It would be suicide.
Can't happen. Impossible. The islamic fascists are making war whether we resist or not.
bump
It would be suicide.
Is this a trick question?
Good article, thanks for posting. Larry Elder always seems to be able to articulate just how I feel.
What is the 'merican pipples stomach for " all impeachment alll the time?
The Dems have overplayed their hand in their desperate atempts to gain bck Congress.
Americans may be frustrated with the war on terror, but they don't want to cut and run. A phased pullout is cutting and running.
We need Democrats in charge like we need a hole in Manhattan.
well, part of me says yeah... they complain how we do everything wrong. They have all the answers and if John Kerry were president... we would not be having these problems... /s
Do we really need Democrats....period?
Do we really want Democrats in charge? NO!
You mean this one:
What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic “Gods” in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.
Carter wasn’t finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?
“This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi…Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade.” (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)
Held out as a “celebration” of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.
Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.
To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:
“We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there…But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!”
How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.
But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.
But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carter’s verbal exploits include:
*Regarding President Ronald Reagan’s talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : “I have always thought ‘Star Wars’ was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity”
*Regarding President George H.W. Bush’s preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation.” Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would “reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.”
*Regarding Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement…it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.
There are numerous examples of former president Carter’s innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.
If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be “ineffectual,” for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.
Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.
Or maybe this one (she thinks):
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.
According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."
Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.
Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....
You mean this one:
What this boorish former president forgot to mention was that a couple of Democratic “Gods” in the way of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy--whose brother just happened to be the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy--wiretapped the King family. But to Carter, the facts would only get in the way of a good smear.
Carter wasn’t finished. He decided that the only thing better than a church full of black people from the civil rights era would be a church full of angry black people. What better way than to do that then to once again remind blacks that President Bush controls the very weather that produces racist hurricanes?
“This commemorative ceremony this morning, this afternoon, is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over. We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi…Those who were most devastated by Hurricane Katrina know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans. It is our responsibility to continue their crusade.” (www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)
Held out as a “celebration” of her life, the King funeral had its fair share of Paul Wellstone moments. Few can forget the out and out carrying-on by Democrats--and the hateful treatment of Republicans--at the memorial for Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, who, along with his wife and daughter, perished in a plane crash in October, 2002.
Because of the raucous and incredibly distasteful behavior of the Democrats, it is thought by many to have cost them the elections of 2002.
To be fair and honest (two attributes lost to Carter), there were others who were just as inappropriate in their remarks. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was positively aglow in Bush-bashing fever:
“We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there…But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!”
How the crowd cheered both Carter and Rev. Lowery! From my point of view, I expect this from civil rights fossils like Lowery, Jesse Jackson, and even Al Sharpton. Never one to pass up a good bash at Bush, all three men and those affiliated with them only have one directional speed: Backwards.
But from a former president, I expect more, and so should everyone. It defies explanation how this humane but embittered man from Georgia can say just about anything and not be condemned by a press that certainly knows better.
But really, why should anyone be surprised? Carter has been doing this to Republican Presidents since he was--with extreme prejudice--voted out of office in 1980. Some of Carter’s verbal exploits include:
*Regarding President Ronald Reagan’s talks with Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik : “I have always thought ‘Star Wars’ was a big mistake. My judgment is President Reagan missed a wonderful opportunity”
*Regarding President George H.W. Bush’s preparations during the Gulf War: "We are not planning now a defensive deployment of U.S. forces. We are now planning an offensive operation.” Days later at a conference at New York's Hofstra University, Carter states that if Bush attacks Iraq, the U.S. would “reap great and very serious deleterious consequences politically.”
*Regarding Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in the 2002 State of the Union address: “I think it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement…it was overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
It was once upon a time that U.S. presidents displayed the daily prestige and cognizance of the office of president not only when in it, but also out of it. Principally, criticism of current occupants of the White House was most often relayed privately, and was rarely seen on the op-ed pages of any major news organs. Sadly, former President Carter has deferred to pageantry instead of principle, an apt conclusion for a man whose presidency was more caricature than commanding.
There are numerous examples of former president Carter’s innate resentfulness regarding the successes of others, but these will suffice to show how history is likely to view this man.
If you remember, I asked if a single word could describe just who Jimmy Carter truly is. If I had to choose, the word would be “ineffectual,” for that is how Carter governed when president, and that is how his words today must be viewed.
Instead of continually hitting a war-time president between the eyes with that humanitarian hammer that he carries, Jimmy Carter ought to go south, and build a few homes in New Orleans instead. Heaven knows--as well as the average American--that is all he is good for.
Or maybe this one (she thinks):
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is expanding her complaint about foreign companies owning U.S. ports - and now says a 1999 deal to let a Chinese company takeover the ports at each end of the Panama Canal was a mistake.
According to the New York Observer, she then declared: "Well, just because it's been happening doesn't mean we should let it continue."
Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention, however, that it was her husband who approved the deal in question, when the Chinese company, Hutchison Whampoa, sought to buy the Panama Canal's ports.
Any one of the RATS are bad, they are peas in the same pod....
| DEMOCRATS: WEAK ON DEFENSE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED TO SLASH INTELLIGENCE FUNDING Democrats Have Repeatedly Voted To Cut Intelligence Funding, Even After September 11th:
In 2003, 33 SENATE Democrats Voted To Withhold $50 Million In Intelligence Funding. (H.R. 2658, CQ Vote #287: Motion Agreed To 62-34: R 51-0; D 11-33; I 0-1, 7/17/03)
In 2003, 44 SENATE Democrats Supported An Amendment That Would Have Transferred $300 Million Away From Intelligence Activities. (H.R. 2555, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 50-48: R 48-3; D 2-44; I 0-1, 7/23/03)
In 1996, 154 House Democrats Voted To Reduce The Total Amount Authorized By The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization By 4.9 Percent. (H.R. 3259, CQ Vote #187: Rejected 192-235: R 37-193; D 154-42; I 1-0, 5/22/96)
In 1995, 40 SENATE Democrats Voted To Slash FBI Funding By $80 Million. (H.R. 2076, CQ Vote #480: Adopted 49-41: R 9-40; D 40-1, 9/29/95)
In 1993, 120 House Democrats Voted To Cut Intelligence By $500 Million. (H.R. 2330, CQ Vote #393: Rejected: 134-299: R 13-159; D 120-14; I 1-0, 8/4/93)
In 1989, 31 House Democrats Voted Against Authorizing Appropriations For Intelligence And Intelligence-Related Activities Of The U.S. Government For The CIA And Related Agencies. (H.R. 2748, CQ Vote #288: Passed 369-31: R 161-8; D 208-23, 10/12/89)
DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST FUNDING FOR OUR TROOPS FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR
|
- |
<-------------- |