You are in pretty good company on that.
Posted on 01/21/2007 8:58:46 PM PST by smoothsailing
Pelosi's crew and Osama bin Laden share common goal
- Dinesh D'Souza
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Pelosi Democrats sometimes appear to be just as eager as Osama bin Laden for President Bush to lose his war on terror. Why do I say this? Because if the Pelosi Democrats were seeking Bush's success, then their rhetoric and actions now and over the past three years are pretty much incomprehensible. By contrast, if you presume that they want Bush's war on terror to fail, then their words and behavior make perfect sense.
Shortly before the November election, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi spoke about the American effort to capture or kill bin Laden. "Even if he is caught tomorrow, it's five years too late," she said. "He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But in fact, the damage that he has done is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer."
From the point of view of new House Speaker Pelosi and her fellow liberal Democrats, bin Laden today is, well, a small problem.
Listen to Pelosi and her colleagues on the left speaking about Bush, however, and it's clear they regard him as a very big problem.
Sen. Robert Byrd compares Bush to Hermann Goering and the Nazis. Hillary Clinton accuses him of "turning back the clock on the 20th century ... systematically weakening the democratic tradition. ... There has never been an administration more intent upon consolidating and abusing power." Sen. Ted Kennedy charges that "no president in America's history has done more damage to our country than George W. Bush."
What emerges from these comments is the indignation gap -- the vastly different level of emotion that leftists and liberals employ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
For later.
fixed this one too
LOL!
It is nice to see that in print. I hope it is repeated often.
A very good article by D'Souza. I wasn't unfamiliar with him until yesterday and read an article that came from Townhall.
I'm going to get his book "The Enemy At Home" and read it, it was recommended by another FReeper.
I can't believe the Chronicle printed it either, I'll bet they really upset a lot of their readers. LOL
Ugh!
unfamiliar = familiar
Unfortunately the Administration is so busy with the new tone of getting along they were completely blind to what was happening. Now they are being swallowed by the left leaving the citizens who voted into office a man they thought was conservative to the wolves.
Rome fell and America is on it's way. I am sure the 'Founding Father's' are turning over in their graves.
You are in pretty good company on that.
I wish someone in the military would shut up all these backseat driver Dims who act like if they were in charge, Bin Laden would have been captured on September 12.
***************************************************
"Consequently the left seems to have developed a devious strategy to share the aims of the enemy abroad in order to defeat the enemy at home. It started in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Leading leftists like Kurt Vonnegut, Toni Morrison, Barbara Ehrenreich, Katha Pollit, Jane Fonda, Spike Lee, Oliver Stone and others took out full-page newspaper ads to galvanize public opposition to Bush's planned invasion of Afghanistan. The left organized more than 100 rallies to stop this action. If the left had been successful, the Taliban would still be in power and the al Qaeda training camps might still be in operation.
The left could not stop Bush in Afghanistan, but it is on the verge of stopping him in Iraq. Now that Iraq has become the central front in the war on terror, the left is working overtime to engineer a Saigon-style evacuation of the American military. The left's view was passionately stated some time ago by Moore. "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'terrorists' or the 'enemy.' They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." It's pretty obvious whose side Moore and his fellow leftists are on.
Of course as an elected official, Pelosi can't admit she wants America to lose in Iraq, but what she can do is erect obstacles at every juncture so that it's impossible for Bush to succeed there. First, try to block the request for more troops. Then, try to block the call for needed additional funds. Then, when the time is right, push to redeploy American troops away from the fighting and to places in the Middle East, where they are powerless to stop the insurgency from toppling the elected Iraqi government.
Who knows what will happen next? It seems likely that Islamic radicals of one sort or another will assume power in Iraq. But an even safer bet, if Pelosi succeeds, is that Bush's Middle East policy will fall into ruins, he will go down in history as a president as bad as Nixon, and conservative foreign policy will be disgraced for a generation.
Since foreign policy has traditionally been a political strength for the Republicans, what could be better from the left's point of view than to turn the war on terror into a millstone around the neck of the right? Yes, we may lose Iraq to the Islamic radicals and this would further jeopardize American interests in the Middle East, but all of this would be a price worth paying for inflicting a cataclysmic political defeat on Bush and the right wing. Hillary could walk into the Oval Office in '08."
And that is why we must make significant progress this year!
Clinton was nothing but a suckhole internationally. And it got a lot of good Americans killed.
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.