Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,865
- 2,040
This article can be kinda funny, but then again?
By Christopher G. Adamo
January 26, 2006
Next Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to deliver his annual State of the Union message to the nation. Not surprisingly, Democrats are already reveling in their plans for a rebuttal, in which they will no doubt repeat the pattern of past years and simply contradict everything the president says.
Word is out that they intend to field Virginia's newly elected Governor, Timothy Kaine, for this task. Among Democrats, Kaine is considered to be a "rising star" (they seem to have many) with possible presidential potential.
Sadly for liberal Democrats in the media and on Capitol Hill, their best talking points were recently plagiarized by none other than Osama Bin Laden, whose anti-Bush commentary was aired on Al Jazeera two weeks ahead of theirs.
Like DNC chairman Howard Dean, bin Laden assures us that the Iraq situation is "unwinnable." He concurs with Ted Kennedy that President Bush "lied" us into the war in the first place. He supports Representative John Murtha's contention that America's best strategy is to cut and run from the conflict.
No doubt, he is as outraged as Pat Leahy and Nancy Pelosi that he cannot "reach out and touch" members of his sleeper cells in this country without risking the possibility of the NSA monitoring the calls and thus violating his privacy.
Evidently, Osama and the Democrats are, strategically speaking, on the same page. Now Democrats may be forced to scramble in order to accomplish the real goal of their rebuttal (which is to undermine any encouraging news the president might have to offer America), without sounding like minions of the Islamist madman. On the other hand, they were never distracted by such considerations in the past, so perhaps their agenda will proceed as originally planned.
It would seem to be immediately obvious to those on the left that their constant denigration of the American effort in the war on terror rings eerily similar to the words of the murderous fanatic who started the conflict and remains at its ideological center. Indeed, Bin Laden delivered what could easily pass for a current Democrat policy statement, touching on many of the major points of the liberal agenda.
Moreover, his diatribe might have been written by virtually any one of the big three news anchors, the leadership of the Democrat party, or those talk-radio liberals from Air America (admittedly, the last comparison is a bit unfair to Bin Laden's intellectual honesty).
Yet he seems to have overlooked a few critical items. For example, he did not have any advice to offer on the Alito confirmation, but it is probably a safe guess that on that issue he sides with the left as well.
Democrats relentlessly rail against Alito for his possible antipathy towards Roe v. Wade, which they claim he will seek to overturn at his earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, Bin Laden does not want to risk such a sea change in American law. This country of "infidels" is currently aborting one fourth of its next generation. What could make an Islamic terrorist happier than that?
Also conspicuously absent from his commentary was any endorsement of Brokeback Mountain as the "clarion call" for what America ought to be. Yet by so doing he could have greatly furthered his cause, since the expression of such sentiment has virtually become a requirement for credibility among the left, and would have forever endeared him to the counterculture.
Clearly, if he is going to remain as the preeminent spokesman for the Democrat National Committee, Osama Bin Laden will have to "grow" in certain areas of his thinking. But, then again, collaboration with the infidels does have its limits.
On a more serious note, while the inanities of American liberalism are good for an occasional chuckle, the dangers represented by militant Islam are every bit as deadly serious as they have ever been. Also in Bin Laden's speech was the admonition of another impending attack. And whether his threats represent empty bluster born of desperation and futility, or a grave warning, it is inarguable that they indeed reflect the real desires and goals of Islamists.
It was criminally negligent of the government to not take similar warning signs seriously as they mounted during the 1990s. In the wake of 9-11, when all doubts of their actuality have been erased, it is no less than treasonous to trivialize them, for the sake of politics, and thus to distract America from effectively confronting them.
---------
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2006/cga_0126p.shtml
By Christopher G. Adamo
January 26, 2006
Next Tuesday, President Bush is scheduled to deliver his annual State of the Union message to the nation. Not surprisingly, Democrats are already reveling in their plans for a rebuttal, in which they will no doubt repeat the pattern of past years and simply contradict everything the president says.
Word is out that they intend to field Virginia's newly elected Governor, Timothy Kaine, for this task. Among Democrats, Kaine is considered to be a "rising star" (they seem to have many) with possible presidential potential.
Sadly for liberal Democrats in the media and on Capitol Hill, their best talking points were recently plagiarized by none other than Osama Bin Laden, whose anti-Bush commentary was aired on Al Jazeera two weeks ahead of theirs.
Like DNC chairman Howard Dean, bin Laden assures us that the Iraq situation is "unwinnable." He concurs with Ted Kennedy that President Bush "lied" us into the war in the first place. He supports Representative John Murtha's contention that America's best strategy is to cut and run from the conflict.
No doubt, he is as outraged as Pat Leahy and Nancy Pelosi that he cannot "reach out and touch" members of his sleeper cells in this country without risking the possibility of the NSA monitoring the calls and thus violating his privacy.
Evidently, Osama and the Democrats are, strategically speaking, on the same page. Now Democrats may be forced to scramble in order to accomplish the real goal of their rebuttal (which is to undermine any encouraging news the president might have to offer America), without sounding like minions of the Islamist madman. On the other hand, they were never distracted by such considerations in the past, so perhaps their agenda will proceed as originally planned.
It would seem to be immediately obvious to those on the left that their constant denigration of the American effort in the war on terror rings eerily similar to the words of the murderous fanatic who started the conflict and remains at its ideological center. Indeed, Bin Laden delivered what could easily pass for a current Democrat policy statement, touching on many of the major points of the liberal agenda.
Moreover, his diatribe might have been written by virtually any one of the big three news anchors, the leadership of the Democrat party, or those talk-radio liberals from Air America (admittedly, the last comparison is a bit unfair to Bin Laden's intellectual honesty).
Yet he seems to have overlooked a few critical items. For example, he did not have any advice to offer on the Alito confirmation, but it is probably a safe guess that on that issue he sides with the left as well.
Democrats relentlessly rail against Alito for his possible antipathy towards Roe v. Wade, which they claim he will seek to overturn at his earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, Bin Laden does not want to risk such a sea change in American law. This country of "infidels" is currently aborting one fourth of its next generation. What could make an Islamic terrorist happier than that?
Also conspicuously absent from his commentary was any endorsement of Brokeback Mountain as the "clarion call" for what America ought to be. Yet by so doing he could have greatly furthered his cause, since the expression of such sentiment has virtually become a requirement for credibility among the left, and would have forever endeared him to the counterculture.
Clearly, if he is going to remain as the preeminent spokesman for the Democrat National Committee, Osama Bin Laden will have to "grow" in certain areas of his thinking. But, then again, collaboration with the infidels does have its limits.
On a more serious note, while the inanities of American liberalism are good for an occasional chuckle, the dangers represented by militant Islam are every bit as deadly serious as they have ever been. Also in Bin Laden's speech was the admonition of another impending attack. And whether his threats represent empty bluster born of desperation and futility, or a grave warning, it is inarguable that they indeed reflect the real desires and goals of Islamists.
It was criminally negligent of the government to not take similar warning signs seriously as they mounted during the 1990s. In the wake of 9-11, when all doubts of their actuality have been erased, it is no less than treasonous to trivialize them, for the sake of politics, and thus to distract America from effectively confronting them.
---------
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been active in local and state politics for many years.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2006/cga_0126p.shtml
