US (Democrat) anger over Howard comments ("Al Qaeda wants Obama & Dems")

PRIME Minister John Howard has been described as bizarre and irrelevant by US Democrats after he launched an attack on Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. Mr Howard said yesterday al-Qaeda would be praying for an Obama-led White House because Senator Obama has promised to withdraw US combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.

A string of Democrats have reacted angrily to Mr Howard's comments which have received widespread media coverage in the US.

Terry McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, criticised Mr Howard's strong links to US President George W. Bush.

"The prime minister has been a great friend of George Bush's, he has been with him lock-step from day one on this war in Iraq," Mr McAuliffe said.

"He and George Bush, they can go off and talk to each other, we don't care what he says."

"The most charitable thing you can say about Mr Howard's comment is bizarre," Senator Wyden said.

Aren't these the people who believe in multilateralism?

In demspeak,

bi-partisan = Republicans doing what Democrats want

multilateralism = U.S. doing what France and the UN want.

Hence since the begining of the war in Iraq, they have called it unilateral. Even though many countries have troops there. But not France.

Give me the Aussies over the Democrats any day of the week. As far as dealing with actual threats is concerned, the Democrats are bizarre and irrelevant. Their success in regaining the two Houses of Congress must rest on their capacity for lying, and the willingness of most of the news media to go along with them.

Their success lies, IMHO, on their capacity for lying and their willingness to go along with Big Journalism. This is my opinion because if you study on it, Big Journalism has the motive to denigrate the people who actually do things instead of merely talking about things. "Liberal" politicians don't have to buy journalism's favor with money, "liberal" politicians simply say the things journalism wants said.
Journalism was politics when Hamilton and Jefferson were sponsoring competing newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles, and journalism is politics now. Journalism will always be politics. If journalism is free, journalism will always promote itself at the expense of those who actually do things. Of course journalism is not free, in the sense that it is constrained by the need to make money from advertisers in addition to any paying readership it may have. That may perhaps temper the tendency of journalism to criticize producers, but at the same time it inflames it - journalists don't like having to say positive things about people whom they would rather criticize.
Journalism is politics, and the most political claim of all is the claim of objectivity (or of wisdom, which pretty much amounts to the same thing).

Which Republican candidate is going to be bold enough to speak this truth?

If, and when, Obama is the Rat Presidential nominee, it will indeed be spoken. In the meantime, why not let the Rats engage in a circular firing squad around Barry O?

No sense in having a Republican PO black voters when Hillary and her cronies are willing to do the job, and take the blame for it.

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.