Head terrorist happy about Democrat takeover

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061108-1440-eln-iraq-us-election.html

“The vote shows the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops,” said Falah Hassan Shanshal, who leads the parliamentary bloc of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

“We hope the Democrats don't forget their campaign promises. If they don't, we will deal with them in a brotherly way once the last American soldier pulls out from Iraq,” he said.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
ABC's Rosie O'Donnell: 'Don't Fear the Terrorists, They're Mothers and Fathers'

Posted by Megan McCormack on November 9, 2006 - 15:40.
One would have thought that the Democratic takeover of Congress and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation would have preseted plenty of fodder for the women of ‘The View’ to debate on Thursday’s show. However, it was a discussion on Iraq and the war on terror that dominated today's 'Hot Topics' segment. Not surprisingly, co-host Rosie O’Donnell equated the post-September 11th America to the "McCarthy era" and claimed people were "blacklisted" and labeled "unpatriotic" if they expressed any dissent from the Bush administration. O’Donnell also defended the United Nations as a "world voice" and took a shot at Iraq war ally Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket." The liberal O’Donnell then went on to tell conservative co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck to not be afraid of terrorists:

Rosie O’Donnell: "Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world, or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country–"

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe–"


O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

Joining the ladies as a guest co-host was Barbara Walters’ best friend, retired opera singer Beverly Sills. Sills seemed to fit in well with the majority liberal ‘View’ panel, as she deplored, what she saw as a lack of vocal opposition to the war before it began, leading to O’Donnell’s rant equating today’s environment to the "McCarthy era":

Beverly Sills: "And the weapons of mass destruction– I don't remember everybody–now you can't find anybody who was in favor of it ever. I mean, where was the great, great screaming and yelling?"

O’Donnell: "I think it was a tough time to raise your voice in dissent in this country because look what happened to the Dixie Chicks, people were blacklisted. We were close to the McCarthy era, where if you said that you were against the policies of the administration, you were called unpatriotic."

Hasselbeck pointed out that before the Iraq war, Senator Hillary Clinton had made this statement during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

O’Donnell used Clinton’s words to defend the United Nations and slammed Britain for being "on our side and in our pocket":

Hasselbeck: "These are quotes of, of people like Hillary Clinton, who were, ‘if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological warfare–"

O’Donnell: "Ok, ok, stop, stop. If left unchecked, so what she was saying is maybe we should have let the U.N. finish their job before we invaded in defiance of the world."

Hasselbeck: "The U.N. wasn’t doing their job. He was in violation of how many sanctions?"

O’Donnell: "But the U.N.–but here’s, here’s the thing, Elisabeth. When you go to war–"

Hasselbeck: "I have more quotes."

O’Donnell: "All right, but wait. When you go to war, we have the United–we have the United Nations, and the United Nations is the one who says, as the world voice, what they condone and what they condemn. And the U.N. had said we could not do it, and every other nation in the world, besides England, who’s on our side and in our pocket, they said it was a bad idea. "

Sills then rejoined the conversation, seemingly arguing for negotiating with the enemy:

Sills: "In the second world war, we were fighting Adolf Hitler from Germany, Mussolini from Italy, you know, we knew, we knew–"

Walters: "Hirohito from Japan."

Sills: "Hirohito from Japan. Who are we? Who, if we decide now, okay, let’s bring our men and women home, it’s all over. Let’s sit down at the table and negotiate. What are we negotiating, and with whom? Does anybody know the name of the enemy?"

O’Donnell: "It's a vague, it’s a vague nation called terrorists."

Sills: "But I’m going to say that–I mean, has somebody said to me, I hate you Americans because my children have no electricity, they’re not educated, we have no medication, they’re very poor. If somebody said that to me, I would really sit down and want to listen to them and want to do something."

Sills went on a nonsensical rant, where she made it sound as if the government had placed the blame for September 11th on one person:

Sills: "So far we've seen one fellow with a big birthmark on his face and he's gone to jail because he's the only one responsible for, for the catastrophe that happened in this country."

Behar: "Saddam, you mean. Who are you talking about? Hussein?"

Sills: "Hussein, no. This man on the airplane who they say is responsible for 9/11, the one person responsible for bringing the Towers down. The only one? That's what we've come up with? One murderer responsible for all this?"

It’s not exactly clear to whom Sills was referring, but most people recognize that those responsible for the 9/11 tragedy either died in the terror attacks, been killed or captured, or are being pursued in the war on terror.

Towards the end of the segment, O’Donnell berated Hasselbeck for "fearing" terrorists:

O’Donnell: "Well, you have two choices in life, Elisabeth. Faith or fear. Faith or fear, that's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks different than you and trying to convert them to your way of thinking. And I think that this country–"

Hasselbeck: "Well, I'm a person of faith, so I, but I also believe–"


O’Donnell: "Well, then, get away from the fear. Don't fear the terrorists. They’re mothers and fathers."

If the phrase "faith and fear" sounds familiar, it should. O’Donnell, as NewsBusters reported here, used that line before, arguing that "the government should lead by faith, never by fear," in the same program where she declared, ‘radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America."



http://newsbusters.org/node/8987
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
ABC's Rosie O'Donnell: 'Don't Fear the Terrorists, They're Mothers and Fathers'
She's right you, know, they ARE mothers and fathers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
who just happen to think it's OK for their sons and daughters to wear bomb belts and blow themselves up so that they can become martyrs
.
.
.
.
.
and that $25K check doesn't hurt, either.
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
anyway, considering defense spending will be taking a nose dive in the years to come....

plus the Patriot Act has a less than 50-50 chance of survival

plus that Iraq pull out seems more likely

plus, from now on, Bush is probably going to roll over and fetch whenever Mistress Pelosi tells him to ("good George, thanks for fetching me Donald Rumsfeld .... now go fetch me your Secretary of State!")

If I were a terrorist, I'd be happy too
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
anyway, considering defense spending will be taking a nose dive in the years to come....

plus the Patriot Act has a less than 50-50 chance of survival

plus that Iraq pull out seems more likely

plus, from now on, Bush is probably going to roll over and fetch whenever Mistress Pelosi tells him to ("good George, thanks for fetching me Donald Rumsfeld .... now go fetch me your Secretary of State!")

If I were a terrorist, I'd be happy too
Will not happen. The Congress does not have veto proof majority and Pres Bush will NEVER allow tax increases, cuts in defense spending, and allow the anti terror methods to be cut back
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
Will not happen. The Congress does not have veto proof majority and Pres Bush will NEVER allow tax increases, cuts in defense spending, and allow the anti terror methods to be cut back
I hope that you're right, but I'm not optimistic.

With Bush, never say "never", he blinked on a lot of issues, seems to be blinking on the subject of Iraq, may sacrifice the tax cut for political gain
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I hope that you're right, but I'm not optimistic.

With Bush, never say "never", he blinked on a lot of issues, seems to be blinking on the subject of Iraq, may sacrifice the tax cut for political gain
He has not been one to veto, perhaps that will change, but not looking good. In many ways he seems happy that he'll now be able to usher in amnesty and a free road from Mexico to US.

Related:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/rethinking_illegal_immigration.html

November 10, 2006
Rethinking Illegal Immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson

Now that the bitter election season is over, both parties will have to return to the explosive issue of illegal immigration.

Increased border patrol, a 700-mile fence to stop the easiest access routes (something President Bush signed into law two weeks ago), employer sanctions and encouragement of one official language can all help solve the crisis. But once the debate is renewed, congressional reformers will be blitzed by advocates of the failed status quo with a series of false assumptions concerning the issue.

Take, for example, the shared self-interest argument - that the benefits to both the U.S. and Mexico of leaving our borders open trumps the need for enforcement of existing laws and outweighs the costs to U.S. taxpayers that result from massive influxes of poor illegal aliens.

Libertarian supporters of relatively open borders, for example, have long argued that illegal immigration is a safety valve for Mexico, one that prevents violent revolution south of our border. By allowing millions of poor people to cross illegally into the United States, we supposedly stabilize Mexico. Billions of dollars in remittances are sent back home to the needy left behind.

Yet for the last several weeks, the Mexican city of Oaxaca has been in near-open revolt. What started out as calls to remove the state governor, Ulises Ruiz, on charges of fraud and corruption has spiraled into a popular uprising of the type that's been seen in Venezuela and Bolivia.

Yet the state of Oaxaca is also one of the chief sources of illegal immigration to the United States. Hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied Oaxacans have fled to the U.S. and now send millions of dollars back southward. Why, then, is the city on the brink of chaos?

Could it be that far from stabilizing Mexico, the continual flight of millions of Mexico's disenchanted - one in 10 currently live in the U.S. - has only made things worse?

Young fathers and sons leave families torn apart and without immediate social support. The Mexican government puts off needed changes, assured that its most unhappy will leave for the U.S., and that their subsequent cash infusions will cover up state failures. Anger, corruption and cynicism, not market reform and stability, often follow. A corrupt Mexican government always survives, but its people each year fare worse - as we see now in Oaxaca.

Another canard about illegal immigration is that religious and family-oriented Mexican aliens are often corrupted by American popular culture, thus explaining why poverty, high-school dropout rates and arrests among Hispanics in the United States remain at high levels. In addition, in 2002, half of all children born to Hispanic parents in America were illegitimate.

But as Heather MacDonald points out in the current issue of the urban-policy magazine City Journal, there is reason to believe that illegal aliens did not develop these problems solely upon their arrival in the United States. Indeed, illegitimacy is far more common in Mexico than it is in the United States. Likewise, fewer students per capita graduate from high school in Mexico than they do here.

Finally, employers plead that without cheap foreign labor they would not be able to find enough American workers to maintain the surging American economy. But here, too, this seemingly logical supposition doesn't quite fit with reality.

Some U.S. counties with higher than average unemployment rates - such as California's Central Valley, where the unemployment rate often has been in the double digits - are a favored destination of illegal aliens. That suggests that there are already enough American laborers to meet job needs, but a fundamental failure to attract such manpower back into the workplace.

The ultimate - and more challenging - solution to a shortage of laborers may not be illegal immigration or even guest workers, but higher wages, a change in entitlement eligibility laws or a return to our own former positive attitudes about hard, physical work.

Areas in the United States that have experienced far less illegal immigration seem to have no insurmountable problems in manning restaurants, cutting lawns or serving the needs of hotel guests. Travel to the Midwest, for example, and you'll see that students are employed as cooks and maids. Construction relies on legal laborers.

The evidence suggests that massive illegal immigration causes as much upheaval inside Mexico as it supposedly prevents - while aggravating, not solving, problems in the United States.

What we need from this new Congress is not more hysteria about illegal immigration, but more re-examination of what seems true but really is not.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
 

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
...Pres Bush will NEVER allow tax increases, cuts in defense spending, and allow the anti terror methods to be cut back
I believe you are right, RSR; those are three areas where I believe President Bush will fight the Democrats tooth and nail. Those are priorities with him, and he does take his responsibility to protect this country from another terrorist attack very seriously. He said he would work with the Democrats wherever possible; these are not areas where it is possible.
 

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
“The vote shows the Iraqi and American people are of one mind about withdrawing U.S. troops,” said Falah Hassan Shanshal, who leads the parliamentary bloc of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
I am sure he was thinking, "Ah, another Spain."
 

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
4,092
Reaction score
448
Points
48
Yes, that "go along to get along" policy was the message the terrorists heard from our election results.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Yes, that "go along to get along" policy was the message the terrorists heard from our election results.
There is No Terrorist Threat!
I originally intended to use today's blog entry to express my solidarity with the people of Great Britain, many of whom never even voted for George Bush, as they endeavor to persevere under the constant threat of terrorist attacks. But then I remembered what the esteemed statesman Michael Moore once wrote:

"There is no terrorist threat.
You need to calm down, relax, listen very carefully, and repeat after me:
There is no terrorist threat.
There is no terrorist threat!
There... is... no... terrorist... threat!"

Boy, did I feel like an utter berk! And I am confident that if the people of London just buy Mr. Moore's book, they will as well.

So a bus exploded. So a couple of Subway cars blew up. Whoop-dee-doo! I once saw Siegfried & Roy slice a woman into six pieces and then put her back together again. It's all smoke & mirrors, folks! SMOKE AND MIRRORS! The whole "terrorist threat" is nothing but an elaborate illusion devised to incite fear and justify Bush's illegal and immoral War on Terror.

Siegfried & Roy ought to be ashamed of themselves.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/terrorism/index.html
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I believe you are right, RSR; those are three areas where I believe President Bush will fight the Democrats tooth and nail. Those are priorities with him, and he does take his responsibility to protect this country from another terrorist attack very seriously. He said he would work with the Democrats wherever possible; these are not areas where it is possible.
Until Bush must sacrifice one to get the other. The question is, are the Dems going to sacrifice what THEY want to get his signature? He sacrifices one o fhis pet projects to the Dems for continued funding in Iraq; while, the Dems back off on Iraq.

Problem with THAT is, the Dem brainwash machine has been selling this election as solely a referendum on Iraq. They've painted themselves into a corner.

Prediction: Gridlock.
 
OP
Avatar4321

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Will not happen. The Congress does not have veto proof majority and Pres Bush will NEVER allow tax increases, cuts in defense spending, and allow the anti terror methods to be cut back
President Bush doesnt have any choice with the tax increases. They were automatic in the tax cuts. He tried to get them extended, not sure if he did, but if he didnt, then the tax rates will jump with Congress and the President doing absolutely nothing. Congress doesnt even have to pass legislation, just wait.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
President Bush doesnt have any choice with the tax increases. They were automatic in the tax cuts. He tried to get them extended, not sure if he did, but if he didnt, then the tax rates will jump with Congress and the President doing absolutely nothing. Congress doesnt even have to pass legislation, just wait.
Yeah, but you're missing the propaganda. One of Pelosi's promises is to roll back the tax cuts. Pretty easy to hedge a bet on a sure thing, then claim victory with the MSM trumpetting it as well.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top