Monday, October 02, 2006

Remember way back when this was this issue the Donkeys were peddling?

Way back when, far far in the past the Iraq war was supposed to be the wave the Democrats were riding to take over Washington. They dropped it like a hot potato when they decided that a better strategy was to try to convince the citizenry that ALL Republicans are pedophiles. At least it keeps them from having to ever tell us what they would do if they got power back. By the way the distant past I speak of was last week. David Limbaugh takes us back to last week when the Democrats pretended to care about Iraq.

The November elections are fast approaching, and we still don't have the faintest idea what the Democrats would do in Iraq. That's because they have no earthly idea and certainly no consensus. That's why we should call their bluff and make this the issue of the campaign and debate it every day.

For purposes of argument let's assume as true their debatable allegation that attacking Iraq has set us back in the war on terror because terrorists have used it as a recruiting tool. How should we use this information constructively?

We first have to ask why our attack has driven terrorist recruitment. The antiwar left's unspoken insinuation is that our attack was immoral, perhaps even criminal, and terrorists, being morally sensitive creatures, are justifiably outraged at our alleged neoconservative imperialism.

Without question, Democrats have been trying to paint America's invasion of Iraq as criminal. How else can we interpret their endless allegations that Bush lied about Iraqi WMD and about a relationship between Saddam and 9/11 to fabricate an excuse for war?


I like the way you framed it as a fairy tale.

This sentence stuck out for me:

"They want the United States to be part of the worldwide caliphate as well, and at whatever point we resist, they will have their greatest terrorist recruitment tool yet."
Okay, this post was NOT here when I commented on the last one. What kind of evil magic are you working here, Prison Bitch?

Wait, am I not supposed to use that name on your blog? Whoops!
OMG, you so hate me right now. My bad.

You certainly do know how to make an entrance. Just where is it that you are supposed to call me Prison Bitch?

Buy Danish,

That argument about more attacks meaning we should back off never makes sense to me.
Are you boycotting me today?
RW: Is Paul at ml's also Thomas? He signed his last post "Cheers".

He might be, Paul is just as verbose and obnoxious.

Is rushncap Paul whose Thomas? He just called you a prick and signed off "Cheers".

Cheers, where everybody knows your name......or not. :-P
Brian Ross was just on with O'Reilly and said that nobody knew about the salacious IM's in the Foley deal until this weekend. How the hell is all this white noise being generated when the reporter that is in the center of the story even says what's being said isn't true?

This is sure suspicious.
So it's adults eh?
Buy Danish/RW: I'm going through every link within your links. So is this Wild Bill guy going to blow this scandal open? Is that what I'm reading?

I'm confused. Who's the chubby guy that appeared on T.V. and why didn't he return Bill's phone call?

This thing is so convoluted it's amazing that anyone walks around talking like they know the facts. Of course that doesn't stop the moonbats at ml's from pretending they do. One thing that seems to be wrong about the "he was an adult" angle is that two of the IM's seem to be from three weeks before the guy turned 18. Keep in mind liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg wanted to have the age of consent dropped to 12 or something.

The chubby guy on TV is a former page that was running a blog about or for former pages, it seems very odd that he has just about shut it down after people started nosing around and he went from seeming very sure of his story at first on TV and now seems very nervous. It may be the pressure, but it may be that he was coached and ready by a certain political party that doesn't start with an R and doesn't want to get too close to him now that people are also looking at them.
RW: I was going to use the word convoluted but wasn't sure of the spelling. The age of 12????? I had no idea.

You forgot to answer the most important question. Did I understand that this Bill guy is planning on blowing the cover on this?

RW, have I mentioned how much I appreciate you keeping me informed. If not, I am now. I have been uninformed most of my life. After reading yours & BD's links, I was ready to say that the internet and bloggers need to be shut down, but then I thought....
what would I know without RW's blog. A double-edged sword I guess.

I could absolutely keep you tied up with a zillion questions, but then you wouldn't have time to do the research to answer them.

It sounds like he wants to and he seems to have found out a few things. On the other hand Michelle Malkin thinks he's a publicity hound in his own right and should stop. I tend to disagree with Michelle on this one, as despicable as what Foley was doing is it's also important to know who knew this and how long they left pages vulnerable while holding the information for political gain.

It's also worth looking into to see if there is any funny business going on with adding fake IM's into the mix knowing that he can't really dispute them if he was drunk and sending some things like them to pages. I sure wouldn't put it past Democrats to try to magnify the problem.

I've finally had a chance to go through more links. That Wild Bill "Passionate America" page is exasperating. How freaking annoying it is to read a blog where the type overlays the RH column?

BUT he is to be commended for a bang up detective job in finding photos of the Lacrosse player so finchie can hang his picture on his bedroom ceiling.

This Foley story is getting harder to follow than a John La Carre novel co-written by Kitty Kelley.
Buy Danish,

It might be your browser, it looks fine for me using IE.

Apparently Hastert was set to announce an independent investigation with Louie Freeh heading it up and the Democrats would have none of it today. Sounds to me like they really, really want to have a show trial in the House, but no way they want a real investigation.

I am ready to throw my one year old computer out the window.

If I use IE I don't get any of your links on the RH side. So I switched to Mozilla but that has it's own set of problems - such as making "passionate america" virtually unreadable. Plus it's history doesn't seem to be reliable - if I do a bunch of Google searches it doesn't keep a record of them.

I have done all the standard computer clean up stuff to no avail.

I'm about to turn into Cartman again.

P.S. Why are we still using this thread? I keep getting lost.

"I know I saw that darned link somewhere. Where TF was it?"
Buy Danish,

Doesn't Mozilla have an IE gateway or something like that? Wouldn't it be a kick if Netscape was the best one now?
Sorry! I have the advantage of having comments emailed to me so I can jump around much easier.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?