'Iraq not part of war on terror'? - (Hal Lindsey exposes Pelosi as embarrassing ignoramus!)

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?

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.

The Democrat leadership has apparently chosen where to place their loyalties. Their words and actions threaten us as well.

Amen to that.....

******************************************************************

Unholy Alliance
by David Horowitz
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526076X
Hardcover - 256 pages (September 2004)

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the “Great Satan” with America’s radical Islamic enemies. This Left, which once made common cause with Communists, has now joined forces with radical Islam in attacking America’s defenses at home and its policies abroad. From their positions of influence in the university and media culture, leftists have defined America as the “root cause” of the attacks against it. In a remarkable exploration of the “Mind of the Left,” Horowitz traces the evolution of American radicalism from its Communist past to its “anti-war” present. He then shows how this Left was able to turn the Democratic Party presidential campaign around and reshape its views on the War on Terror.

Horowitz’s Unholy Alliance, writes John Haynes, the noted historian of American Communism, “is an insightful, brilliant examination of the mental world of the radical left. Horowitz shows how today’s radicals, unwilling to reflect on the internal flaws that destroyed Marxism-Leninism from within, have embraced an all-consuming nihilism in its place. This has led them to a hatred of American institutions and a solidarity with Islamic terrorists that makes the radical left more properly regarded as dangerous than loony.”

Unholy Alliance is an eye-opening book that should unsettle conventional assumptions and reveals why intellectuals and political leaders who applaud Michael Moore are no laughing matter. As Harvey Klehr, author of Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, writes, “The world Communist movement may be moribund, but its habits of mind and ideological fantasies have not disappeared. This is a fascinating and depressing account.”

Price: $19.01 - Click here to order:

He's not going around calling for the end of the world within a 'few years' only for it to not come true.

He is teaching a demonstrable falsehood, and not with a caveat. And frankly, I could (and have in other times and places) demonstrated the damage that preterism does to the faith. It takes the vast majority of Scripture, and for all practical purposes calls it irrelevant--only certain passages are expounded upon, and those not very well.

But that's a whole 'nuther discussion. For now, it's enough to note that you pick and choose who to get uptight over based on whether you agree with them or not. Better by far to simply say, "They're wrong, here's why," and leave the polemic ("False prophet! Heretic! Seducer of men from the Gospel!") at the door.

The more I read about Lindsey, the more he's starting to sound like Joseph Smith if you ask me.

Then you've read nothing about either man. Joseph Smith claimed direct, divine inspiration and messages. That makes him a false prophet in every sense of the word. Hal Lindsey simply comments on the times, shows how he thinks they line up with Scripture, and sticks in a bunch of caveats when he knows he's really going out on a limb.

Again, if you truly can't see the difference, then you are too Spiritually immature to continue this discussion with. That being the case, I'll probably be kicking the dust from my sandals after this round.

Since I've changed denominations, I see the lot has spent more time on prophecy than be workers Christ called us all to be.

You aren't in a position to judge. Prophecy is a part of Scripture. It is a part that is very poorly taught in most quarters. Therefore, for there to be those whose aren't just teaching it, but who have it (or see it, at the least) as their major calling in the Spirit should not be surprising to us, since there needs to be a correction of that imbalance in the Body.

But in any case, Hal's written and spoken on a lot more than prophecy--it's just what he's best known for. Chuck Missler's even more well-rounded (and brilliant in his commentaries), but he gets the same treatment from your lot.

But, again, all this is just a pleasant diversion from the real issue, the only one that I started out picking on you for: You claimed that Hal had made many prophecies as to the date of the Rapture. You have yet to back this statement up or back down. Until you do, you remain a liar and a slanderer.

Changing the subject? I point out another of his missed 'prophecies'.

Again, Hal does not and has never claimed to prophesy. By continuing to use that term so that you can squeeze in your "false prophet" label, you are knowingly continuing to lie, or you are too immature to know the difference. If you want to claim that Hal is a false teacher, that's more reasonable--but you'd better be prepared to use that same label on DeMarr!

And again, a single bit of commentary from Lew Rockwell does not "disprove" Hal. It simply presents an opposing view on an ongoing controversy. And since Messiah Yeshua, Sha'ul, Yochanan (John), and Daniel all refer to the existence of the Temple in the time just before the Second Coming, we who are premillennial take them at their word that there will be some manner of Temple. This is doubly reinforced with Ezekiel speaks of an even grander Temple after the Second Coming.

Let's see--the Messiah, the Apostles, and the Prophets . . . or Lew. Whichever should I side with?

Yes, I'm taking this (and you) lightly. It's kinda hard not to when you start out accusing Hal of making many predictions of the date of the Rapture, can provide only one (which I then ripped to shreds on the basis of what Hal actually wrote) and have since dodged all over creation to avoid any more of the "many" dates that you supposedly have in your collection.

Provide those other dates first, with contextual quotes, or back down and admit that you falsely represented the situation. Until then, you remain a liar, and I see no reason to have a serious debate with an unrepenatent liar.

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.

Frankly, you have yet to show that Hal has "wrapped himself in the nonsense of trying to predict something even He said we couldn't do." I'm still waiting for that.

I, and the vast majority of premillennialists, agree that "no one knows the day or hour." However, remember the context of that statement: Yeshua had just finished giving an outline of the signs (plural) that would lead up to His Coming: The birthpangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, etc.; the spread of the Gospel to every ethnic group (ethnos) in the world; the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place in Judea (which implies the rebuilding of the Temple--and I'm sorry, if you know what the AoD is, you know it didn't happen in 70 AD); the Great Tribulation; and the darkening of the heavenly lights. The prophets gave other signs.

What Hal and other futurists (myself included) are commenting on is the fact that many of these signs are either taking place, or else we're seeing the set-up for them taking place (like having a Jewish state in the Land of Israel again). Since Yeshua chided the Pharisees for not observing the signs of their own times (Mt. 16:3), we're striving not to make the same mistake.

Now, for the record, I do agree that pretribulational Rapturism (which I do not agree with) does pose the risk (not the certainty) of an escapist worldview, and that it is possible for one to become imbalanced in their walk in purusing Scriptural prophecy. However, I've seen equal risk and equally bad fruit on the preterist side (like making 90% of the Scriptures either incomprehensible or irrelevant), so you can't claim the high ground in that.

One thing we do agree on: 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. Yep. We've got work to do here. But that doesn't mean that we get so busy that we ignore the signs altogether. If God didn't want us to have recognizable signs of the Messiah's return, He wouldn't have given them to us.

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.

:o)

...YES!!!