politicalpartypoop.com

Carter: Bush has brought U.S. ‘international disgrace’…
Clinton: ‘Incalculable Damage Done’…
Stone: ‘I’m ashamed for my country’… 

By Lisa Fabrizio
Enter Stage Right - Link

Whenever I or other folks write or even talk about the War on Terror, liberals are quick to deliver their favorite line with the obligatory sneer: “Have you ever served in the military?” When my answer, that I don’t believe in women in the Armed Forces, produces the requisite foaming at the mouth, I follow that up with, “Have you?”

It’s amusing, day after day to hear liberals call Bush Administration officials and their supporters ‘chicken-hawks’, especially when that term literally refers to “hawks that prey on chickens.” Notwithstanding the fact that one need not experience something to have some degree of expertise concerning it — I don’t know many historians who slogged through the Peloponnesian War but there are plenty of experts on it — what makes pacifists and anti-war niks think they’re more informed on matters of war than anyone else?
 
But experts they are, whose opinions and credentials are unchallenged by the media because they are on the proper side. Last week’s edition of the Chris Matthews Show was, as usual, both exasperating and comforting: exasperating because of the one-sidedness of the debate, and comforting because anything else would have been shocking on an otherwise tranquil and beautiful Sunday morning.

Led by General Dan Rather, Matthews and his panel of battle-hardened military authorities representing the BBC, NBC News and The New Yorker Regiments, sat in judgment of the topic; “The road to 9/11: who was behind it? What drove the killers? Plus, five years after 9/11, is Al-Qaida a gang or an idea — and can we beat it?”

Summing up the glory days of his former seat on the throne of influence, Dan, the former newsman said:

I hear time after time, after time, people say, “What the hell is going on here? I’ve lost any sense of what the war is about.” I’m not saying they should feel that way. I’m simply trying to be a reporter and say, that’s the way people feel.

Right. But wasn’t that the plan Dan? To keep the American people in the dark as to who we’re fighting and why?  As if to clarify, perky Katty Kay added, “This is an extremely complicated issue. It takes five years of research and a huge book (by one of her co-panelists) to try to understand the motivation of Al-Qaida.”

Well no, not really Katty. Contrary to the Matthews’ crack roundtable assertions, we knew fairly early on ‘why they hate us’. And it has nothing to do with anything more complicated than this: Al-Qaida and its affiliated groups are sworn to destroy any and all peoples who dare to obey to man-made law rather than submit to their twisted rule of Sharia.

And that is why we from time to time — in between planes crashing into buildings, car-bombings, beheadings and other subtle hints — receive charming invitations to convert to Islam, like this most recent one delivered by erstwhile California headbanger Adam Gadahn, aka ‘Azzam the American’:

To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next.

Mr. Gadahn and his new playmates are lucky that Christendom in its truest sense, no longer exists. Their constant references to those who decline their polite invitations to conversion as crusaders are especially galling, since had they really been such, the Islamofascists would probably have been already defeated, as they had been once by those valiant Christian soldiers. And they still might be, should the collective West ever truly decide to see this war as a crusade to save its way of life.

Yet our liberal military experts maintain that if we just sit down with these fine fellows and engage them in friendly debate, our problems will be over. After all, it can’t really be religious fervor that’s causing this little dust-up; it’s just got to be some kind of sociological reaction to their mistreatment at America’s hands.

As if the twisted demands of our enemies are negotiable; and worse, as if ours should be

Senator Says World Would Be Better Without Iraq Invasion

Article Link 

(CBS News) WASHINGTON When the Senate Intelligence Committee released a declassified version of its findings this past week, the Republican chairman of the committee, Pat Roberts, left town without doing interviews, calling the report a rehash of unfounded partisan allegations.

Its statements like this one, made Feb. 5, 2003, by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell that have become so controversial, implying Iraq was linked to terror attacks.

“Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associated collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants,” Powell said.

But after 2 1/2 years of reviewing pre-war intelligence behind closed doors, the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), who voted for the Iraq War, says the Bush administration pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes.

“The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said ‘we want to go to war,’” Rockefeller told CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. “Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said ‘my vote was wrong.’”

Rockefeller went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

He said he sees that as a better scenario, and a safer scenario, “because it is called the ‘war on terror.’”

Does Rockefeller stands by his view, even if it means that Saddam Hussein could still be in power if the United States didn’t invade?

“Yes. [Saddam] wasn’t going to attack us. He would’ve been isolated there,” Rockefeller said. “He would have been in control of that country but we wouldn’t have depleted our resources preventing us from prosecuting a war on terror which is what this is all about.”

Republicans say there was flawed intelligence to be sure, but they insist there was no attempt to mislead the public.

“In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on,” White House Spokesman Tony Snow said.

The donks are going mad! WATCH 

I found this on Fire Dog Lake, remember the Libermann in Blackface blog, the idiot post about racist Republicans blog and now a post expressing their glee at Robert “KKK” Byrd’s endorsement of the idiot Ned Lamont.
I love these people, I swear what would we do without liberals, dey is so funny.  

THE POST…

Senator Robert Byrd, my state Senator, (AH THAT’S SO SWEET, HER SENATOR, HER RACIST ASS NIGGA HATING SENATOR) has announced his support for Ned Lamont (h/t Bob Geiger), the Democratic nominee for Senate from the great state of Connecticut.  Why is this big news, you ask?  Because he is the only member of the “Gang of Fourteen” to do so thus far.

Sen. Byrd has been my state Senator for my entire lifetime.  He’s an old lion of the Senate, and quite good at maneuvering through the political ins and outs.  He recently lost his wife of sixty years, so it’s been a tough summer for him, as he’s working on his re-election campaign.  He did not need to step out and endorse Ned Lamont — it’s not a race that is on many radar screens here in West Virginia – but he has always been a big proponent of both Senate rules and decorum, and strong party allegiance to the Democratic Party.

Byrd’s endorsement now gives the other wavering neutrals and iffy Lieberman supporters steady cover for heading over to the Lamont camp.  (As if they needed it, but several ninnies have been hiding out in the “neutral” position on this, and that’s simply unacceptable.)

This is very well timed.  And I can’t help wondering what Sen. Byrd has worked out in the background on this with some of the other Gang of Fourteen members — and whether we’ll see a few more of them stepping out to support Lamont in the days ahead. 

One thing that Sen. Byrd has prized through the years is Democratic loyalty.  Joe Lieberman taking his campaign cues from Dick Cheney and Karl Rove had to have pissed Byrd off the last few days.  If anything had to do with him taking a stand on this particular issue — other than my repeated calls to his office, of course (*g*) — it was de facto Republican nominee Joe Lieberman’s own piss poor behavior. 

No one likes a turncoat, Joe. READ MORE GUSHING

By Amil Imani
FrontPageMagazine.com

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
 
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
 
Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception. 
 
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
 
The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”
 
The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

READ THE REST FROM: FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

Mark Alexander - Patriot Post

In 1972, the United States was embroiled in the remnants of a decade-old war in Vietnam—a war in which heroic determination was defeated not by an overwhelming enemy but by the erosion of national will. Leading the assault on America’s resolve were Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern and his cadre of Leftist war protestors such as John Kerry.

McGovern appeared to be a strong contender: He was a 6′4″ sportsman and decorated Air Force veteran credited with 35 bomber missions over enemy territory in WWII, an intellectual with a PhD from Northwestern, a moralist who served with John and Robert Kennedy and a Democrat who had held seats in both the House and Senate. He was also the poster child for “peace,” one of the Democrats’ most outspoken critics of our effort to protect South Vietnam from its Communist invaders.

Despite McGovern’s pedigree, he was defeated by Richard M. Nixon 60 percent to 38 percent—a landslide victory for Nixon, who won 49 states. (McGovern lost in his home state of South Dakota but won Massachusetts—of course.) …Continue Reading »