Barbara Streisand exposed for the hypocrite she is..
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:07 pm
Streisand's Memory Limited Selective
By Frank Salvato (GOPUSA/Millions of Americans)
April 5, 2004
Liberal activist Barbara Streisand has gone on record accusing President Bush of being inept in the War on Terror. Citing the one side of the two-sided testimony given by disgruntled ex-employee and opportunist Richard Clarke as the truth, Streisand conveniently forgets that her hero, Bill Clinton, did nothing but lob cruise missiles at our foes from afar...or is that from a fairway.
"Finally ... finally we can talk about what's really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a "hero" ... former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story -- that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused -- on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security," Streisand's website read.
Is it just me or does the liberal-left really not comprehend the idea of the War on Terror? Do they think going into Afghanistan and making it an outpost for the United States or capturing and killing Osama bin Laden is going to end the threat of terrorism around the world? Such thinking is not only foolish and dangerous, quite frankly it is simple and retarded, literally.
Terrorist organizations are just that, organizations. They are larger than one man. While disemboweling Osama bin Laden may quench the thirst for revenge that exists among some in the American public it should be noted that his capture and elimination would not stop terrorism. In fact, instances of terrorism may get worse in the immediate aftermath of a bin Laden or Zawahiri capture. Anyone believing that sleeper cells around the world aren't prepared to strike at the news of such a capture defines the word naïve.
Streisand contends that September 11th, an event that should be protected from being politicized, made President Bush a "hero." I suppose there is something to be said for that although I don't consider him a hero for his actions. That statement may get my membership card in the "right wing attack machine" revoked but so be it. To me President Bush's actions after the attacks of September 11th prove that he is a responsible man, responsible in the sense that he did what had to be done despite it not being popular. Hero? No, not a hero. The troops who went to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are heroes. The firefighters and policemen who died in the World Trade Center, they are heroes. President Bush acted as a responsible leader should have acted in the aftermath of something so heinous.
The Babster then completely ignores the fact Richard Clarke admitted to as much as lying in the waning minutes of his testimony. When questioned about the contradiction of his prior statements of praise compared to his published hatchet-job of the Bush Administration he did the liberal dance and contended such actions are business as usual in Washington, that he did nothing wrong or beyond the bounds of the status quo, that everyone lies in Washington. But The Babster doesn't cite that on her website. She must have opted out of watching Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 Commission; perhaps in favor of beauty sleep...the mornings are so un-Hollywood.
Perhaps it is not in the liberal-left's sightline to see the big picture. This comes as true irony as they are the ones that produce the big pictures. Nevertheless, it seems those of the liberal-left embrace the facts that suit them and turn a blind eye to the ones that don't, more so than do those of the right. Nothing points this out more than how they view the actions surrounding September 11th.
People like The Babster point their fingers of hypocrisy at the Bush Administration saying they didn't have terrorism as their number one priority. Yet they celebrate the cabinet meetings the Clinton Administration had on terrorism even though they did nothing to thwart the evils of September 11th. They celebrate the launching of cruise missiles at targets that included no one of significance while ignoring the fact Bill Clinton chose to honor international diplomacy and international correctness over simply snatching Osama bin Laden when the Sudan offered him to the United States on a silver platter.
I will be the first one to admit I don't think anything we could have done would have prevented the attacks of September 11th. Evil is a hard thing to spot and an even harder thing to prevent and eliminate. I don't believe any one presidential administration or any US agency was responsible for September 11th. I believe that al Qaida was responsible for September 11th. I believe that terrorism was responsible for September 11th. I believe appeasement to terrorism including the mindset that recognized the PLO as a legitimate organization as opposed to a terrorist organization was responsible for September 11th. Anyone who points fingers of blame in hindsight at either presidential administration is mired in ignorance.
So too are the finger-pointers mired in ignorance should they not understand that the War on Terror is much bigger than al Qaida and Afghanistan. The War on Terror stretches to the far corners of the earth, corners that are dark and unsavory. It stretches to Indonesia and South America, Africa and Europe. It may be born of the Middle East but the cancer has spread.
It is time to put political correctness and the liberal agenda of globalism aside so that we might make the world a place where one can go to work without getting a proctology examination from a commercial airliner. The partisan and hateful rhetoric from The Babster and the liberal-left stands in the way of this safer world. Alas, she may be right about one thing. This election is going to be about dismantling al Qaida and promoting Homeland Security. The question that remains is who do you trust with taking care of this?
By Frank Salvato (GOPUSA/Millions of Americans)
April 5, 2004
Liberal activist Barbara Streisand has gone on record accusing President Bush of being inept in the War on Terror. Citing the one side of the two-sided testimony given by disgruntled ex-employee and opportunist Richard Clarke as the truth, Streisand conveniently forgets that her hero, Bill Clinton, did nothing but lob cruise missiles at our foes from afar...or is that from a fairway.
"Finally ... finally we can talk about what's really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a "hero" ... former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story -- that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused -- on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security," Streisand's website read.
Is it just me or does the liberal-left really not comprehend the idea of the War on Terror? Do they think going into Afghanistan and making it an outpost for the United States or capturing and killing Osama bin Laden is going to end the threat of terrorism around the world? Such thinking is not only foolish and dangerous, quite frankly it is simple and retarded, literally.
Terrorist organizations are just that, organizations. They are larger than one man. While disemboweling Osama bin Laden may quench the thirst for revenge that exists among some in the American public it should be noted that his capture and elimination would not stop terrorism. In fact, instances of terrorism may get worse in the immediate aftermath of a bin Laden or Zawahiri capture. Anyone believing that sleeper cells around the world aren't prepared to strike at the news of such a capture defines the word naïve.
Streisand contends that September 11th, an event that should be protected from being politicized, made President Bush a "hero." I suppose there is something to be said for that although I don't consider him a hero for his actions. That statement may get my membership card in the "right wing attack machine" revoked but so be it. To me President Bush's actions after the attacks of September 11th prove that he is a responsible man, responsible in the sense that he did what had to be done despite it not being popular. Hero? No, not a hero. The troops who went to Afghanistan and Iraq, they are heroes. The firefighters and policemen who died in the World Trade Center, they are heroes. President Bush acted as a responsible leader should have acted in the aftermath of something so heinous.
The Babster then completely ignores the fact Richard Clarke admitted to as much as lying in the waning minutes of his testimony. When questioned about the contradiction of his prior statements of praise compared to his published hatchet-job of the Bush Administration he did the liberal dance and contended such actions are business as usual in Washington, that he did nothing wrong or beyond the bounds of the status quo, that everyone lies in Washington. But The Babster doesn't cite that on her website. She must have opted out of watching Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 Commission; perhaps in favor of beauty sleep...the mornings are so un-Hollywood.
Perhaps it is not in the liberal-left's sightline to see the big picture. This comes as true irony as they are the ones that produce the big pictures. Nevertheless, it seems those of the liberal-left embrace the facts that suit them and turn a blind eye to the ones that don't, more so than do those of the right. Nothing points this out more than how they view the actions surrounding September 11th.
People like The Babster point their fingers of hypocrisy at the Bush Administration saying they didn't have terrorism as their number one priority. Yet they celebrate the cabinet meetings the Clinton Administration had on terrorism even though they did nothing to thwart the evils of September 11th. They celebrate the launching of cruise missiles at targets that included no one of significance while ignoring the fact Bill Clinton chose to honor international diplomacy and international correctness over simply snatching Osama bin Laden when the Sudan offered him to the United States on a silver platter.
I will be the first one to admit I don't think anything we could have done would have prevented the attacks of September 11th. Evil is a hard thing to spot and an even harder thing to prevent and eliminate. I don't believe any one presidential administration or any US agency was responsible for September 11th. I believe that al Qaida was responsible for September 11th. I believe that terrorism was responsible for September 11th. I believe appeasement to terrorism including the mindset that recognized the PLO as a legitimate organization as opposed to a terrorist organization was responsible for September 11th. Anyone who points fingers of blame in hindsight at either presidential administration is mired in ignorance.
So too are the finger-pointers mired in ignorance should they not understand that the War on Terror is much bigger than al Qaida and Afghanistan. The War on Terror stretches to the far corners of the earth, corners that are dark and unsavory. It stretches to Indonesia and South America, Africa and Europe. It may be born of the Middle East but the cancer has spread.
It is time to put political correctness and the liberal agenda of globalism aside so that we might make the world a place where one can go to work without getting a proctology examination from a commercial airliner. The partisan and hateful rhetoric from The Babster and the liberal-left stands in the way of this safer world. Alas, she may be right about one thing. This election is going to be about dismantling al Qaida and promoting Homeland Security. The question that remains is who do you trust with taking care of this?
, you can go to her website and read what else she has to say. 
