The 9-10 Nutters On The Loose
Michelle Malkin gets the Hat Tip for both of these, with a minor nod to Hugh Hewitt on the Hillary piece. First, I'm going to touch on the other nut in the MSM (No, not Hiltzik, Henry, or Cafferty) that lovable jurassic lady in the white house, Helen Thomas.
Scott! Why do you keep linking Iraq and 9/11 and so forth? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And you keep--we started the war in Iraq. We brought the terrorists in, so-called (makes quote-unquote gestures with her fingers). People are dying every day in Iraq...
OK. To start off, Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11. I know the 9/11 Commission determined that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I get that, however no one can discount the numerous times that al Qaeda and Iraq worked together--hand in hand--in their "jihad" against the West. I put this up earlier this month. It clearly lays out several ties to al Qaeda that Saddam Hussein's regime had.
As a matter of fact, recent information I've found shows that there was a more solid tie between Iran and al Qaeda when it comes to 9/11, including flight training for a couple of the hijackers. (I'll detail this soon; I still have a bit to read on it.) But regardless of what the toothless velociraptor in the White House claims, we didn't bring in any terrorists. They were already there. We had a flood of them come in from Syria and from Iran, but al Qaeda's been there for awhile. Finally, I doubt Helen thomas sheds one tear for those who die in Iraq, or those that die in Afghanistan; at least not for our losses, or those of the civilians.
Our next matter covered by the beautiful Ms. Malkin revolves around this from Sen. Hillary Clinton:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.
In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.
Now, some would say, "Yeah, so what?" What, indeed, as Hugh Hewitt (the minor Hat-Tip alluded to above) puts this quote in context. What the Syracuse paper failed to do was finish that quote. She specifically states, in succession to this statement, that we should rely on china and Russia to help us; in effect calling for the outsourcing of the Iranian problem that's brewing. Excuse me? Didn't she just chastise the White House for doing just that? These people just can't get it straight, anyway you look at it.
These people have absolutely no idea what's going on in the world. Not yesterday, not today, and most assuredly, not tomorrow. They have no clue. They have been on a scathing, seething attack for the last five years--doing everything in their power to tear down one single man. Of course, this comes purely from jealousy that they couldn't be a "dunce" like Pres. Bush. Tell me, if this man were as stupid as they portray, then what does that say for their party when they can't beat him.
As it stands, rather than going into an election season with a platform and a vision for the future of America--in attempt to take ths issues away from the GOP--these people are going to stay on the attack. It's really embarrassing to be associated with these people. Is there anyway we can help the Canadian liberals by sending ours north of the border?
Publius II
Michelle Malkin gets the Hat Tip for both of these, with a minor nod to Hugh Hewitt on the Hillary piece. First, I'm going to touch on the other nut in the MSM (No, not Hiltzik, Henry, or Cafferty) that lovable jurassic lady in the white house, Helen Thomas.
Scott! Why do you keep linking Iraq and 9/11 and so forth? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And you keep--we started the war in Iraq. We brought the terrorists in, so-called (makes quote-unquote gestures with her fingers). People are dying every day in Iraq...
OK. To start off, Iraq may or may not have had anything to do with 9/11. I know the 9/11 Commission determined that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I get that, however no one can discount the numerous times that al Qaeda and Iraq worked together--hand in hand--in their "jihad" against the West. I put this up earlier this month. It clearly lays out several ties to al Qaeda that Saddam Hussein's regime had.
As a matter of fact, recent information I've found shows that there was a more solid tie between Iran and al Qaeda when it comes to 9/11, including flight training for a couple of the hijackers. (I'll detail this soon; I still have a bit to read on it.) But regardless of what the toothless velociraptor in the White House claims, we didn't bring in any terrorists. They were already there. We had a flood of them come in from Syria and from Iran, but al Qaeda's been there for awhile. Finally, I doubt Helen thomas sheds one tear for those who die in Iraq, or those that die in Afghanistan; at least not for our losses, or those of the civilians.
Our next matter covered by the beautiful Ms. Malkin revolves around this from Sen. Hillary Clinton:
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran as it resumes its nuclear program and faulted the Bush administration for "downplaying" the threat.
In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the United States to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.
"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said.
Now, some would say, "Yeah, so what?" What, indeed, as Hugh Hewitt (the minor Hat-Tip alluded to above) puts this quote in context. What the Syracuse paper failed to do was finish that quote. She specifically states, in succession to this statement, that we should rely on china and Russia to help us; in effect calling for the outsourcing of the Iranian problem that's brewing. Excuse me? Didn't she just chastise the White House for doing just that? These people just can't get it straight, anyway you look at it.
These people have absolutely no idea what's going on in the world. Not yesterday, not today, and most assuredly, not tomorrow. They have no clue. They have been on a scathing, seething attack for the last five years--doing everything in their power to tear down one single man. Of course, this comes purely from jealousy that they couldn't be a "dunce" like Pres. Bush. Tell me, if this man were as stupid as they portray, then what does that say for their party when they can't beat him.
As it stands, rather than going into an election season with a platform and a vision for the future of America--in attempt to take ths issues away from the GOP--these people are going to stay on the attack. It's really embarrassing to be associated with these people. Is there anyway we can help the Canadian liberals by sending ours north of the border?
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home