|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:21 pm Post subject: Senator -(dumb slur)- |
    |
|
It is an absolute mystery why the citizens of the state of Massachusetts have elected and re-elected Ted Kennedy to the Senate over and over again for 42 years. Because every time he speaks out on an issue, he is an absolute embarrassment to his constituents.
Now the brave hero of Chappaquiddick has decided to regale us with his solution to the growing insurgency in Iraq. It's all so easy. We just leave! We cut and run. That's right, he's calling for the United States to simply leave Iraq. "There will be more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course," says Ted. Oh really? What does he propose will happen if we just leave?
First of all .. someone has to say this, so I will. With those words yesterday Ted Kennedy signed a death warrant for more American soldiers. Those words encouraged the people in Iraq who are trying to kill their fellow Iraqis and as many American troops as they can. If, in the next few days, you get that knock on the door telling you that your son or daughter was killed in a bombing in Iraq, you might want to reflect on the role Ted Kennedy played in that tragedy. I just can't say it strongly enough. This man is a vile, repugnant, leftist and he's costing lives .. American lives ... in Iraq.
So .. what if we do follow Kennedy's advice? What will happen is another Taliban, that's what. The Islamic jihadists will immediately take over, start executing all of the non-believers, enslave the women and institute a terrorist state. Training camps would be set up, and we would have a whole new generation of suicide bombers, hijackers and Al-Qaeda hit men, all thanks to Teddy Kennedy's disastrous foreign policy advice.
What kind of message would that send to the rest of the world? To the Iraqi people? To the other members of the Coalition? The wrong message. Then again, Ted Kennedy specializes in cutting and running. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1116
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I don't know why anybody votes for Teddy K either, but Chappaquiddick and Al-Queda sounds a bit desparate to me.
Now answer the nice Congressman from Texas, Donald. You can trust him. He's a doctor:
Transcript
A Big Mistake: by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, January 26, 2005
America’s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting – hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic’s goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made – man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to ensure the best results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence – refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts!
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We’ll probably not be any different.
We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have been spent. Whether or not we’re better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We’ve created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new super CIA agency.
Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail, to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It’s frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.
We don’t understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation’s airports.
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state.
It’s no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.
All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected.
The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA’s bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer!
TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government intrusions into our lives.
The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent upon the government.
After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and a political takeover by the TSA – which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the Transportation Secretary’s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.
We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms – long denied the right – should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs skyrocket.
If we’re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:
1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for “doing good?”
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don’t hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
15. What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms?
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won’t have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, “justified” by current U.S. policy?
23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret – an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
30. What if the “stop-loss” program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?
31. What if the Pentagon’s legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation – which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy – doesn’t bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war – and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?
Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government – to provide for national security – has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to protect Washington D.C. and New York City.
Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan – our “trusted ally” that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s.And it’s safe to say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign policy.
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us – while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected – result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self-interest.
I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these concerns. If I’m completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.
But the bigger question is:
What if I’m right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?
For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1087
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was priviledged to live in Massachusetts myself at the time when we proudly displayed "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Massachusetts" bumper stickers on our Valiants and Coronas. (Remember those?)
That was back when the USA re-elected another deeply corrupt Republican president, during another disastrous war of foreign intervention, that time by the overwhleming margin of 49 states to just one: Massachusetts. (In contrast to last year, and G. W. Bush's smallest-ever relection vote percentage).
And remember what happened to that Republican president when the cover-ups just couldn't cover up any longer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, RH, my best attempt to share my response in answering to your cut and run senators "What Ifs" to the world and you, the others who are waiting with baited breath on what we should do:
1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?
..After this past election in Iraq, we will see the middle east changed over time in the next ten years...
2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?
...we know this is not true, as his past history of mass destruction of his own people prove that to be false...open your eyes and take a good look...what did he do with those skud missles anyway???
3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?
....what if they were never allies has nothing to do with the ultimate removal of Saddam Hussein...
4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?
...we will never know the answer to this, as he is now in the hands of his own people, and after this weekend, will ultimately be judged by his own people.
5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?
...What if our past policy in the Middle East lead to the overthrow of our client oil states? Same answer applies to both....take action...don't sit and wait for disaster to strike first!
6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?
These facts are known to the American people, and there is an overwhelming support of the war against terrorism by the American people....our past election supports this fact.
7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?
We will seek to search them out and remove them as expeditiously as possible...
8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for “doing good?”
These are the results of war, and this past election for democracy and freedom is an acceptable price for any nation to pay.
9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?
This will never happen, as DR will always be in control in the war against terrorism....according to W2.
10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?
This sounds like a paranoid senator joing the forces of TK's "Cut and Run" committee...
11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?
Nothing should be done...the naysayers are many and the "disaster awaiting" has never come to fruition.
12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?
After last weekends election, the USA can now allow the Iraqis determine how they want to slice up the pie and determine their future destiny in as many regions as they deem necessary...
13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don’t hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?
After last weeks statement made public from Al Qaeda, this is not found to be true.
14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?
We continue and have continued to find OBL...and he will be found and brought to justice....D or A.
15. What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms?
We are finding this to be true even today as we speek...the Iraqis are dancing in the streets now.
16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
We are talking of those very things...where have you been senator?
17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?
We have not found any new training camps since our occupation of the mideast world...if we do, we will search them out and remove them...this is war against terrorist radicals and will be so until they are removed.
18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?
To date there has not been any attack on US soil since 9/11....and will continue to be so with the HLS in place....and the USA now pursuing other nations in the axis of evil.
19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?
Things may be more uncertain in this world wouldn't they?
20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won’t have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?
Same answer as 18 above.
21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
What freedoms are you willing to give up? Please be more specific.
22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, “justified” by current U.S. policy?
I suppose we will have the option of taking them on one at a time....with or without the - dumb slur - baking us up.
23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?
I suppose we will have the option of addressing them on one at a time....with or without the axis-of-weasels baking us up.
24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?
Pakistan is not a threat to the US, here or abroad. They are more a threat to India. Lets focus on Korea and take them one at a time please.
25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?
Diplomacy first is our motto...and then the decision to respond will be assessed.
26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret – an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?
Sounds like you are trying to stir things up senator...lets try to be more optomistic and join in this past weeks celebration in Iraq.
27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?
We continue to make things better than the Clinton Administration ever tried to do. Our armed forces have steadily grown over the past 4 years and will continue to do so....lets not crtiicize with any more kneejerk reactions.
28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?
We will always be governed by the rule of Law, not man...isn't there a state of the union coming up...lets wait and see what comes out from that.
29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
The draft will never be a solution in mobilizing troops...lets bring the troops home, and in the upcoming state of the union address, I believe you will get a better indication of where the state of the troops are.
30. What if the “stop-loss” program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?
No, the troops are very supportive...and rebellion is not in the eyes of the troops, exspecially after last weeks election.
31. What if the Pentagon’s legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?
If "Ifs and buts were fruits and nuts everyday would be Christmas."
32. What if the intelligence reform legislation – which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy – doesn’t bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?
Nothing could be more important than our security and freedoms...its the Democratic party you need to worry about Senator, for it is under their control where we end up with your "bigger, more expensive bureaucracy "....and foreign policy under the past D regime was non-existant.
33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?
Open your eyes senator....its time to get those lenses cleaned.
34. What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war – and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?
What if, senator, just what if nothing matters and what if it did? What would you do  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1116
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
so to sum it up: 100,000 deaths and illegality are acceptable to you - the last person who still insists that there were "WMD" in Iraq ?
sounds a bit like Madeleine Albright who considered the confirmed figure of over three quarters of a million Iraqi children dead as a direct result of the sanctions "acceptable".
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Iraqi people defy death itself to go to the polls to tell the insurgents to bite sand, and RH, JK among other "senatordumbslurs" tries to downplay it?
Yes stand by for the whining...as they are staring to come out of the woodwork after this historic moment during the Iraqi Freedom brigade...first up?...Perhaps the most pathetic performance of the weekend was JK's appearance on 'Meet The Press,' where JK says "It is significant that there is a vote in Iraq. But ... no one in the United States should try to over-hype this election."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
You will see how he goes on to repeat the same nonsense about how the administration was not reaching out enough to the international community, and even said Iraq would fail if they didn't take his advice. The only difference between JK and the insurgents is he doesn't wear a mask and carry a rocket launcher during his television appearances. What's this "over-hype" nonsense? Iraq has its first free election in history and JK can't see the significance? But it was Kerry, wasn't it, who said "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." The Iraqi people have now voted for their own government as a result of this wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. How sad that must be for Kerry. His only response? "Hey, let's not make too big a deal about this. It's only an election."
Michigan's "senatordumbslur"Carl Levin was wringing his hands about the record turnout: "I'm afraid there were some areas where the turnout is extremely low, and that's the Sunni Triangle areas or parts thereof. And that's the challenge that we now face." It wouldn't have mattered if there was 100% turnout in Iraq....that wouldn't have satisfied the Bush-bashers either. The loony left knows that this election is a validation of not only the war in Iraq, but of George Bush.
We have reached a point in this country where one of our own political parties is rooting for the enemy. Their side lost. Stand by for the whining |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
