart was in his own semi-serious way trying to resolve that "cognitive dissonance" he spoke of, by raising pertinent (but uncomfortable) questions to an alleged expert on international affairs.
That Soderberg so frankly unveiled the truth of partisan Rat hypocrisy was her own fault, and not due to Stewart's questions.
"The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation." ... Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is.
Why assume it is, when it isn't?
As I've posted in #41 above, there was a great deal of public and media discussion long prior to the invasion that one central goal was to "democratize" the Middle East in order to dampen terrorist inclinations. I've used the PBS interview above (in #41) merely as one example, but there are many out there.
That Rats and the MSM chose to seize exclusively on WMDs and the "al Qaeda connection" only magnifies their complete willingness to distort the truth and the historical record.
She's thinking out loud.
All the Dem/Libs think the same way.
This privatization directly competes with their own business.
I asked my 20 year old, know-it-all nephew, who's a demwit because he thinks it cool and radical, where he gets his news and he said the daily show.
I said no, c'mon, really..and he said "thats where I get my news..."
I see a life of "Order up for table three" in his indefinite future. Which is just amazing to me, because after all, he knows it all.
Huh? Didn't you mean, "Rome didn't fall in a day".
(which I believe would be more analogous to eventually bringing down AARP as a lobbying 'powerhouse')
Rush and Laura have been talking about this for a few days. Amazing, isn't it.
The Dems won't be happy until a US city gets vaporized by the terrorists, will they?
Democrat = UnAmerican Traitors
Quote: Rush Limbaugh....and that is the truth!
We are not dealing with rational people here, we are dealing with traitors. Brothers or not, neighbors or not, they are traitors. We must overcome this attitude and prevail. The life of our country is at stake.
After noting that the U.S.'s stunning foreign policy success followed the toppling of one of the three members of the axis of evil, Soderberg offered:"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."
I used to get the AARP mailings, but they finally stopped. I took everything that came with the mailing, including the old envelop and stuffed it in their postage paid return envelop and sent it back...just to cost them postage.
That's because real heroes just do their job.
Why is that just when I think nothing the dimwitcRATs say can surprise me I find myself surprised again?
I am not surprised at the fact, but the actual enunciating of this stuff is startling.
I actually had to laugh at the stupidity of it.
In a 1947 letter, after Mr. Byrd had been elected to the state senate, he wrote that he would “never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
The desire to see the destruction of the country rather than the success of their political opponents is an long held feeling among the Democrats, going back at least to the time when Breckinridge lost the presidential election.
Reported in The Best of the Web Today on Wednesday:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006362
(It's still something everyone should be made aware of!)
===========================================
Clintonista Admits Dems Rooting for Terrorists
A senior Clinton administration national security official offered a stunning admission this week, confessing during a national television interview that Democrats are secretly rooting for the Bush administration's war of terrorism to fail.
I believe that if we had another 9/11, democrats would try to politicise it to the hilt, to their detriment. But they have been throwing themselves off a cliff so far why stop now?
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.
