E Pluribus Unum...Unless the Democrats Don't Like You
This is an article written by JP. He is a contributor here. Please visit him at his homepage also. Thank you, and enjoy!
Some people are selfish. Selfish in the way they do not want others to better themselves. Selfish in a way they do not want "theirs" risked when others are improving others.
Selfish by enjoying their freedom and arguing against helping others who suffer in silence, fear, or worse; dying of terrorist violence, or forced to undergo genital mutilation, forced to wear abbayays or gain massive amounts of weight under punishment of death. Some are stoned for flying kites, and while others suffer the wrath for such dastardly offences as holding hands in public.
I mean to say, how can you be "for Freedom" at home, and not abroad? Especially now when we've learned both Saddam and Bin Ladin made advances towards each other
Clearly it was not the Iraqis who began to better their lives by getting rid of Saddam. However, its pretty obvious that they could not-dared not, because Iraq was the closest thing to a Stalinist hell west of North Korea.
Maybe he didn't have nukes, but how could we have known differently, considering his pattern of obfuscation and hiding whatever it was he did have?
Considering the terror he used on his own citizens, we, Americans, had to help. We had to better their prospects. We had to do it, because our security depended on it. So did theirs.
We had to because 9/11 changed the role of punk dictators. Now we have to take notice when some tin-pot crazy man says he wants to kill us, because you know what? He will if he gets the opportunity and weapons.
I bear NO ILL WILL towards those Democrats, Peaceniks and Paleo-Cons who were always against the war. They were wrong, just misguided, risk averse, or stuck in the old "realist" ways. At least they are consistent. I disagree and argue against their theories, but I bear no ill will.
I bring a big ol' pail of ILL WILL to Democrats and wishy washy Republicans who are wimping out on this President, our Men and Women in the Armed Forces, and the war to Free Iraqis and the rest of the world! It is just, it is right, it is improving our security, and it will change the world for the better.
Byron York has pointed out the 9/11 commission report which said this:
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. Accordingto one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin."
Maybe Saddam wasn't interested in helping Bin Ladin then, but what if he changed his mind? And that is a very interesting question, because look what happened later:
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.
The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
Very interesting. Then there's also this:
In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan.
The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:
"Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for some place less accessible.
He wrote Deputy NSA Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq.
If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
"Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. (Was this the memo he stole?) The report says that another NSC staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."
"old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad"
THAT IS VERY INTERESTING TO ME!!!!!
Especially now, when Democrats who were for the war when it waspopular are now against the war when it is not popular. THEY ARE SELFISH for their own political fortunes. They are endangering us all. Without America, none of us have a political future. Think about this for more than a moment.
50 Million Free Muslims and counting. JP. Over and Out.
Some people are selfish. Selfish in the way they do not want others to better themselves. Selfish in a way they do not want "theirs" risked when others are improving others.
Selfish by enjoying their freedom and arguing against helping others who suffer in silence, fear, or worse; dying of terrorist violence, or forced to undergo genital mutilation, forced to wear abbayays or gain massive amounts of weight under punishment of death. Some are stoned for flying kites, and while others suffer the wrath for such dastardly offences as holding hands in public.
I mean to say, how can you be "for Freedom" at home, and not abroad? Especially now when we've learned both Saddam and Bin Ladin made advances towards each other
Clearly it was not the Iraqis who began to better their lives by getting rid of Saddam. However, its pretty obvious that they could not-dared not, because Iraq was the closest thing to a Stalinist hell west of North Korea.
Maybe he didn't have nukes, but how could we have known differently, considering his pattern of obfuscation and hiding whatever it was he did have?
Considering the terror he used on his own citizens, we, Americans, had to help. We had to better their prospects. We had to do it, because our security depended on it. So did theirs.
We had to because 9/11 changed the role of punk dictators. Now we have to take notice when some tin-pot crazy man says he wants to kill us, because you know what? He will if he gets the opportunity and weapons.
I bear NO ILL WILL towards those Democrats, Peaceniks and Paleo-Cons who were always against the war. They were wrong, just misguided, risk averse, or stuck in the old "realist" ways. At least they are consistent. I disagree and argue against their theories, but I bear no ill will.
I bring a big ol' pail of ILL WILL to Democrats and wishy washy Republicans who are wimping out on this President, our Men and Women in the Armed Forces, and the war to Free Iraqis and the rest of the world! It is just, it is right, it is improving our security, and it will change the world for the better.
Byron York has pointed out the 9/11 commission report which said this:
"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. Accordingto one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin."
Maybe Saddam wasn't interested in helping Bin Ladin then, but what if he changed his mind? And that is a very interesting question, because look what happened later:
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban.
According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative.
The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
Very interesting. Then there's also this:
In February 1999, for example, the CIA proposed U-2 aerial-surveillance missions over Afghanistan.
The report says that Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, worried that the mission might spook bin Laden into leaving Afghanistan for somewhere it might be even more difficult for American forces to reach him:
"Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for some place less accessible.
He wrote Deputy NSA Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq.
If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.
"Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. (Was this the memo he stole?) The report says that another NSC staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."
"old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad
old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad"
THAT IS VERY INTERESTING TO ME!!!!!
Especially now, when Democrats who were for the war when it waspopular are now against the war when it is not popular. THEY ARE SELFISH for their own political fortunes. They are endangering us all. Without America, none of us have a political future. Think about this for more than a moment.
50 Million Free Muslims and counting. JP. Over and Out.
posted by Rosemary Welch @ 11/17/2005 11:25:00 PM
|
<< Home